Hell No to Status Quo

[RoyalShock]

How about this . . .

1/2-cent sales tax until X amount is raised to start an FCS program and required women's programs. It shouldn't take long, maybe a year.

Then the amount drops to 1/10-cent to help maintain.

Build in an option to revert to the 1/2-cent tax (by council action) should additional money be needed to jump to FBS. Then back to 1/10-cent.

In my opinion, this must coincide with additional student fees. They need to have a say and some ownership in this, even if it's just a couple dollars per credit hour. I'd recommend $5 combined with discounted student tickets to games. That should pump about $1.5 million into the athletic dept each year.

[ShockBand]

Just think if we had 5,000 commitments to $500 (or more) per year for five, or better yet, ten years towards football, with 2 reserved seats and a parking pass in return. At $500 that would generate 2.5 million while only consuming 10,000 seats, leaving up to 20,000 open for sale and students. I know there is the site that has this kind of idea in pledges, but what if the first year's worth was actually bankrolled in a trust fund?

The athletic department could even do this, with the stipulation that a certain amount must be raised in order to begin the serious exploration of reviving football. If the deadline was not met, the monies could be returned or applied to future SASO donations and ticket purchases.

It would stretch me a bit, but I would personally be willing to do $500 a year.

[shockar25]

Just think if we had 5,000 commitments to $500 (or more) per year for five, or better yet, ten years towards football, with 2 reserved seats and a parking pass in return. At $500 that would generate 2.5 million while only consuming 10,000 seats, leaving up to 20,000 open for sale and students. I know there is the site that has this kind of idea in pledges, but what if the first year's worth was actually bankrolled in a trust fund?

The athletic department could even do this, with the stipulation that a certain amount must be raised in order to begin the serious exploration of reviving football. If the deadline was not met, the monies could be returned or applied to future SASO donations and ticket purchases.

It would stretch me a bit, but I would personally be willing to do $500 a year.

You raise an interesting consideration. Would having football negatively affect basketball season ticket sales? I for one (not being particularly wealthy) would be forced to choose one or the other and no offense to football or to the effort of bringing it back, basketball for me would always win out. Of course there will be lots of folks of people who can afford both, but right now fiscally basketball is king. If we ever want to have a good football program we'll have to pay the coaches well enough to attract people of quality. Where would that money come from year after year as the salary wars ensue to stay competitive with other similar programs? Unless we were happy with staying DII or less than full D1, that aspect is a fact that will be hard to ignore.

It's a big risk no matter how you initially fund it. Wichita is a great community that will support WSU athletics more loyally than many fan bases, but if the football team struggles consistently the naysayers will be coming out of the woodwork and attendance will suffer.

On a different note, have any studies been done on the cost to renovate Cessna stadium including locker rooms? I wouldn't think that we'd need to increase the seating capacity (even lower it a bit if it helps the overall facility be better in some way). Do we really understand the costs to make something like that (just talking facilities) happen? Hosting state track and a few HS football games is a lot different than people will be expecting if their tax dollars are utiliized.

What about a combo donation from Ruffin, Koch?

[pogo]

Yeah, I was the one that floated the idea of using a sales tax to generate the funds needed for football. A tax that has a limit is very appealing but does not give you the ability to plan long term. Also the tax monies that I saw being raised should be split between academics and athletics. With the money generated on 1/2 cent tax (40 million/year) WSU could plan facilities for athletes to compare to the osu idea of an athletic village. On the other side of the coin, academics could fund full ride scholarships to say the top 10% from EVERY high school in the county. This adds an incentive for the best and brightest to stay and improve the depth of the talent pool. I would prefer to think of a continued tax to support a margin of excellence for the whole University. We have all seen examples of good ideas that failed for lack of adequate funding so I prefer to err on the plus side in this endeavor. As stated in my earlier diatribe I believe the votes to do this are there for this to succeed at whatever level could be agreed on. The graduates of WSU that live in the county, 35,0000 and the students enrolled at WSU now present a pretty formidable voting bloc. It would be a tough fight but I believe we could prevail. A second thought to make this more attractive would be to limit contracts for expenditures/construction to Sedgwick co. based companies to ensure the money raised in the county stay in the county.

[ShockTalk]

I like the sales tax idea. However, the only way to get it passed is to show (clearly) how having WSU football will benefit, not just people interested in athletics, but the community as a whole. In other words, show ME why I should say Yes, eventhough I may never go to a football game or don't care about sports. Tying it into a needed cause as improvements to education is noble, but most will say "just vote on the two separately" or "I would vote for one but not both".

Another key is the expectations of the football program and what the ultimate goal is. The college landscape continues to rapidly change. The separation between the haves and have nots is widening and this will continue. There may come a day where the only FBS football is BCS football. For me, that's no big deal as long as it doesn't affect other sports. Whether WSU does or does not have football will not change this outcome nor WSU's status in that outcome even if it does have football.

