Would you support the return of football at WSU?

[SpanglerFan316]

Discussions about football are interesting, but pointless, ways to fill the "off-season" and so I will continue the discussion.

1. I don't understand the justification for claiming that bringing back football would (substantially) increase enrolment at WSU.

2. WSU has more administrators and fewer faculty now than it did in 1986. If there was a large enrollment increase, who would teach these additional students?

[Ta town]

Discussions about football are interesting, but pointless, ways to fill the "off-season" and so I will continue the discussion.

1. I don't understand the justification for claiming that bringing back football would (substantially) increase enrolment at WSU.

2. WSU has more administrators and fewer faculty now than it did in 1986. If there was a large enrollment increase, who would teach these additional students?

I seriously doubt it would bring a huge increase. It would increase though, just thru the addition of the football players, band members,etc. Also a few (notice I'm not saying even a large minority, just a few) students probably rule out WSU because they don't have football, as funny as that seems. My guess is it would help grow the student population but who knows how much.

As far as your comment on "who would teach". I would ask you this, is this a concern of yours if WSU was to grow without football? Why would WSU have enough instructors now to cover a larger student body in the future? Seems like a silly concern to me.

[SpanglerFan316]

I seriously doubt it would bring a huge increase. It would increase though, just thru the addition of the football players, band members,etc. Also a few (notice I'm not saying even a large minority, just a few) students probably rule out WSU because they don't have football, as funny as that seems. My guess is it would help grow the student population but who knows how much.

As far as your comment on "who would teach". I would ask you this, is this a concern of yours if WSU was to grow without football? Why would WSU have enough instructors now to cover a larger student body in the future? Seems like a silly concern to me.

That ("who would teach") is a fair question and I don't know the answer. The logical answer is "increase the number of faculty as the number of students increases" but this doesn't seem to be the right "political" answer (e.g. California public universities).

The addition of football might (1) drain resources and (2) increase enrolment (according to some people here) and make it more difficult for WSU to add faculty to meet an enrolment increase.

[Ta town]

That ("who would teach") is a fair question and I don't know the answer. The logical answer is "increase the number of faculty as the number of students increases" but this doesn't seem to be the right "political" answer (e.g. California public universities).

The addition of football might (1) drain resources and (2) increase enrolment (according to some people here) and make it more difficult for WSU to add faculty to meet an enrolment increase.

I don't believe WSU football would drain any resources from WSU the University outside of potential student fees. I don't believe and could be wrong here that the actual Athletic Department and the school share budgets, other than the Athletic Department receiving funds from WSU that is a pre determined amount made up of student fees/and some sort of annual support. Simply don't raise the part that isn't student fee related. As far as student fees, if they don't want them raised then they will vote to not raise them.

Do you believe that if WSU's enrollment increases that their support from the state wouldn't be increased proportionately?

[SpanglerFan316]

I don't believe WSU football would drain any resources from WSU the University outside of potential student fees. I don't believe and could be wrong here that the actual Athletic Department and the school share budgets, other than the Athletic Department receiving funds from WSU that is a pre determined amount made up of student fees/and some sort of annual support. Simply don't raise the part that isn't student fee related. As far as student fees, if they don't want them raised then they will vote to not raise them.

Do you believe that if WSU's enrollment increases that their support from the state wouldn't be increased proportionately?

As to your last question, I have doubts about increased state support. I don't claim to be an expert (on the financial aspects of the problem) but my impression is that the state no longer funds universities on a "per student" or "per student credit hour" basis but gives each university a "block grant" which is independent of enrolment.

The students (or their parents) receive a "bill" which is the sum of tuition and fees. If fees need to be increased (e.g. for football), this leaves less ability to raise tuition to help fund the university. WSU has very low tuition (compare KU, KSU, etc.) now but, with the state support for higher education always being a potential issue, the university might need the flexibility to increase tuition.

[Ta town]

As to your last question, I have doubts about increased state support. I don't claim to be an expert (on the financial aspects of the problem) but my impression is that the state no longer funds universities on a "per student" or "per student credit hour" basis but gives each university a "block grant" which is independent of enrolment.

The students (or their parents) receive a "bill" which is the sum of tuition and fees. If fees need to be increased (e.g. for football), this leaves less ability to raise tuition to help fund the university. WSU has very low tuition (compare KU, KSU, etc.) now but, with the state support for higher education always being a potential issue, the university might need the flexibility to increase tuition.

I'm of the opinion that adding 100 dollars per semester to the student fees wouldn't make it any less affordable to WSU students. What percentage of students are slightly older at WSU and work full time? What percentage live at home and save on room and board? What percentage would just see that as only an extra 100 bucks to tack onto their loans. Again that is my opinion and maybe an extra 25 dollars every month doesn't mean to me what it does to others, that I concede.

[SpanglerFan316]

I'm of the opinion that adding 100 dollars per semester to the student fees wouldn't make it any less affordable to WSU students. What percentage of students are slightly older at WSU and work full time? What percentage live at home and save on room and board? What percentage would just see that as only an extra 100 bucks to tack onto their loans. Again that is my opinion and maybe an extra 25 dollars every month doesn't mean to me what it does to others, that I concede.

That same $100 per student, if added to tuition rather than fees, could be used to bring in a new business, music, engineering or other professor who might enhance students' education.

[Ta town]

So increase tuition and do that.

