UNI ponies up

[The Mad Hatter]

So let me get this straight:

UNI gets $4.6 million extra dollars from their state compared to WSU (even if you assume that the IndyStar numbers about direct and indirect institutional support should be used - the 2005 totals were $7.7 million for UNI and $2.2 million for WSU - which would be an extra $5.5 million in institutional support for UNI).


In 2005, UNI football was operating at a $280,000 loss. This is merely the yearly loss, which says nothing of any start-up costs and extra women's scholarships added to counterbalance football scholarships.

In spite of an extra $4-5 million dollars in institutional support, UNI just had to drop their baseball program. If the state follows through in pulling this funding, who knows what other sports could be on the chopping block.

Why is this an argument in favor of football being affordable and not damaging the rest of the athletic department?

I think you're getting caught up in the state-based subsidy issue, which is wholly unrelated to the simple fact that there are numerous D1 athletic departments who can somehow manage respectable football and basketball programs for less than what WSU is afforded without football.

1. The main reason that President Beggs has stated that he is against starting football was that his experience at SIU (one of those many schools you think are doing fine budgeting for football) taught him how big a drain on resources football was. I'm guessing he is a little more aware of the budgetary issues than any of us.

2. There is a huge difference between the cost of running an existing program and the cost of starting a program (as I noted above).

3. The state funding is not an unrelated issue. UNI was dropping programs and barely in the black as an athletic department while they still were receiving the state funding that is about to be pulled. Do we know whether they will be able to keep running the model they have been without such funding? How many other schools in other states receive state money that WSU doesn't? If you think that some school have a couple of extra million dollars lying around is an unrelated issue to the affordability of a program, remind me to never put you on a budget committee.

4. Why is there talk of WSU putting too much of the budget into 2 sports? We keep winning All-Sports trophy's because we properly fund ALL of our programs.

[SB Shock]

Wsu had football. The community didn't support it. The athletic program was in the deep red. They cut football and the wsu athletic program is now healthy.

If there was support for football even regardless of title ix then there would be football. But there isn't and therefore you can beat the football horse all u want but it is a DEAD HORSE.

[SHOCKvalue]

I have to question whether you guys who don't support the resurrection of WSU football are fans, or students/alumni.

The lack of the machine that is college football on the campus of WSU is a detraction and hindrance to our University on so many levels it's stupefying. As a fan of say WSU baseball or WSU basketball this probably wouldn't bother someone, but for someone with an identity that reaches further into the institution, these stigmas are very unsettling.

EDIT: I'm not calling out anyone, or trying to demean, it's just a reality I hold to be fairly true.

[shockball]

So let me get this straight:

UNI gets $4.6 million extra dollars from their state compared to WSU (even if you assume that the IndyStar numbers about direct and indirect institutional support should be used - the 2005 totals were $7.7 million for UNI and $2.2 million for WSU - which would be an extra $5.5 million in institutional support for UNI).


In 2005, UNI football was operating at a $280,000 loss. This is merely the yearly loss, which says nothing of any start-up costs and extra women's scholarships added to counterbalance football scholarships.

In spite of an extra $4-5 million dollars in institutional support, UNI just had to drop their baseball program. If the state follows through in pulling this funding, who knows what other sports could be on the chopping block.

Why is this an argument in favor of football being affordable and not damaging the rest of the athletic department?

Good Points.

[The Mad Hatter]

I have to question whether you guys who don't support the resurrection of WSU football are fans, or students/alumni.

The lack of the machine that is college football on the campus of WSU is a detraction and hindrance to our University on so many levels it's stupefying. As a fan of say WSU baseball or WSU basketball this probably wouldn't bother someone, but for someone with an identity that reaches further into the institution, these stigmas are very unsettling.

An ad hominem argument is a sure sign that the facts of the debate has swung against you.

There is a big difference between not believing that football is financial feasible or wise and not wishing that WSU could have a successful football program.

In addition, this second argument on your part negates your first one. First you argued that WSU should be able to afford football because schools like UNI and Missouri State do. Now you are arguing that we need football because it would build the prestige of the university.