[Ricardo del Rio]

Karl Peterjohn and John Todd will have a field day with these tax proposals.

I have heard that the start up costs for a new program is around $50 million. I think I heard it from Fred Mars, but I am not sure and I may be waaaaay off base.

I am pretty sure it is a great deal more than a couple of million dollars.

If you want the perspective of a devout believer in the return of football, talk to Fred Mars, a local attorney. He has been beating the football drum for so long and so loudly that he has become ineffective. Folks just tune him out.

[jcdshocker]

Sales tax to fund a football program would be a hard sell on the heels of the State Legislature increasing sales tax 1% starting 7/1/10.

[ShockBand]

Keep in mind my idea is not to be the sole funding source, just one of many - student fees and big pocket donors being the other main ones. My purpose with such a thing would be to visibly demonstrate with something tangible ($$$) that Joe WuFan is willing to support the cause.

If I had to choose between football and basketball season tickets, basketball would win out for me as well.

[SpanglerFan316]

Sales tax to fund a football program would be a hard sell on the heels of the State Legislature increasing sales tax 1% starting 7/1/10.

This ends (except for a smaller increase for roads) in three years. We would probably need to wait until the state increase ended before adding our increase.

[SpanglerFan316]

In my opinion, this must coincide with additional student fees. They need to have a say and some ownership in this, even if it's just a couple dollars per credit hour. I'd recommend $5 combined with discounted student tickets to games. That should pump about $1.5 million into the athletic dept each year.

Student fees to athletics already contribute $2.8M (approximate figure) to athletics and some student tuition money goes into the WSU "general fund" and then into athletics. The WSU "general fund" (GU & SU money) contributes $4M-$5M to athletics; the sources are special state funding (for particular things), student tuition, etc. How much of this comes from student tuition? I don't know; a wild guess would be $2M.

(Why is "state funding" (& tuition is considered part of "state funding") used for athletics? Well, the AD & staff (not all coaches) are state (not "ICAA") employees and should be paid with "state funds." When Title ?? came into play, the state legislature decided to fund "women's sports;" I don't really know if this means only female coaches or coaches of women's sports. I suspect that other things go into this "pot" as well.)

The state budget for WSU is public and one could look up the coaches' names (e.g. C. Lamb), add these to the AD & staff, etc. and determine how much "state funding" goes to athletics. I have never tried to do this because some people get funding from multiple "lines" and I am told it is a pain to dig this information out of the budget. Everything (funded by the state) is there in the public WSU budget if you can find it.

My guess is that WSU students already contribute close to $5M to athletics through fees & tuition. (WSU's annual tuition revenue is probably $45M+) How much are SASO contributions? I think $8M or less. The students get 1000 seats for basketball and probably pay $5M while the public gets 9500 seats and probably pays $10M (or less). Now you want the students to pay more?

[SpanglerFan316]

Isn't there a mill levy tax that was used to make sure WU as debt free when we went public. Could that be used? I think it's still there. Does anyone have any knowledge of this?

I remember when the U requested state funds for remodeling Cessna Stadium. KU and KSU fans did not like the idea at all. I think we would get resistance from the public if we used taxpayer money. I like the idea of presenting it as a temporary tax and emphasize the economic benefits to the community. That alone may silence some naysayers.

Mill levy money largely (80% ??) goes to student scholarships now; there is no money available for academics or athletics from the mill levy. With the increases in tuition (even though it is much less than KU & KSU), do you want to reduce student financial assistance?

[pogo]

Karl Peterjohn and John Todd will have a field day with these tax proposals.

I have heard that the start up costs for a new program is around $50 million. I think I heard it from Fred Mars, but I am not sure and I may be waaaaay off base.

I am pretty sure it is a great deal more than a couple of million dollars.

If you want the perspective of a devout believer in the return of football, talk to Fred Mars, a local attorney. He has been beating the football drum for so long and so loudly that he has become ineffective. Folks just tune him out.

Karl Peterjohn and John Todd would choose not to support a tax increase but I think they would be less harmful on the inside than they used to be. Fred Mars would be a good source for information about the costs associated with football. I think the reason Fred has become ineffective is that he continues to push his conspiracy theories and that really has people turning a deaf ear to him. Fred is a great WSU supporter

[SpanglerFan316]

That's still there. WSU applies that money to their general fund, which means it goes to academics.

Some "general fund" money, $4M-$5M, goes to athletics. I don't know if any mill levy money goes to athletics but I suspect some does. Probably less than $1M and maybe $0; who knows?

[t7017s]

I thought this was the basketball forum...

[ShockBand]

Considering a decision to bring back football (or not) does affect the basketball program, and the fact that it is the slow time of summer, I don't mind it staying here where more eyes tend to go.