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

[Aargh]

This is in response to 1972Shocker's question about $30,000 each for scholarship.

1972 correctly pointed out that tuition is substantially below $30K. I sort of recall using the $30K figure for the cost of a student on scholarship. I shouldn't have stated it as a scholarship cost, but rather as the cost of a athlete on full schjolarship.

Add rent, food, books, insurance, etc. to the tuition figures and the $30K number is in the ballpark. I figured on primarily out-of-state athletes. The Title IX scholarships would probably go to predominantly in-state athletes, so the actual number might be more like a $25K average for all 130 of the required scholarships. I've run across that $30K figure in other places. Maybe in an article about KU's or KSU's athletic costs.

And in response to some other comments, yeah, us bean counters don't have all the answers. We tend to be doom and gloom guys (or gals). Sometimes someone with a vision and a plan can overcome a lot of negatives and be quite successful with something that appeared to be impossible.

If you think for one minute that there isn't a financial analysis of reinstating football sitting in the WSU athletic department, I think you'd be mistaken. I'd even bet it gets updated every couple of years.

We never heard even the hint of a whisper about football from Schaus. If an athletic director reinstated football in spite of what us bean-counters said and it failed, that AD's next job would probably include asking if you wanted fries with that.

[Veritas]

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!

Are you serious?!?!?

[Veritas]

This is in response to 1972Shocker's question about $30,000 each for scholarship.

1972 correctly pointed out that tuition is substantially below $30K. I sort of recall using the $30K figure for the cost of a student on scholarship. I shouldn't have stated it as a scholarship cost, but rather as the cost of a athlete on full schjolarship.

Add rent, food, books, insurance, etc. to the tuition figures and the $30K number is in the ballpark. I figured on primarily out-of-state athletes. The Title IX scholarships would probably go to predominantly in-state athletes, so the actual number might be more like a $25K average for all 130 of the required scholarships. I've run across that $30K figure in other places. Maybe in an article about KU's or KSU's athletic costs.

And in response to some other comments, yeah, us bean counters don't have all the answers. We tend to be doom and gloom guys (or gals). Sometimes someone with a vision and a plan can overcome a lot of negatives and be quite successful with something that appeared to be impossible.

If you think for one minute that there isn't a financial analysis of reinstating football sitting in the WSU athletic department, I think you'd be mistaken. I'd even bet it gets updated every couple of years.

We never heard even the hint of a whisper about football from Schaus. If an athletic director reinstated football in spite of what us bean-counters said and it failed, that AD's next job would probably include asking if you wanted fries with that.

The world needs bean counters. However, notice they are rarely if ever the ones making key and ambitious decisions. They are not leaders, nor visionaries, but rather in the back room hunched over charts and spreadsheets using their abacus, and called on to provide a worst case scenario. They can't see beyond numbers. Any discussion of vision is too abstract for their minds to wrap around. In the mean time, the visionaries and leaders make the tough decisions.


A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. (Winston Churchill)

[SB Shock]

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.

If you took the money that would be invested in football (and the Title IX sports that would be added) and instead invested it in men B-ball, V-Ball, women basketball and baseball - do you thing those sports would get better or worse?

[SB Shock]

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

Never going to happen. Wichita is not Lawrence, Manhattan or Stillwater where the university is the town. There will never be an aggietown by campus.

If you want to truly grow traditional student base - then you ensure WSU affordable and you have quality academic programs that will bring in traditional students. You have to develop a quality program that the rival universities don't have and you need to develop a academic reputation that draws students in.

[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.

If you took the money that would be invested in football (and the Title IX sports that would be added) and instead invested it in men B-ball, V-Ball, women basketball and baseball - do you thing those sports would get better or worse?

We have a case study on that. In 1987, we no longer had the supposed football drain on the athletic budget. The basketball team promptly went through arguably its worst decade in university history. So no, I don't think that if you dump money into the program it automatically gets better. I would like to know how you suggest the university be sold to potential recruits, particuarly since campus life on fall weekends is non-existent.

[tw805]

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

Never going to happen. Wichita is not Lawrence, Manhattan or Stillwater where the university is the town. There will never be an aggietown by campus.

If you want to truly grow traditional student base - then you ensure WSU affordable and you have quality academic programs that will bring in traditional students. You have to develop a quality program that the rival universities don't have and you need to develop a academic reputation that draws students in.

The university doesn't need to be the town. And the towns you mentioned aren't drawing from only the town around them. People will return to campus for football games. They are day-long events. The marching band, the tailgating, etc. As an out-of-town alum myself, I would be far more likely to return for a Saturday football game than I am for basketball games.

I went to a Big 12 (out of Kansas) school for a while. The football team was freaking terrible. The only game they won when I was there was against Baylor. (They sarcastically tore down the goalposts, which was kind of funny.) It flat-out didn't matter that they were terrible. People still came to the games from all over the state, and the tailgating started early in the morning. The difference between having football and not is staggering when it comes to making the university a weekend destination. But I do agree with you that solid academic programs have to go along with it. Of course, since the university is unfathomably contemplating dropping the physics program, we might be going in the wrong direction on that one.

