Deb Farris: WSU To Look into Bringing Football Back in Next 3-4 Years

[SpanglerFan316]

I'm sure Deb Farris wishes this thread would close; it only makes her look bad.

[WstateU]

Sing it Stevie, "Isn't she lovely"...

[MoValley John]

I Don't know if this helps or hurts anyone, but UNO is dealing with both similar and vastly different issues than Wichita State. While the schools look nothing alike, this article might be interesting for some of you and be insightful regarding fundraising, athletics and other issues. This is as good as any thread to post it.

http://m.omaha.com/om/db_90923/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=PUc46xRI

[ShockTalk]

If I had a preference, I'd hope that a good number of schools from FBS non-BCS conferences, MWC on down, either started dropping football or go FCS. That way, football wouldn't be driving everything so much and other options would be available for WSU if needed or wanted without adding football. From the bleak picture discribed here by many, it's a wonder there are any teams playing FBS football except in the BCS conferences. However, the opposite seems to be happening....more schools adding football and others looking to move up. Why is WSU so different?

I also don't understand trying to compare WSU with K St and KU in dealing with football finances. Wouldn't it be better to do a cross section of school football programs from the non-BSC, particularly the MWC and C-USA, and how they afford to have football. Is football a huge drain and if so, why do they keep it? How is WSU so different from Tulsa, UAB, Southern Miss, Fresno State, Colorado St, or Wyoming that we cannot be like them? And if we don't want to be like them (assuming football to be a drain), again, why do they keep it?

[Aargh]

I also don't understand trying to compare WSU with K St and KU in dealing with football finances. Wouldn't it be better to do a cross section of school football programs from the non-BSC, particularly the MWC and C-USA, and how they afford to have football. Is football a huge drain and if so, why do they keep it? How is WSU so different from Tulsa, UAB, Southern Miss, Fresno State, Colorado St, or Wyoming that we cannot be like them? And if we don't want to be like them (assuming football to be a drain), again, why do they keep it?

#1) The schools you want to compare with WSU never dropped football. That's a huge difference between WSU and schools in CUSA or the MWC.
#2) The schools in CUSA and the MWC have had a reasonable FB following through their entire NCAA lives. That's another huge difference.
#3) The schools in the MWC and CUSA have revenues from their leagues, from TV appearances, and from bowl games. WSU would have to subsidize FB to replace that income for many years before they could get money from that stream.

WSU has 26 years of alumni who went to a school with no FB. Do you think those alumni are going to open their wallets to support a FB program?

The FB schools in the MVC are paying in the range of $300K - $400K for their basketball coaches. We can't hir Turgeon or Marshall if that's the salary range WSU can handle. MSU is in the process of joining SIU in the abyss at the bottom of the MVC. UNI is one bad hire of an assistant coach for their head coach to go the same route.

FB coaches who can produce a winning program cost more than BB coaches. Step 1 to adding FB is to tell the BB coach that his salary is getting cut in half. Those supporting FB at WSU are asking WSU to get rid of Marshall and hire a low-dollar coach for BB. Is that what you really want? There is no way on earth you can have both, unless someone goes all T. Boone on the WSU athletic program.

[SubGod22]

Then why do you constantly bring up KU and KSU when talking about cost? They have tons of money to spend because they're in the XII. Comparing costs of similar schools in lesser conferences would be a much more honest analysis. And I can guarantee that there are alumni from the past 26 years that would love football and spend money there or because of it. So that "logic" is BS. Why don't we look at all the schools that have been starting up football and see what it costs them. It's not near as much as you claim. And talking about how much the poor sisters of the MVC pay coachrs is irrelevant. Most are schools with little to no tradition and have little desire to invest in any of their programs.

[DoubleJayAlum]

And talking about how much the poor sisters of the MVC pay coachrs is irrelevant. Most are schools with little to no tradition and have little desire to invest in any of their programs.