Do you really believe that UNI, Missouri State, and similar schools have more prestige than WSU? Do you think that anyone around the nation has a clue or cares that Missouri State has football?

You can't simultaneously argue that football is affordable because small time schools can do it and football is necessary because it is needed to not be a small time school.

[shock]

I only have one question. Why does Wichita State need Shocker football? All the sports WSU have (that I can think of off the top of my head) are successful, and thats largely because of the fact that WSU doesn't have a football program sucking all the funds out of the school. The mens basketball program is back on track to national prominence, and games are almost always sold out now days. WSU student athletes have state of the art facilities to practice with, and amazing coaches (again, for all the sports I can think of off the top of my head). So again, why football?

[SpanglerFan316]

WSU's athletic budget is not $16.9M. It is about $12M (maybe $13M); I could ask somebody I know and get the budget, down to the dollar (well, if this person will give me the info. :D )

According to standardized, official data released by the NCAA, and compiled by the Indy Star in this well-known report five years ago, we were at almost $14M during the 2004-2005 season(s). Based on that info and the site reputation, there's no reason to believe that basketballstate.com's data indicating $16.9M in most recent reporting year, is incorrect.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/

OK. I'll ask Eric Sexton the next time I see him. :D

[SHOCKvalue]

An ad hominem argument is a sure sign that the facts of the debate has swung against you.

It's only ad hominem to the point that it offends you. It's most certainly relevant to the conversation. The context of one's relationship to the University is most definitely a variable.

There is a big difference between not believing that football is financial feasible or wise and not wishing that WSU could have a successful football program.

Again, we are the only public school in the MVC that doesn't have football, YET we have the second largest athletic budget. Do you understand the simple relevance of that fact? We're not talking about Evansville or ISU Blue here, we're talking about our conference contemporaries.

In addition, this second argument on your part negates your first one. First you argued that WSU should be able to afford football because schools like UNI and Missouri State do. Now you are arguing that we need football because it would build the prestige of the university.

I think you're confusing yourself here. I believe in both premises. I never said money equals prestige.

Do you really believe that UNI, Missouri State, and similar schools have more prestige than WSU? Do you think that anyone around the nation has a clue or cares that Missouri State has football?

Have you looked at the US News rankings lately? I mean.. like... ever? We are in academic tiers below both of the aforementioned schools. We are in the last tier. It can't get any worse, that's for sure. Those of us close to the school know that WSU has some fantastic academic strengths, but in the big picture we are lacking, at least in subjective reputations.

We are saddled with the commuter stigma - IMO in notable part - due to the lack of the fall atmosphere of football. It drives away a demographic that holds that time of year to be as fundamental to the college experience as hot dogs are to a baseball game.

Did you actually go to WSU? Did you not feel a significant void every fall? I'll be honest with you, I almost didn't go to WSU for this very fact. I know several people who ended up at KU and K-State for the same reasons. College football is HUGE. There's no other college sport that comes close to the gravity of football. Revenues, attendance, TV ratings, campus atmosphere all support this premise.

IMO status quo on this issue will continue to be an achilles heel for our school.

You can't simultaneously argue that football is affordable because small time schools can do it and football is necessary because it is needed to not be a small time school.

Again, you're interjecting that athletic budget equals prestige, not me. I'm using merely as a data point for comparison.

[SHOCKvalue]

WSU's athletic budget is not $16.9M. It is about $12M (maybe $13M); I could ask somebody I know and get the budget, down to the dollar (well, if this person will give me the info. :D )

According to standardized, official data released by the NCAA, and compiled by the Indy Star in this well-known report five years ago, we were at almost $14M during the 2004-2005 season(s). Based on that info and the site reputation, there's no reason to believe that basketballstate.com's data indicating $16.9M in most recent reporting year, is incorrect.

http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/

OK. I'll ask Eric Sexton the next time I see him. :D

Be sure to say hello to WuDrWu while you there for me, okay?

SN would be lost without you two throwing your imaginary weight around.

