HCGM & Football Poll

[Singeril]

1972 Shockers---okay, you beat me by a few years--not too many----Through your own defense of an "article" that most of us, if any of us, haven't read nor have any access to, you can see that it is not necessarily a news article or deep analysis, but could be a story about the desire (which many of us have), or anything else. Why would YOU assume it is anything more than just an article with a lot of numbers that are just numbers? They don't mean anything until they are put into use. How does this article know anything more than the President of the University who is still gathering information? As you yourself state, there MAY be SOME opinions cited in the story. That's fine...it's nothing concrete. A discussion was had on the radio that "MIGHT be a good move for WSU academically". At least the story mentions benefits and pitfalls...indeed, there can be balance...but again, this is nothing concrete. I'd like to hear how it IS going to be good for WSU academically--not what it MIGHT do. Again, how is WSU benefiting academically from the $550,000,000 windfall of the recent basketball success...but yet having a spending and hiring freeze? And for the umpteenth time, I'd like football back on campus...I want its return executed responsibly and most important, with excellence...and for it to be a winning program that benefits the university rather than drags upon it. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that. But, I'm sure some will.

[SHOCKvalue]

Man, chill out---be civil. I know that's hard on a message board. I'm not making stuff up---I haven't been destroyed by any facts in the least. As far as a link---took me all of 10 seconds to find...ez goes it, friend.
Here's the link that completely shows that your statement stating the agreements area "basically at the handshake level" is indeed incorrect.

http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=wsuinnovationcampus&p=/partners/

You can keep coming at me with the insults...that's fine...I can take it. But there is no denying that these are tough financial plans for the university. If you've read the newspaper at all over the past several months, you know that to be the case. If you know any of the Administrative people on campus, you know what they are sweating through--and a lot more sweat is ahead for next year. When you're struggling to feed the family in your household, do you go out and buy a new motor home? That gets bad gas mileage? And only depreciates?

I give up.

Pretty logos in your link though, even though it says nothing of remote substance to the context at hand. The links I supplied did, but (shockingly) you ignore them.

If my household's income was cut by 3% I quite literally would not change anything that I'm currently doing.

[Singeril]

I'm glad you gave up since I showed you that your statement was incorrect. As far as the logos--yes, they are nice. You'll have to talk to the folks at the Innovation Campus about that...It also supplied an absolute rebuttal of your claim which you're seemingly ignoring.

If your household was cut just 3% and was facing another cut of even more, you're silly not to evaluate changes...especially when the changes are already keeping you from feeding your kids. You're just not up on what's been going on at the university for the past several months. Talk to an Administrator. And, you might note, you said "it would not change anything that I'm currently doing." That's not the premise that was put forward...I asked if you would go out and buy a new motor home that gets bad mileage and depreciates while undergoing financial difficulties? Big difference. The thing is, the university CAN'T continue to do things as it is doing...they can't hire the staff and aren't allowing spending. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. If you can't imagine how going forward would cause much dissent on the campus of a UNIVERSITY, then you really don't have any experience with university life or what is required to run such a place. It's a UNIVERSITY--not a professional sports franchise.

[Singeril]

SHOCKvalue---and I'm still awaiting your substantiation concerning the laughable accusation that I "generally, on this forum, make stuff up?" Who is making stuff up???? Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not even on here all that much.

[SHOCKvalue]

I'm glad you gave up since I showed you that your statement was incorrect. As far as the logos--yes, they are nice. You'll have to talk to the folks at the Innovation Campus about that...It also supplied an absolute rebuttal of your claim which you're seemingly ignoring.

If your household was cut just 3% and was facing another cut of even more, you're silly not to evaluate changes...especially when the changes are already keeping you from feeding your kids. You're just not up on what's been going on at the university for the past several months. Talk to an Administrator. And, you might note, you said "it would not change anything that I'm currently doing." That's not the premise that was put forward...I asked if you would go out and buy a new motor home that gets bad mileage and depreciates while undergoing financial difficulties? Big difference. The thing is, the university CAN'T continue to do things as it is doing...they can't hire the staff and aren't allowing spending. I don't know why that is so hard to understand. If you can't imagine how going forward would cause much dissent on the campus of a UNIVERSITY, then you really don't have any experience with university life or what is required to run such a place.

