Conference Re-Alignment -- Not over, and has Football here

[SubGod22]

Bring back football and send the bill for what we lose on it each year to Lew Perkins.

:clap:

[The Mad Hatter]

Well, Aargh, you have put a lot of thought into this issue. I fear your assumption about lack of fan support is well founded.

However, if it becomes clear (and I tend to side with Royal on this one) that the lack of a football program at WSU will eventually relegate the other athletic programs at the University to essentially D-2 status are you okay with that situation?

You have demonstrated the darkside; be the man with the plan. ;-) Oh, and I don't care about the rest of the MVC. All I care about is WSU.

:good:

I don't disagree with the perils of beginning back football and its not my first choice. Unfortunately, my hopes in keeping our athletic programs strong rely on events not directly under our control (despite not having football, being added to a mid-major conference with a stronger committment to athletics who wants to expand or through conference re-alignment).

Aargh, I too appreciate the work you have put into this part of the issue and respect your views. Several of us have expressed our belief that not having football will also have unwanted results. Do you agree/disagree and why? If you agree, do you have any potential solutions to this problem?

There are a number of other strong Shocker supporters on this board that believe bringing back football will not happen or, if it did, would not have the positive results hoped for WSU athletics as a whole. Please be as vocal on the perils of the athletic programs by not adding football (unless you feel there is none). You, too, SB Shock.

While I understand the concerns for not having football in conference re-alignment, I do not think that the scenarios proposed have been very realistic in relation to Shocker football. A quick rundown:

Scenario A: BCS schools either leave NCAA entirely or segregate themselves from the rest of the NCAA and relegate non-BCS schools to practically being Division II.

In this scenario, adding football at WSU does no good. Adding football will not give WSU BCS affiliation in either the short or (in all likelihood) long term. In this scenario, having football means nothing because all non-BCS FBS schools are left on the outside looking in.

Scenario B: BCS schools do not break from NCAA, but form Super Conferences and create a ripple effect in other conference realignment.

In this scenario, having football may aid in getting into a better conference, but it may also hurt that effort. Since the Big East (the original Super Conference) has shown that you can run a big time conference without all schools participating in football, there is no reason to assume that having football is the only way to get into a good conference (just ask the likes of Marquette or the Atlantic 10 schools). On the contrary, I think that the strength of a schools athletic department on the whole and being nationally competitive in a number of sports is far more important in being attractive to other conferences than having any individual sport. Focusing your resources on becoming a nationally recognized name in basketball, like Gonzaga for instance, is, in my opinion, more likely to help gain new conference affiliation than having a mediocre to bad football team.

While I concede that there are scenarios that WSU could be hurt by not having football moving forward I disagree vehemently with the assertion by some that it is a foregone conclusion that having football is the only way to have a successful athletic department in all future scenarios. If anything, I think that continuing to build nationally competitive programs in a fiscally responsible way is far more likely to result in future success than betting the farm on football.

[SFL]

The following Apollo 13 quote is one of my favorites. I've waffled a lot over the football issue and see both sides of the argument. Regardless, with or without football, I see great things in the future for our university.

"Chris Kraft: This could be the worst disaster NASA's ever faced.
Gene Kranz: With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour."

[Shockerman]

Why do sports have to make money? Does volleyball or the olympic sports make money. There are like five universities who make money on football. People look at this the wrong way. Football gives us an intagible asset at the university. Marching bands, cheerleaders, homecoming, etc. Things people want to experience while in college. Can you really put a price tag on that? We need more traditional students as those are the ones who donate back when their alumni. Do you really think the mom going back to school, the ku flunky taking night classes to graduate, and the middle eastern students here on a student visa will be active in the Wichita State alumni community? Listen, we are a metropolitan university and fullfilling the educational needs of all students is part of our mission. However that doesn't mean we need to be strictly a commuter school. For a lot of traditional students, football is a healthy part of the college experience. For those of you who think that football will hurt basketball, consider this...

From 1964-1986 Wichita State qualified for 5 NCAA tournaments and played some of its best basketball in the history of the University. In comparison, from 1986-2010, the Shox have played in only 3 NCAA tournaments and fans were forced to endure a decade of terrible basketball. Furthermore, only one of those appearances came after 1988. Clearly, not having football hasn't helped the basketball team.

