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

[The Mad Hatter]

I don't have a dog in the football fight, but this is a timely article with some interesting information:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...terstitialskip

After reading that, I'm not sure what that might say about Wichita State, its students (if non-supportive), its fandom, and community. Throughout this whole economic downturn, I've felt the Wichita area has held up better than most. I, too, have tried to take a neutral position on football, but have been active in posing questions as to "why not football". There have been a number of posters, whose opinions I respect, strongly oppose bringing back football. What's so different about WSU and Wichita than these other schools who say they have done a thorough study of this issue and are adding football? What say ye.

I think that there may be any number of things that this article might say in application to WSU (both in favor and against football). One thing I notice is that this is the list of teams adding Division I football in the article (clearly the comparable schools to WSU rather than those adding DII, DIII, or NAIA):

Old Dominion (2009)
South Alabama* (2010)
Georgia State (2010)
Lamar (2010)
Texas-San Antonio (2011)
Charlotte (2013)

All of these schools are Southern, warm-weather schools in areas of the country where high school football is much bigger than in Kansas. It may be coincidental that this is true, but I have yet to see large numbers of non-Southern schools adding football at the Division I level.

I think that the most important thing to remember is that the variables at each institution are different and that assuming that the model that works at one school is the only model of success is dangerous.

Even at these schools, we don't know whether the balance between trying to boost enrollment and financial stability will work out, much less at all schools. I'll quote part of a post from tgcshock in another thread:

"The real crisis facing college athletics" is not the need for a major football playoff system, two co-chairmen of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics wrote in The Washington Post recently, but rather "the sustainability of its business model, which is on a path toward meltdown" because of soaring costs amid a troubled economic environment.

President R. Gerald Turner, of Southern Methodist University, and chancellor William E. Kirwan, of the University of Maryland, noted that NCAA statistics showed that nearly 80 percent of the 120 athletic programs that sponsor major-college football reported operating deficits in the 2007-08 school year.

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/utahutes/ci_14135269

Therefore, in my mind, I do not find it unreasonable to hope for increased enrollment from adding football, but that does not make it a good idea unless it can be done in a fiscally responsible way. I don't want a short term boost, I want something that can be sustained over the long term.

The problem I have is that I am hearing a lot about why people want football, but not as much about how to make it a sustainable venture.

[Shox21]

What is WSU's enrollment? It sounded like the two schools in the article were traditional rather than commuter based, and would this make a difference?

[Good News]

I don't have a dog in the football fight, but this is a timely article with some interesting information:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/colle...terstitialskip

After reading that, I'm not sure what that might say about Wichita State, its students (if non-supportive), its fandom, and community. Throughout this whole economic downturn, I've felt the Wichita area has held up better than most. I, too, have tried to take a neutral position on football, but have been active in posing questions as to "why not football". There have been a number of posters, whose opinions I respect, strongly oppose bringing back football. What's so different about WSU and Wichita than these other schools who say they have done a thorough study of this issue and are adding football? What say ye.

I think that there may be any number of things that this article might say in application to WSU (both in favor and against football). One thing I notice is that this is the list of teams adding Division I football in the article (clearly the comparable schools to WSU rather than those adding DII, DIII, or NAIA):

Old Dominion (2009)
South Alabama* (2010)
Georgia State (2010)
Lamar (2010)
Texas-San Antonio (2011)
Charlotte (2013)

All of these schools are Southern, warm-weather schools in areas of the country where high school football is much bigger than in Kansas. It may be coincidental that this is true, but I have yet to see large numbers of non-Southern schools adding football at the Division I level.

I think that the most important thing to remember is that the variables at each institution are different and that assuming that the model that works at one school is the only model of success is dangerous.

Even at these schools, we don't know whether the balance between trying to boost enrollment and financial stability will work out, much less at all schools. I'll quote part of a post from tgcshock in another thread:

"The real crisis facing college athletics" is not the need for a major football playoff system, two co-chairmen of the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics wrote in The Washington Post recently, but rather "the sustainability of its business model, which is on a path toward meltdown" because of soaring costs amid a troubled economic environment.

President R. Gerald Turner, of Southern Methodist University, and chancellor William E. Kirwan, of the University of Maryland, noted that NCAA statistics showed that nearly 80 percent of the 120 athletic programs that sponsor major-college football reported operating deficits in the 2007-08 school year.