My point entirely is that even though buildings are coming out of the ground, there is nothing of significance happening (or effectively nothing in overall scope) with any of these supposed IC partners except for pretty pictures and news releases, in spite of years gone by. Your original premise was that these IC partners were financially behind the IC, when I provided links showing that WSU originated $45M in debt for the IC. WSU is paying for the IC for decades, not "private" money as you suppose. When another half-dozen Airbuses show up and start building there, then you can perhaps then label it as a non-liability for the University, but as of today it DEFINITELY is. It is a $45M speculatory investment. High risk; high reward. Not all that different from the football predicament.

You're motorhome example is inane, so is the hilarious analogy that a 3% budget cut equates to feeding your kids or not. The idea that football would be paid for by the academic side of the University is a straw man of your own creation, and honestly makes you look dim-witted. You need to apply that private money concept (that one it appears you do not actually understand) to the question of WSU football startup.

[SHOCKvalue]

SHOCKvalue---and I'm still awaiting your substantiation concerning the laughable accusation that I "generally, on this forum, make stuff up?" Who is making stuff up???? Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not even on here all that much.

You have 19 posts in this thread, and only one with a link to support argument. And that lone link is one that heads to a PR fluff page, as opposed to an actual news story about the subject.

Good enough?

[Singeril]

You have 19 posts in this thread, and only one with a link to support argument. And that lone link is one that heads to a PR fluff page, as opposed to an actual news story about the subject.

Good enough?

No, it's NOT good enough--you said that it was on this thread and "generally on this forum"---back it up.

If you're calling the university's own page concerning the Innovation Campus a PR fluff page, you're mistaken.

Here's another link that shows just how bad attendance was at times...more than the game I'm remembering but horrible for a school playing an in-state rival and ARIZONA STATE. If the team couldn't draw big crowds for the games, how are they going to do it now? Yes, it is an opinion article, but it shows attendance figures of those games as well.

http://www.thesunflower.com/opinion/article_969b5cfa-0e79-11e3-a669-0019bb30f31a.html

And the motor home analogy is an excellent analogy. The 3% cut HAS ALREADY taken food out of the mouths of the students in the programs, faculty that teaches, and spending that can be done to enrich their program. Recruiters have been cut from the budget. The "kids"--programs" are NOT getting fed now--or are at least having their food intake taken away and not getting the people in to feed the kids. That is exactly what's going on...and you're ignoring it. Again, this is a university--NOT a professional sports franchise. If you want the university at large to support the football program, and they will be asked to do that, you have to have the football program and athletic department (as well as the university) support everything else. Why isn't that $550,000,000 helping pay for those items that were cut? Why are teachers not being hired to fill open positions? Why is there a spending freeze? That $550K could more than make up the difference. And, it could pay for the football program.

[Veritas]

SHOCKvalue---and I'm still awaiting your substantiation concerning the laughable accusation that I "generally, on this forum, make stuff up?" Who is making stuff up???? Again, I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm not even on here all that much.

You def stretch the truth when it comes to your inclination to under-state football attendance

[Veritas]

This topic is the cover story in this week's Wichita Business Journal:

http://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/print-edition/2016/05/13/cover-story-wsu-footballs-realignment-reasoning.html

Sorry I don't have a subscription so I can't recap.