Below is a list of Valley teams that field an FCS Football squad along with a list of their corresponding NCAA basketball success.

NCAA APPEARANCES SINCE 1986

Indiana State: 2
Wichita State: 3
Northern Iowa: 5
Illinois State: 5
Missouri State: 6
Southern Illinois: 9

[tw805]

Finally someone attacks the "I can't understand why you want to kill the successful basketball program" straw man. The basketball program has run for 25 years as the biggest financial component of the athletic department, and it's been complete garbage save one or two years. I hardly think a football program - that will presumably receive some conference generated revenue as well - will somehow mean the demise of a glorious basketball program.

If you want traditional students, you're going to have to create a traditional campus.

[The Mad Hatter]

Why do sports have to make money? Does volleyball or the olympic sports make money. There are like five universities who make money on football. People look at this the wrong way. Football gives us an intagible asset at the university. Marching bands, cheerleaders, homecoming, etc. Things people want to experience while in college. Can you really put a price tag on that? We need more traditional students as those are the ones who donate back when their alumni. Do you really think the mom going back to school, the ku flunky taking night classes to graduate, and the middle eastern students here on a student visa will be active in the Wichita State alumni community? Listen, we are a metropolitan university and fullfilling the educational needs of all students is part of our mission. However that doesn't mean we need to be strictly a commuter school. For a lot of traditional students, football is a healthy part of the college experience. For those of you who think that football will hurt basketball, consider this...

From 1964-1986 Wichita State qualified for 5 NCAA tournaments and played some of its best basketball in the history of the University. In comparison, from 1986-2010, the Shox have played in only 3 NCAA tournaments and fans were forced to endure a decade of terrible basketball. Furthermore, only one of those appearances came after 1988. Clearly, not having football hasn't helped the basketball team.

Below is a list of Valley teams that field an FCS Football squad along with a list of their corresponding NCAA basketball success.

NCAA APPEARANCES SINCE 1986

Indiana State: 2
Wichita State: 3
Northern Iowa: 5
Illinois State: 5
Missouri State: 6
Southern Illinois: 9

That assumes a correlation that can't be proven, i.e. that having football helped in getting more NCAA appearances. Isn't it more likely that it was the coaches in charge that caused that?

Northern Iowa wasn't getting to the NCAAs before McDermott and Jacobsen turned things around (on a shoestring budget no less) even though they have winning football.

Southern Illinois had Weber and Painter to thank for their run of success, and perhaps if they were not in debt over football they could have retained those two coaches longer and had even more success.

BTW, neither George Mason nor Butler has scholarship football, but each has more Final Four appearances over the past decade than any of the teams listed.

More importantly, this post is like looking at the guy with the $2 million home and Ferrari and calling it success while ignoring that it was bought with borrowed money. As the recent recession has proven, at a certain point those debts must be paid, no matter what you were able to get with the money you borrowed.


At the end of the day, getting football to keep up with the Jones's is the worst motivation that you can have. Just like it is unwise to buy a new Lexus because your neighbor has one even though you can't afford it, it is unwise to start a football program you can't fund to "keep up" with other programs. If you can run football in a responsible and sustainable way, then do it, but don't dig yourself in a financial hole to do it.

You can succeed running budgets in the red in good financial times, it is not a wise long term approach. Budgets are going to get tighter not looser in the current financial environment, so WSU's stance of running an athletic department in the black will become more of an asset in coming years not less of one.

[DUShock]

I don't mind being/devolving into a D-II institution IF the programs are top 10 pretty much each and every season. Just win baby!

[The Mad Hatter]

Finally someone attacks the "I can't understand why you want to kill the successful basketball program" straw man. The basketball program has run for 25 years as the biggest financial component of the athletic department, and it's been complete garbage save one or two years. I hardly think a football program - that will presumably receive some conference generated revenue as well - will somehow mean the demise of a glorious basketball program.

If you want traditional students, you're going to have to create a traditional campus.

Wouldn't 25 years of "complete garbage save one or two years" make you more skeptical that football could succeed?

If basketball could be complete garbage for two decades as the "biggest financial component of the athletic department," why wouldn't football be even worse garbage as a lesser component of the athletic department?