I'm tired of beating this dead football horse. Some people on this board feel that football must be looked at if the university isn't going to descend into Washburn-like status. (Whoops, Washburn has football.) Others think the status-quo is fine. No one is going to change minds. Just count me as one who thinks that complacency doesn't make much sense. We've had 25 years of dumping money into the basketball program, and it's had one really good year in those 25. So I'm not sure that taking a stab at reviving a football program is going to kill the rest of the athletic department.

[SB Shock]

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.

If you took the money that would be invested in football (and the Title IX sports that would be added) and instead invested it in men B-ball, V-Ball, women basketball and baseball - do you thing those sports would get better or worse?

We have a case study on that. In 1987, we no longer had the supposed football drain on the athletic budget. The basketball team promptly went through arguably its worst decade in university history.

That decade was because of bad coaching hires. Were also on now in the middle of decade of basketball being relevant once again.

You also had a baseball team that through the 90's dominated. Now add in a volleyball team (and time a softball team) that has become relevant. Now if women basketball could become relevant.

In all this time you have had an athletic department continuing to improve facilities for basketball, baseball, volleyball and softball. I could easily argue if WSU had the constant drain of football over this period none of this would have been possible.

I would like to know how you suggest the university be sold to potential recruits, particuarly since campus life on fall weekends is non-existent.

sorry I do not believe FOOTBALL = CAMPUS LIFE. I was at the university when there was football and I was there when it was gone. My social life didn't change even though I didn't have a football game to go to. I just found other things (frankly more constructive things) to do other than watching a bad football team lose.

[SB Shock]

I went to a Big 12 (out of Kansas) school for a while. The football team was freaking terrible. The only game they won when I was there was against Baylor. (They sarcastically tore down the goalposts, which was kind of funny.) It flat-out didn't matter that they were terrible. People still came to the games from all over the state, and the tailgating started early in the morning. The difference between having football and not is staggering when it comes to making the university a weekend destination. But I do agree with you that solid academic programs have to go along with it. Of course, since the university is unfathomably contemplating dropping the physics program, we might be going in the wrong direction on that one.

After I graduated from WSU, I was stationed at Ft. Riley and lived in Manhattan. This coincided with the hiring of Bill Snyder and the revival of the K-State program (including their first bowl victory). I admit I saw how football took over a town. Maybe if the experience at WSU with football had been anywhere close to that type of experience then I would be more open to bringing football back. But WSU football had lethargic fan support (except when playing a B8 team) and i remember the losses more than any victory.

[Aargh]

As I recall, there was about a $3 mill deficit in the athletic department when football was dropped. WSU wasn't pouring money into basketball after football was dropped, WSU was pouring money into retiring the debt.

I'm confident that donations to the athletic department took a huge hit when football went away. WSU was totally strapped for cash in the years that there was a series of bad coaching hires.

It's possible that hiring Turgeon turned the donor switch back on. If that was the case, it would have likely been because he was local and <duck>his KU background gave local donors some confidence. </duck>

A winning basketball program seems to be required for local donors to open their wallets. Replacing Turgeon with Marshall probably kept the confidence of the donors high and kept the wallets open.

Saying that WSU was pouring money into basketball after football ended is probably inaccurate. A President soft on athletics and a weak AD combined for some bad hires at a time when there was an IMMEDIATE need to retire the debt and a lot of donors were unhappy.

If Perkins would have put out some effort, I think he could have saved football, but he chose to axe the program and then take credit for saving the WSU athletic department. Perkins turned his lack of desire to actually do the job into a plus on his resume.

[eeshocker]

Re: Conference Re-Alignment -- Not over, and has Football he

Many of us remember the Michigan/App. State game from a few years ago -- App State is a member of the CAA, which recently moved to a 12-team football league. Since moving to a 12-team league, the conference's prestige has increased significantly, cited by increased playoff berths in FCS football play.

I am enjoying the debate on WSU Football in the this thread, but felt that it was necessary to point out that the original post was incorrect. App State is a part of the Southern Conference. The Southern Conference is a 9 team football league and a 12 team basketball conference and one of, if not, the best FCS football conferences in the nation.

[Kung Wu]

Perkins turned his lack of desire to actually do the job into a plus on his resume.

And that's exactly the mold I am trying to follow here on Shockernet. I'll just keep throwing out half-ass garbage replies, and maybe one of them will become a plus on my resume.

[shoxilla]

Do Nigerians play futbol?

[Txlen]

Yes, Christian "The Nigerian Nightmare” Okoye, played fullback for the Kansas City Chiefs, years ago. He was not a slouch player either.

[tropicalshox]

Well that's good. We can save money by making our DOB a DOB/F.