Source: http://www.sltrib.com/utahutes/ci_14135269

Therefore, in my mind, I do not find it unreasonable to hope for increased enrollment from adding football, but that does not make it a good idea unless it can be done in a fiscally responsible way. I don't want a short term boost, I want something that can be sustained over the long term.

The problem I have is that I am hearing a lot about why people want football, but not as much about how to make it a sustainable venture.

The recruiting angle is a not insignificant point, particularly for a program starting up. This topic came up the other day when I was discussing Texas State's transition into FCS with a friend who is a former player and follows their transition closely.

Within a 100 mile radius of both Texas State and UTSA is a population of 3+ million and loads of D1 football talent. Recruiting for a startup program is nothing more than getting local kids to stay home, and was a primary catalyst for both programs to target FCS status.

[Veritas]

The article highlights what a lot of us have been saying.

I believe the challenge with WSU (and it will get worse) is that our demographics of students have changed tremendously since 1986. It is my belief that current demographics indicate that WSU is full of commuters, part time students, and International Students who couldn't care less about football (and in the future, couldn't care less about any sport). Their main objective is to receive an education at the least possible price. It's hard to believe that a full time parent working a full time job going to school part time will vote to pay any fees for any sport.

I'm afraid the problem in the future is that non-traditional WSU students won't care about athletics at all.
Bringing back football could help fast-track a change in attracting more traditional students and thus help all sports at WSU. This football issue is a lot more than simply football. It's about the growth of WSU, conference affiliation, city pride, school pride, and most importantly...reducing the risk of all sports at WSU.

[Kung Wu]

Their main objective is to receive an education at the least possible price. It's hard to believe that a full time parent working a full time job going to school part time will vote to pay any fees for any sport.

Not sure about that. Butler County C.C. is half the price of WSU. If the students at WSU are that price sensitive they have MUCH more inexpensive options.

Most all of the foreign students are paying massive non-resident tuitions -- $150 wouldn't even show up in the rounding of the tuition they are paying per semester. Here is a data point: Regular Semester and Summer Session Per Credit Hour Non-Resident rate: $425.20 plus $34.20 per credit hour in fees plus facilities use fee of 3.60 per hour. That's a whopping $463 per credit hour. (reference: 2010 Tuition Rates) That's for a non-resident undergrad!

For a non-resident, $150 per semester would be a %2.22 increase in tuition at 15 credit hours per semester -- and thats before you add all of the department fees.

For residents, it comes to about 5.1% increase. For the part timers, that could be hard to stomach. But according to this link there were about 11,000 full time students two years ago. Perhaps the fee should be a $12.5 per credit hour fee, not a flat $150/semester. That makes the part timers pay at the same rate.

Would there be noise by including a $12.5/credit hour "athletic" fee? Yes. Would it cause a noticeable drop in enrollment? Hard to say. Would any loss be offset by increased enrollment due to having a more enthusiastic alumni base in the long term? Hard to say. That's what marketing departments are for. :)

Would the fee even have to be that high? Probably not, there are hybrid solutions to this puzzle.

[RoyalShock]

At WSU the fees would have to be per credit hour.

The financial sustainability question is answered by student fees being the primary indirect funding source. That's the only way any program not named Texas, Ohio State or Michigan (plus a few others) can fund football and the balancing Title IX sports.

If students were to agree to an increase that would still keep WSU below KU and KSU, accumulate those funds for a couple of years during fundraising efforts, I think a program could get started.

What makes that more difficult is that students are currently paying extra fees for Koch Arena and a Rhatigan remodel. Will they be open to yet another non-academic fee increase along with likely academic fee increases?

[The Mad Hatter]

At WSU the fees would have to be per credit hour.

The financial sustainability question is answered by student fees being the primary indirect funding source. That's the only way any program not named Texas, Ohio State or Michigan (plus a few others) can fund football and the balancing Title IX sports.

If students were to agree to an increase that would still keep WSU below KU and KSU, accumulate those funds for a couple of years during fundraising efforts, I think a program could get started.

What makes that more difficult is that students are currently paying extra fees for Koch Arena and a Rhatigan remodel. Will they be open to yet another non-academic fee increase along with likely academic fee increases?

