Would you support the return of football at WSU?

[SB Shock]

[SubGod22]

If you don't like the subject, don't read it. It's obvious what the discussion in this thread is going to be.

Don't be pissed when we're in a **** conference with no hope of ever being more.

[SB Shock]

I love the subject. It is good comedy. I love having people repeat the same old stuff and expect that somehow "TODAY" it is somehow is going to be different.

I was at WSU when there was football, I was at WSU when there wasn't football. Nothing changed for me excpet I found new things to do on Saturdays. WSU doesn't have football because the community did not support it and will not support it. Bringing back football is cost prohibative.

If you don't like devil advocates view, then don't bring up football.

[SubGod22]

Football has greatly changed in popularity since then. We will never move up without it. There's not enough similar schools in the area. And smaller schools with less money can do it so I don't buy the **** of not being able to afford it

[Ta town]

Football has greatly changed in popularity since then. We will never move up without it. There's not enough similar schools in the area. And smaller schools with less money can do it so I don't buy the **** of not being able to afford it

I don't like it when the argument is it didn't work before.

I think football is much more popular and Wichita metro has grown roughly 30% since 1985. Would it be successful, I don't know but I would be willing to argue the situation is different between now and 1986.

Also give it another year or two under Gene and the "do you want bad baseball" argument will be worthless as well. We will already have bad baseball.

The SGA consistently had football as a topic last fall during meetings (the minutes are available online) and they had that survey of shocker students and they met with Sexton at one point on the topic. Obviously the leadership doesn't want to pursue it as I haven't seen anything on it this semester.

[KraRam]

Option 6 - No. I do not support the return of football.

10 Million in dept when we got rid of it the last time.
We would not be D1.
After the first three years when we don't win...there will not be any fans in the stands. Been there done that.
Without TV money from a conference there is not way to make this (football) a revenue generator.

[KraRam]

Football has greatly changed in popularity since then. We will never move up without it. There's not enough similar schools in the area. And smaller schools with less money can do it so I don't buy the **** of not being able to afford it

Mo. State was asked how they can afford football; That is easy, we don't pay our Basketball coach 1 mil a year.

If we want football are you going to ask Marshall for a pay cut?

[SubGod22]

First off, we would be D1. 2nd, football is a different animal than when it was here 25 years ago. No, we wouldn't have to pay our basketball coach like they do at MSU. With the right leadership, it can be done and be done well. It doesn't have to generate revenue by itself. It just can't afford to lose millions upon millions every year. It would also lead to an increase of merchandise sales and most likely enrollment. All of which generate a decent chunk of change for the University.

After a few years we could try and position ourselves for a move up from FCS to FBS with an invite from another conference. By then, there may be a spot available in whatever becomes of the MWC/CUSA alliance. Unless we somehow snag an invite to the A-10, we're looking at some rough times in what's left of the Valley 10 years from now. I'd be surprised if Creighton or Illinois State are still in the conference then. MSU and BU may also end up elsewhere depending on how things shake out.

The more I read about the Alliance, the less likely it's looking that they'll take nonfootball members even if they go to 24 teams.

Hopefully the new President will at least be willing to look into it. I'm not sure if Sexton is enough of a visionary to do lead the cause if it presents itself.

[KraRam]

Division 1 College Football Requirements

"Division I is the top level of competition in the NCAA, the governing body for major college sports. Not all Division I schools maintain football programs, but those that do are divided into two subdivisions. The Football Bowl Subdivision, or FBS, is the big schools---the ones that play on national TV. FBS used to be called Division I-A. Smaller schools play in the Football Championship Subdivision, or FCS, the former Division I-AA. To field a football team in either subdivision, a school must fulfill a number of NCAA requirements."

Read more: Division 1 College Football Requirements | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6660709_div...#ixzz1py1vB3ON

You are correct we could be D1 FCS - but why? I think I would rather be DII and have a chance to win games.

[SubGod22]

I know all about the requirements. You go FCS so you can build towards FBS. DII would not be supported. FCS, I believe, would be supported. Especially if it was known that the goal was to jump to FBS in a certain amount of time.

[KraRam]

Sorry, I appreciate your enthusiasm but I don't see it. Crunch the dollar numbers for the requirements and it does not work. That does not include the stadium renovation that will have to be done. Factor in the potential loss of men's "other" sports to support Title IX requirement and I am less enthused. You may be completely right about the conference changes. But in ten years concussion lawsuits may have killed football and then it will be a mad scramble for other sports. Soccer being at the top of the list. Also with the cost getting bigger and only the big schools making money, I will bet there will actually be more schools getting out of football which will open up all new avenues for conference re-alignment.

I would love to have football back, but "wanting" and "being able to do it right" are two different things. But hey, I could be wrong.

[rrshock]

Can a D1 school even play D2? I don't think its allowed. Only the reverse is in one sport per school.

There would need to be 3 women's sports added to offset football. Soccer, swimming and diving are the easiest to add account facilities are already available.

Plus adding football and additional women's sports would help to increase enrollment at the university. Football surely has to be more financially feasible now than it was in 1985 when it was dropped.

[rrshock]

Oh and we could could add women's beach volleyball as well.

[WSUwatcher]

Oh and we could could add women's beach volleyball as well.

Hmmm...now there's an idea worth supporting.

For the football diehards like Cold, Fever -- is one of them Fred Marrs? (if not, my apologies to him) -- Sub, and any others, here's an item I stumbled upon at ESPN the other day. Apologies if anyone else has posted it elsewhere:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7834061/terry-bowden-akron-plight-mid-major-college-football-program

It's a story about how Akron, the MAC school that shares a rare distinction with WSU (a D-1 national championship won by a "mid-major" in what is not purely a regional sport, namely soccer in the case of the Zips), has decided to try to play D-1 "FBS" football despite having no recent tradition of success and no realistic chance of getting into a BCS automatic qualifying conference (sound familiar?) -- which means that it will almost surely be a money pit. Yet they're trying it anyway, and have hired Terry Bowden -- yes, that Terry Bowden -- as their coach.

I just don't see it, and the old guy quoted at the very end of the story doesn't either. But obviously someone in charge does.

[Ta town]

I don't think football would work here but I think all the nay sayers need to just keep quiet when CU finally leaves the MVC, maybe even MSU and ISU and WSU is left with a POS conference and no where to go.