[tw805]

I only have one question. Why does Wichita State need Shocker football? All the sports WSU have (that I can think of off the top of my head) are successful, and thats largely because of the fact that WSU doesn't have a football program sucking all the funds out of the school. The mens basketball program is back on track to national prominence, and games are almost always sold out now days. WSU student athletes have state of the art facilities to practice with, and amazing coaches (again, for all the sports I can think of off the top of my head). So again, why football?

Because football Saturdays are events that draw more attention. Football is the most popular sport in this country, and there's not even a close second. I personally see a correlation between football at WSU and the current problems. At one time, WSU was the second largest university in the state. After they axed football, enrollment started to go down. They were clearly able to maintain successful basketball along side football (whether successful or not) in the 1960s and 1980s.

As an out of town alumnus, I only make it back to about one basketball game a year, if any. I make a general university donation, rather than a sport specific. I would probably come back for four or five football games, and I would donate to that sport. There's just something special about football on campus in the fall.

[The Mad Hatter]

Ricky Bobby,

I'm not going to quote the argument above for space sake, however:

1. You might want to check a logic book. An ad hominem argument is not defined by whether it offends the opposing side, it is defined by challenging the opposing side's standing or motivations rather than dealing with the actual arguments.

What is worse, such arguments are rarely accurate and rely mostly on gross stereotyping. In this case, you could not be further from the truth. I am a WSU alumnus. I am the son of a WSU alumnus, and my family contributes not only to sports at WSU, but also to academic programs.

Is anything about that background relevant to the argument about whether bringing back football is a good idea? No, it isn't. Nor would it have been relevant if my background was the one you assumed it to be (i.e. solely sports fan without any real connection to the whole institution).

2. Why does being the only public MVC school without football mean anything? As I mentioned before (and you ignored), we have a president who came from one of the public MVC schools with football, and his experience was that it was damaging to the budget of the institution. Why would you assume that Beggs does not have a better grasp on the financial workings of a university than the average fan?

3. Are you seriously arguing that the reason UNI and MSU are ahead of us on US News and World Report academic rankings is the lack of football? I guess I missed the powerhouse University of Chicago football team when I was up there last.

I don't understand this mentality that somehow football in a panacea for all the university's ills. To simplify WSU's commuter reputation (which is not all a bad thing, btw) to a single issue like lack of football ignores the complexity of the institution and community as a whole.

Even if football could provide these benefits, it seems likely that only a successful football program (and likely one at the FBS not FCS level) could do so. Starting a football program is substantially different than creating and sustaining a successful football program. So even if such benefits exist, they may not be attainable simply by having the sport in any form.

[SHOCKvalue]

Ricky Bobby,

I'm not going to quote the argument above for space sake, however:

1. You might want to check a logic book. An ad hominem argument is not defined by whether it offends the opposing side, it is defined by challenging the opposing side's standing or motivations rather than dealing with the actual arguments.

What is worse, such arguments are rarely accurate and rely mostly on gross stereotyping. In this case, you could not be further from the truth. I am a WSU alumnus. I am the son of a WSU alumnus, and my family contributes not only to sports at WSU, but also to academic programs.

Is anything about that background relevant to the argument about whether bringing back football is a good idea? No, it isn't. Nor would it have been relevant if my background was the one you assumed it to be (i.e. solely sports fan without any real connection to the whole institution).

2. Why does being the only public MVC school without football mean anything? As I mentioned before (and you ignored), we have a president who came from one of the public MVC schools with football, and his experience was that it was damaging to the budget of the institution. Why would you assume that Beggs does not have a better grasp on the financial workings of a university than the average fan?

3. Are you seriously arguing that the reason UNI and MSU are ahead of us on US News and World Report academic rankings is the lack of football? I guess I missed the powerhouse University of Chicago football team when I was up there last.

I don't understand this mentality that somehow football in a panacea for all the university's ills. To simplify WSU's commuter reputation (which is not all a bad thing, btw) to a single issue like lack of football ignores the complexity of the institution and community as a whole.