At a time when the cost of college is spirally out of control and student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt in this nation, I have a hard time laying the burden for funding football on the students.

Since I have questions about whether the current model of funding the average student's education is sustainable, I have doubts about whether students fees are truly a sustainable funding model.

As to the issue of the traditional student, I hope that people on this board realize that the traditional student model of higher education is dying out. Across the nation people are less and less likely to go straight to college out of high school and graduate without interruption. You might bemoan WSU being a commuter campus, but in many ways it makes us better prepared than most schools for the changing demographics. Those schools that heavily depend on traditional students in their funding model are going to be harder hit by these trends than those that have already adjusted to incorporating non-traditional students.

[tgcshock]

To back up what TMH is saying, as early as 10 years ago 73% of all college students had at least one trait associated with non-traditional students (http://www.acenet.edu/AM/PrinterTemp...CONTENTID=6482)
and everyone agrees that non-traditional students are the fastest growing segment of the college population. I think this does work in WSU's favor overall because the administration is already used to doing what many colleges are just learning how to do. It may have implications for the football argument however. Not sure that any of us older posters (like myself) can appeal back to our own college experience because that experience may have already largely gone the way of the 8-track tape.

[ShockBand]

We could just play virtual using Madden - only cost is the box and a good broadband connection.

[RoyalShock]

We could just play virtual using Madden - only cost is the box and a good broadband connection.

When XBox comes out with a system that can handle 11 controllers, we're in business!!!

WSU can hire a few coaches then have open tryouts at RSC!

[1972Shocker]

We could just play virtual using Madden - only cost is the box and a good broadband connection.

When XBox comes out with a system that can handle 11 controllers, we're in business!!!

WSU can hire a few coaches then have open tryouts at RSC!

You never know. My grandson just attended a "Halo" tournament in Denver a couple of weeks ago. Their were 105 Four-person teams entered and that was considered a low turnout for their events (called combines) I'm pretty sure my wife and I were the oldest people in the room.

[1972Shocker]

Not sure how technology will impact the "traditional" student model as we move on in the 21st century. The growth of the cyber-campus may impact the nature of both the current "traditional" and "non-traditional student".

[Veritas]

Good points TMH and tgcshock. I think to your point, the WSU administration already has a well established head start in attracting non-traditional students (some of it by accident/default with the demise of football), though according to the KBoR data from 2002-2007 it looks like even PT students might be declining which was probably hit very hard with the expansion of Butler Community College and their aggressive off-campus marketing. The gamble by the KBoR and Pres Armstrong to pigeon hole WSU into a commuter school niche has backfired.

See page 71 (or page 81): http://www.kspsd.org/IR/common/docum..._rev123008.pdf

Page 71 (or 81) of the attached link shows some interesting data. While WSU looks to shrink on all accounts, they did see a slight increase in the number of FT students (approx 330) which could be attributed to the number of Int'l students.

I'm sure we've seen an increase in students in the past 3 years due to the recession and students sticking closer to home, but these numbers don't look encouraging. FHSU continues to grow attracting out of state students. In the next 10 years, they might be the 3rd largest University in the state of Kansas.

http://www.kansasregents.org/feb_18_2010_spring_semester_enrollment

It makes me wonder what exactly is the WSU niche?

Tuition costs on page 11 and 12 (or 17)

WSU needs to grow at least with the same percentage as the city of Wichita. Bring back football before it's too late!

[SB Shock]

I believe the challenge with WSU (and it will get worse) is that our demographics of students have changed tremendously since 1986.

I would like to see a comparison of the demographics for 1986 and now. I see people using this as a argument, but no facts. I'm not disputing this because I don't know one way or the other and would like to see the details.

[Veritas]

I believe the challenge with WSU (and it will get worse) is that our demographics of students have changed tremendously since 1986.

I would like to see a comparison of the demographics for 1986 and now. I see people using this as a argument, but no facts. I'm not disputing this because I don't know one way or the other and would like to see the details.

I'll try to find it SB Shock: Here is an interesting article on K-State's cross road decision.

http://www.kstatecollegian.com/wefald-s-passion-leads-to-wildcats-athletic-turnaround-1.746588#5