Not too much new info
  Bardo believes MoVal is a conference made up of great universities, but that WSU needs to align themselves with institutions similar. Carnegie Classification states WSU is a doctoral university in the “higher research activity” category. Only 3 schools in the MoVal fall under the same classification (SIU, ILSU, LUC), 6 universities in the MWC and 11 universities in the AAC are classified similar to WSU
 Bardo says that while athletics brings in the headlines, the mission categories are the type of things that are more highly valued than people realize. Colleagues in Higher Ed were asked what they looked for when bringing in a school. Athletics was never mentioned but rather, “what’s your mission, and what’s your media market.” If those two issues are good, then athletics can fit in
 Little to no scholarly research into industry impact of conference affiliation. Costs of moving up and adding football could cut into other things like labs and materials if athletics did not produce a positive cash flow as a result. College sports is a leisure activity and consumers don’t need logic to invest. The alumni, fans, and community gain from athletics
 Mark Adams MoVal “guru” believes football can bring big time returns if done right, but if done wrong can drain an institution. He believes the decision will be well thought out and as a business man would be doing the same thing as Bardo is currently



[SHOCKvalue]

No, it's NOT good enough--you said that it was on this thread and "generally on this forum"---back it up.

Okay.

If you're calling the university's own page concerning the Innovation Campus a PR fluff page, you're mistaken.

How so? Specifically.

[QUOTE=Singeril;657917]Here's another link that shows just how bad attendance was at times...more than the game I'm remembering but horrible for a school playing an in-state rival and ARIZONA STATE. If the team couldn't draw big crowds for the games, how are they going to do it now? Yes, it is an opinion article, but it shows attendance figures of those games as well.

http://www.thesunflower.com/opinion/article_969b5cfa-0e79-11e3-a669-0019bb30f31a.html

That article mentioned the attendance for two games, for a football program that played 824 games in total. Kind of a small sample size issue, do you think? Plus, the author is a student journalist who today is probably saying "Welcome to QuikTrip!" 600 times a day.

And the motor home analogy is an excellent analogy. The 3% cut HAS ALREADY taken food out of the mouths of the students in the programs, faculty that teaches, and spending that can be done to enrich their program. Recruiters have been cut from the budget. The "kids"--programs" are NOT getting fed now--or are at least having their food intake taken away and not getting the people in to feed the kids. That is exactly what's going on...and you're ignoring it.

It is plainly obvious here that someone took away your play money, and you're not going to take it anymore. Verbal temper-tantrum ensues. Dozens of posts appear saying the same thing over and over and over again, no matter who or what someone says via logical response.

Again, this is a university--NOT a professional sports franchise.

Subject at hand is actually an athletic department; an island unto itself under the University's umbrella. To repeat myself (again) the WSU AD is financially supported extremely well from outside sources. Less than 1/3 of the WSU AD's funding comes from University support, whereas the average figure in the MVC is twice that.

WSU's annual budget is around $300M. The AD gets only $7M of that. Please read this over, and over, and over, and over again. Tattoo it to the underside of your eyelids.

http://webs.wichita.edu/depttools/depttoolsmemberfiles/wsustrategy/supporting_docs/Paul's_Presentation_for_Budget_101.pdf

https://www.kansasregents.org/resources/PDF/2678-2013LegislativeBusTour_UniversityResponses_WSU.pdf

http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/2016/03/20/16-million-try-25-million-new-report-reveals-true-scope-msu-athletics-spending/81608818/

If you want the university at large to support the football program, and they will be asked to do that, you have to have the football program and athletic department (as well as the university) support everything else.

What does this sentence even mean?

Why isn't that $550,000,000 helping pay for those items that were cut?

The $550M quote was simply an estimate of market value for the media exposure WSU received during the 2013 Final Four run. Nothing else. You should stop mentioning it as if it were something tangible.

Why are teachers not being hired to fill open positions? Why is there a spending freeze? That $550K could more than make up the difference. And, it could pay for the football program.

I'm confused. What is $550K have to do with anything? It is 1% of the non-existent $550M figure you keep bringing up, and it not an amount that would change anything substantial at either the University or AD level. It sure a hell ain't paying for a football program.