Maybe, but I'd also contend that the reason they are poor has to do entirely with football. It may not be a coincidence that the two most flush athletic departments in the conference belong to schools without the financial drain that is FCS football.

[SubGod22]

Maybe, but I'd also contend that the reason they are poor has to do entirely with football. It may not be a coincidence that the two most flush athletic departments in the conference belong to schools without the financial drain that is FCS football.

Then explain Drake and Evansville? Drake plays non scholly and UE has nothing as far as I know. And Bradley doesn't have football either and doesn't pay all that great. What's their financial drain?

Look, I understand the concern, but believe that the reward is worth the risk. Especially if you're determined to do it right. How many of these schools really try to compete at the highest level they're capable of? How many of them just want to compete in the MVFC? That may be the same answer for some, but not all.

[Aargh]

Here's FB on the cheap - There's nothing in here for facilities renovation, maintenance, parking, etc. Let's assume that all cpital improvements can be covered by donation. There's nothing in here for travel, equipment, or any other variable costs. This is just the absolute bare bones known and guaranteed costs. If you want to give the FB coach a phone, that would be extra. This doesn't even cover taping ankles.

I figured 50% of the scholarships at in-state rates. FB coach is gonna love hearing that. I used UNI's FB staff of a head coach and 12 assistants and support staff. I'm paying the FB head coach $1 mill. Paying the basketball coach $1.4 mill and the baseball coach $.5 mill, you'd better plan on pying that to get a coach for a FB start up. I figured 3 women's sports and 6 coaches, with salaries of $100,000 for each of the 3 sports.

130 scholarships including books, housing, and meals - $2,223,000. FB head coach - $1,000,000. 12 FB assistants and support staff - $800,000. Coaches and staff for 3 women's sports - $300,000. Total - $4,323,000.

Now the income side. 2 "guarantee" games - $1,500,000. That's only going to leave 5 home games, since the team is "road warrioring" it to raise money. Those 5 home games need to raise $4,323,000 minus the $1,500,000 from the guarantee games. That's $2,823,000, or $564,600 per home game. At a net of $40 per butt in the stands, that requires average attendance of 14,115.

The home games would likely be against teams like Illinois State, Youngstown State, Southern Illinois, Indiana State, Missouri State. Home games against Tulsa, KSU, OSU, and some of the teams WSU played back in the '70's aren't going to happen. Maybe Tulsa, but why would they play a FCS team on the road?

That is FB on the cheap. That's what it costs and how many tickets you have to sell if you want to strive to be a program like Missouri State. I don;t think there's a way on earth that merchandise sales and a radio contract are going to cover travel costs and recruiting budgets for 4 sports.

The transition to FBS would probably include a nice little stopover in the Sun Belt conference. Just like WSU fans are critical of the MVC for inviting all the "transitioning" schools into the Valley, the schools in CUSA and the MWC aren't likely to come pounding the door down to invite a transitioning WSU into their conferences.

[DoubleJayAlum]

Then explain Drake and Evansville? Drake plays non scholly and UE has nothing as far as I know. And Bradley doesn't have football either and doesn't pay all that great. What's their financial drain?

C'mon. We all know that Drake and Evansville are schools that don't place much value or emphasis on athletics, not to mention their overall enrollments are small. As to Bradley, I think Ford is either 3rd or 4th in salary in the conference. It is without question however, that UNI, MSU, InSU and SIU's bleak financial positions are almost entirely caused by football. Even IlSU couldn't afford to pay their coach enough to keep him from leaving to take a head assistant's job at SMU! UNI had to drop baseball in large part because of football losses.

I'm not arguing against football (I really don't care one way or the other if you guys bring it back). I just think that there is no way that the other athletic programs won't suffer financially, at least for a few years, if you do bring it back. It seems unlikely (although I freely admit that I don't know for certain) that WSU would be able to pay Marshall around $1.3M if there was a huge football deficit. Maybe the recruiting budget and flying of charters could be in jeopardy too. Do those things matter or should they matter? I don't know; it depends what is more important to each individual.