[tw805]

Finally someone attacks the "I can't understand why you want to kill the successful basketball program" straw man. The basketball program has run for 25 years as the biggest financial component of the athletic department, and it's been complete garbage save one or two years. I hardly think a football program - that will presumably receive some conference generated revenue as well - will somehow mean the demise of a glorious basketball program.

If you want traditional students, you're going to have to create a traditional campus.

Wouldn't 25 years of "complete garbage save one or two years" make you more skeptical that football could succeed?

If basketball could be complete garbage for two decades as the "biggest financial component of the athletic department," why wouldn't football be even worse garbage as a lesser component of the athletic department?

I'm not saying that it would necessarily be successful. I am contending that it is a logical fallacy to argue that because football costs money, it will necessarily draw money away from basketball and make the quality of that program suffer. It has suffered enough without a supposed financial drain.

[SubGod22]

Finally someone attacks the "I can't understand why you want to kill the successful basketball program" straw man. The basketball program has run for 25 years as the biggest financial component of the athletic department, and it's been complete garbage save one or two years. I hardly think a football program - that will presumably receive some conference generated revenue as well - will somehow mean the demise of a glorious basketball program.

If you want traditional students, you're going to have to create a traditional campus.

Wouldn't 25 years of "complete garbage save one or two years" make you more skeptical that football could succeed?

If basketball could be complete garbage for two decades as the "biggest financial component of the athletic department," why wouldn't football be even worse garbage as a lesser component of the athletic department?

I'm not saying that it would necessarily be successful. I am contending that it is a logical fallacy to argue that because football costs money, it will necessarily draw money away from basketball and make the quality of that program suffer. It has suffered enough without a supposed financial drain.

And was successful with it.

[Kung Wu]

"Chris Kraft: This could be the worst disaster NASA's ever faced.
Gene Kranz: With all due respect, sir, I believe this is gonna be our finest hour."

Was this before or after Apollo 13 failed in it's primary objective?

Muhahaha! I had to say it.

Great quote though.

[Kung Wu]

That assumes a correlation that can't be proven, i.e. that having football helped in getting more NCAA appearances. Isn't it more likely that it was the coaches in charge that caused that?

Isn't it possible not having a BCS college atmosphere makes recruiting a proven high-major caliber coach difficult to impossible?

All of these arguments are speculative in both directions.

That's why it takes an "entrepreneur" to make it happen -- not a bean counter or politician. There will be risk.

Unfortunately for the first time in a while, due to conference realignment, there is now also risk in doing nothing -- again a speculative argument but not an unreasonable one.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I don't mind being/devolving into a D-II institution IF the programs are top 10 pretty much each and every season. Just win baby!

thats like sleeping with a butterface

[The Mad Hatter]

That assumes a correlation that can't be proven, i.e. that having football helped in getting more NCAA appearances. Isn't it more likely that it was the coaches in charge that caused that?

Isn't it possible not having a BCS college atmosphere makes recruiting a proven high-major caliber coach difficult to impossible?

All of these arguments are speculative in both directions.

That's why it takes an "entrepreneur" to make it happen -- not a bean counter or politician. There will be risk.

Unfortunately for the first time in a while, due to conference realignment, there is now also risk in doing nothing -- again a speculative argument but not an unreasonable one.

I have no problem with the argument that not having football potentially leaves WSU vulnerable in a conference realignment scenario, but I contest the idea that WSU's only chance of doing well in conference realignment is through football.

As I noted above, I think that WSU can make itself attractive to prospective conferences by being nationally competitive in as many sports as possible, work towards national prominence in basketball in particular, and run a financially stable athletic department (which would give conferences confidence that the athletic successes you demonstrated were sustainable and that you wouldn't become a bottom feeder in a few years because you were in SIU-type situations where you couldn't afford to let go of a coach or retain a successful coach).

In my mind, bringing back football should happen out of there being a solid, sustainable plan, not out of fear of a predicted conference realignment scenario. That is the difference between entrepreneurial vision and panicked reaction. There is calculated risk to entrepreneurship, but fear causes people to gamble. The numbers I have seen for football look far more like a gamble than a calculated risk at this point.

[vbird53]

I don't mind being/devolving into a D-II institution IF the programs are top 10 pretty much each and every season. Just win baby!

Absolutely not. This community has far too many resources to relegate ourselves to a lower level.