[Singeril]

I wasn't the first to bring up the 550k...I'm just saying where is the bang for the buck. Why are things being cut, spending being frozen, and positions going unfilled?
Remember, I didn't bring up the figure.
The university is a combination of many colleges and schools. If you want all of those colleges functioning together to be a vital university, they have to all be supported. Pretty simple to understand. Right now, they are not operating at full strength.
33% of the athletic budget is from the university...that's a chunk of change...about as much as is needed to avoid the cuts and non-hiring.
I haven't lost a dime and dont intend to. You nothing about me. Hilarious. Again, one of your ridiculous assumptions...and a slam amongst many which shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Verbal temper-tantrum? You're just upset because you can't get under my skin . Keep trying. I'm actually laughing at your summations.
When we were talking about attendance, we were talking about a specific time period which lead to the demise...if you want to remember the conversation. The article clearly shows that the crowds were barely filling 10% of the stadium against teams that should have drawn more. What's changed except for the entertainment dollar being more stretched?
So you're now slamming a kid that works at Quicktrip? That means he can't read attendance figures and report on them? Even if it is only a WSU education??? Man, your world is tough.
If you don't want to accept the University's own page on the IC, what evidence will you accept? Do you have information from other sources that states something contrary to the university and that backs up your own personal assumption? Are you saying the university's statements can't be trusted? Adding an expensive program at a time of freezing and cuts is not going to gain support from a large part of the university. I stand by my case and original statement with a change from the word "revolt" to widespread dissent---solidly and confidently. Back to work...some of us aren't always carrying teacher hours.

[Singeril]

You def stretch the truth when it comes to your inclination to under-state football attendance

I'm away for a few days but look forward to getting home to where I can search the archives at the library in Wichita to verify attendance...truly. I'm guessing they have past issues of the Wichita Eagle-Beacon on fiche. If I'm wrong, I'll happily admit it. I'm a fair man. But, the article I posted from the Sunflower shows that attendance was indeed poor, barely 10% of the capacity of Cessna, for at least two games, KU and Arizona State, that should have had MUCH higher attendance. Other teams surely brought even less attendance. And thanks for the summarization on the article. Appreciated. It actually backs up a lot of he same exact concerns that I've stated.

[im4wsu]

. Again, how is WSU benefiting academically from the $550,000,000 windfall of the recent basketball success...but yet having a spending and hiring freeze? And for the umpteenth time, I'd like football back on campus...

So far the benefit from the Final Four run has been increase in applications to the school. Tjis has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. It does not appear to be made up by SN posters, but came from the admissions office. Not dollars in cash, but applications for increasing student enrollment that brings in additional dollars.

[im4wsu]

Here's another link that shows just how bad attendance was at times...more than the game I'm remembering but horrible for a school playing an in-state rival and ARIZONA STATE. If the team couldn't draw big crowds for the games, how are they going to do it now? Yes, it is an opinion article, but it shows attendance figures of those games as well. http://www.thesunflower.com/opinion/...9bb30f31a.html.

The game versus Arizona State appears to have been played at Tempe before 65,333 http://www.kansas.com/sports/spt-col...le1081179.html

[shocker3]

First of all that article was written in 2013 by someone who probably wasn't even alive at the time the events he was writing about took place. That Sunflower article is full of errors. Here are a few examples: We did NOT play either KU or Arizona St at home in 1986. It is true that the last Shocker football game of 1986 was against Arizona St. but the game was AT TEMPE and was televised nationally on espn. I still have a VHS recording of that game (I don't have a VCR to play it anymore, but I still have the tape).

We did NOT play KU in 1983 at home as the article states. We never played KU at home in football from the time period I went to every home game (1976 to 1986). The article does correctly state that our best record during that time period was 8-3 and that we averaged 23,000 fans a game that year. Those numbers are correct, but they got the year wrong. They stated that happened in 1983. Both those things happened in 1982. I was there and lived it and have a picture at my house of Donnie Dreher catching the winning pass against KU in Lawrence on Sept. 11, 1982. That was the year we went 8-3.