I see football as a true double edged sword - it can present many pluses yet has some serious drawbacks. The ultimate balancing test would be to determine how much damage to the other programs is acceptable and if football can be restored without surpassing those limits.

[wufan]

I see football as a true double edged sword - it can present many pluses yet has some serious drawbacks. The ultimate balancing test would be to determine how much damage to the other programs is acceptable and if football can be restored without surpassing those limits.

Well put.

[RoyalShock]

I'm not arguing against football (I really don't care one way or the other if you guys bring it back). I just think that there is no way that the other athletic programs won't suffer financially, at least for a few years, if you do bring it back. It seems unlikely (although I freely admit that I don't know for certain) that WSU would be able to pay Marshall around $1.3M if there was a huge football deficit. Maybe the recruiting budget and flying of charters could be in jeopardy too. Do those things matter or should they matter? I don't know; it depends what is more important to each individual.

I see football as a true double edged sword - it can present many pluses yet has some serious drawbacks. The ultimate balancing test would be to determine how much damage to the other programs is acceptable and if football can be restored without surpassing those limits.

Which is why it would require an increase in student fees to subsidize operating losses.


In my mind, the sequence of events to bring football back to WSU is this:

1. Increase enrollment and improve student housing, with future increases in mind.
2. Determine that football is desirable to the student body, alumni and community.
3. Formulate a plan, including long-term goals and start-up costs.
4. Secure funding for at least half the start-up costs.
5. Put student-fee increases to a vote.
6. If #5 succeeds, secure remaning funding.
7. Hire coaches and start facility improvements.

[1972Shocker]

Which is why it would require an increase in student fees to subsidize operating losses.


In my mind, the sequence of events to bring football back to WSU is this:

1. Increase enrollment and improve student housing, with future increases in mind.
2. Determine that football is desirable to the student body, alumni and community.
3. Formulate a plan, including long-term goals and start-up costs.
4. Secure funding for at least half the start-up costs.
5. Put student-fee increases to a vote.
6. If #5 succeeds, secure remaning funding.
7. Hire coaches and start facility improvements.

Nice outline Royal. Of course, the road from outline to an actual game is long, hard, grinding one. My best wishes to all who choose that road (assuming Shocker fans are ever presented with the option to take that road).

Question: Is this one of those issues that becomes increasingly unlikely as time passes or will it become more likely to happen if President Bardo is successful in implementing his current priorities? Wish President Bardo was just a little younger man.

[SubGod22]

Which is why it would require an increase in student fees to subsidize operating losses.


In my mind, the sequence of events to bring football back to WSU is this:

1. Increase enrollment and improve student housing, with future increases in mind.
2. Determine that football is desirable to the student body, alumni and community.
3. Formulate a plan, including long-term goals and start-up costs.
4. Secure funding for at least half the start-up costs.
5. Put student-fee increases to a vote.
6. If #5 succeeds, secure remaning funding.
7. Hire coaches and start facility improvements.

1. It's on the agenda of Dr. Bardo with or without football. It's a step in the right direction for WSU no matter what.
2. Of course. And I have a feeling that if WSU seriously looks into it and is honest with the people, it'll move forward.
3. This is huge. Something that to the best of my knowledge has never been done. It's been claimed, but no info ever provided.
4. With a well done #3, I have no doubt that they could do this. The big money people aren't giving without a good plan. The naysayers are against a plan without big money on board before hand...
5. No doubt. And I believe it would pass. WSU is still the cheapest four year school in the state I believe. And it's not that close.
6. At this point, things would be looking pretty good.
7. Showtime!

[RoyalShock]

Reaching #7 in my plan would take a minimum of 5 years. 10 is probably realistic.

And for the record, I'm not in favor of a football program at WSU. I just like thinking about the logistics.