Even if football could provide these benefits, it seems likely that only a successful football program (and likely one at the FBS not FCS level) could do so. Starting a football program is substantially different than creating and sustaining a successful football program. So even if such benefits exist, they may not be attainable simply by having the sport in any form.

It really is fairly impossible to have a rational discussion with you. I'm not going to argue in a circle any longer, as I've seen you engage on SN previously. I've tried to respond to your queries on my points, and you're wanting me to answer the same basic questions all over again. Further, my left-brained self has zero desire to debate the merits of philosophic theory- something I have no use for.

I feel like I'm suddenly in the Eagle comments section. You're not a democrat by chance, are you? That would explain the difficulty here.

[The Mad Hatter]

First I wasn't a WSU grad, now I'm a democrat (neither of which are true, btw).

You might not want to discuss philosophical theory, but if you took the time to learn them, you might not keep falling into the same argumentative fallacy. I say this not as an insult, but as a suggestion to prevent you from continuing to rely on statements that have no connection to the issues being discussed.

I find it odd that you kept demanding that people back up their assertions with facts regarding Marshall's pay (a point I agreed with you one), but now accuse me of arguing in a circle for asking you to back up your assertions with facts or clarify them.

The odds or either of us convincing the other of our position is remote, but I enjoy the merits of exploring and debating the issues. If you don't want to continue this intellectual exercise, that's fine by me.

[GarH]

I certainly don't think WSU "needs" football, but I can certainly understand WSU fans desire to have football. I was always more of a college basketball fan than a college football fan until I started tailgating and getting into the pagentry of college football. Now by August every year, I'm chomping at the bit for football season to start. Our tailgate is sponsored by an independant fan site like Shockernet. We have about 200 people at our tailgate. We have a 42" flat screen to watch games. It's great to spend 4 to 5 hours disscussing the keys to the game, eating and drinking and generally getting psyched for the game. My freind that I have season tickets with, leave the tailgate about 20 minutes before the game and position ourselves a couple of blocks from the stadium so we can walk beside the marching band as they march into the stadium playing Beardown Arizona. It really get's us ready for the game.

It's a real shame Wichita fans can't experience that. My quess is that after all theese years, initially there would be a lot of support for WSU football. The question is how long would that support last unless the team was successful? It would definitely be a big financial gamble for the athletic program. With the population of Wichita, WSU "should" have more of a chance than most Valley schools of the football being self supporting, but it still would be quite a gamble for the athletic department. I certainly hope someday WSU can have a football team again.

[SHOCKvalue]

First I wasn't a WSU grad, now I'm a democrat (neither of which are true, btw).

Well, I never actually said you weren't a WSU grad, just wondering aloud about the respective level of people's involvement with WSU. For whatever reason, you thought I was aiming that on you, when it was just a general statement. I will, however, stick to my guns that the perspective of the average alumnus versus the average fan are quite different. I found this out years ago while interacting with some Husker "fans", when they were honestly offended after I referred to their teams with the "UNL" abbreviation. Odd, really odd, I thought.

You might not want to discuss philosophical theory, but if you took the time to learn them, you might not keep falling into the same argumentative fallacy. I say this not as an insult, but as a suggestion to prevent you from continuing to rely on statements that have no connection to the issues being discussed.

I don't see how what I was trying to establish lacked context in the debate.

I find it odd that you kept demanding that people back up their assertions with facts regarding Marshall's pay (a point I agreed with you one), but now accuse me of arguing in a circle for asking you to back up your assertions with facts or clarify them.

The really are no facts or absolutes in the argument we're having, outside of aforementioned US News academic rankings, and budget numbers that may or may not be spot-on.

The odds or either of us convincing the other of our position is remote, but I enjoy the merits of exploring and debating the issues. If you don't want to continue this intellectual exercise, that's fine by me.

We're arguing opinions, and we're going to continue to spin our wheels in this regard. We disagree with each other, and that's fine.

I don't desire to get involved in an "intellectual exercise", because I don't really esteem to be a so-called "intellectual".