[Ta town]

I don't agree that it's one or the other, or that they conflict.

[SpanglerFan316]

I don't agree that it's one or the other, or that they conflict.

To a limited extent, I agree with you. However, at some point when the potential increases in fees and in tuition become large enough, they will conflict. I also think most students would prefer to spend "their" money on their education (i.e. tuition) than on athletics.

The SGA is not really representative of students in general; certain groups (e.g. "Greek houses") have influence beyond their numbers. SGA interest in football as an indicator of student interest would be flawed.

[shox1989]

I would definitely support Shocker football. I don't know how many of you get ESPN the Magazine but there is an interesting tidbit of information on page 103 of the JUNE 25, 2012 Double issue.

It is in the article THE TOP 25 ALL-TIME SPORTS DEBATES DECIDED. The question is what should college football players be paid? Their answer is $137,000 per year (the average amount that all FBS football schools make above expenses and scholarships per player per year on football).

But the most interesting part of the article to me is this line:

"Smaller conferences net far less income (although only nine FBS schools failed to break even). "

If this is true that means the vast majority of schools in even the conferences like C-USA, MWC, WAC, MAC and Sun Belt make money on football.

So another good reason for WSU to bring back football is that once we get back to the FBS level (the level WSU was at when it dropped football), odds are very good that it will be a money maker for the athletic dept.

WSU could use another sport another than men's basketball (and occasionally men's baseball) to turn a profit.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8042283/sonny-liston-tiger-woods-phil-jackson-top-greatest-debates-sports-espn-magazine

[_kai_]

I would definitely support Shocker football. I don't know how many of you get ESPN the Magazine but there is an interesting tidbit of information on page 103 of the JUNE 25, 2012 Double issue.

It is in the article THE TOP 25 ALL-TIME SPORTS DEBATES DECIDED. The question is what should college football players be paid? Their answer is $137,000 per year (the average amount that all FBS football schools make above expenses and scholarships per player per year on football).

But the most interesting part of the article to me is this line:

"Smaller conferences net far less income (although only nine FBS schools failed to break even). "

If this is true that means the vast majority of schools in even the conferences like C-USA, MWC, WAC, MAC and Sun Belt make money on football.

So another good reason for WSU to bring back football is that once we get back to the FBS level (the level WSU was at when it dropped football), odds are very good that it will be a money maker for the athletic dept.

WSU could use another sport another than men's basketball (and occasionally men's baseball) to turn a profit.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8...-espn-magazine

That is a very misleading statement because Football (just like basketball at wsu) is the bread winner. So If a school "makes" $200k on football for the year, they will be categorized as a team that made money, obviously. But what it doesn't state, is that because of football, they had to add women's soccer, lacrosse, softball, and tennis. And all 4 of those lose money every year. If they lost more than 200k, then technically their football program wouldn't be very profitable, if that were the case.

[SubGod22]

I bet a decent women's soccer team could pull its own weight fairly well. Maybe not a money maker unless really good, but one that wouldn't lose a ton. I believe volleyball here is at that level. I think soccer could potentially be.

[_kai_]

I bet a decent women's soccer team could pull its own weight fairly well. Maybe not a money maker unless really good, but one that wouldn't lose a ton. I believe volleyball here is at that level. I think soccer could potentially be.

It's definitely one of the sports that allows for there to be larger attendance numbers, than say Tennis. Low equipment investment too. Pretty sure they could use Cessna as well. I'd definitely support W Soccer at WSU.

[1972Shocker]

I bet a decent women's soccer team could pull its own weight fairly well. Maybe not a money maker unless really good, but one that wouldn't lose a ton. I believe volleyball here is at that level. I think soccer could potentially be.

If you are saying Volleyball is not a money maker and doesn't lose a ton you are probably right (depending on how you define a ton). Unfortunately, attendance has been declining over the last several years after peaking in 2008.

Recent annual attendance numbers for VB:
2006 - 29,200
2007 - 35,700
2008 - 44,500
2009 - 37,600
2010 - 30,000
2011 - 28,000 (No doubt hurt by a paucity of non-conference home matches which should not be repeated this year).

At an average if $5 a pop (which might be on the high end) we generate about $140,000 to $190,000 in ticket revenues. Add in maybe $40,000 from the VB 101 Dinners and you get to $180,000 to $230,000 plus whatever the take is from concessions and match sponsorships/promos. Maybe enough all total ot cover the salaries of Lambo, Jeff, RJ and Mrs. Lambo (my guess is $250,000 as a group not including payroll taxes and any benefits). So we are not covering any travel, meals and lodging (including recruiting trips), uniforms, equipment, supplies and the cost of 12 scholarships, training staff, etc.

Not sure how big a deficit that leaves and I admit my numbers are WAGs. I doubt we would have to spend as much on the coaching staff for women's soccer but I don't really thing it will draw all that well either. Creighton, Illinois State and MSU were the top teams in the MVC last year. CU has drawn about 500 per match over the past 3 years. Illinois State draws about 200 per mtach. MSU drew 370 per match last year which was the only year I could find. They play anywhere from 8 to 12 home matches per year. In any case, they aren't generating a lot of revenue and I see no reason to think soccer at WSU would do any better.

Women's soccer is an equivalency sport that is allowed 14 scholarships to divy up. Roster sizes are CU - 21, ILS - 26 and MSU - 28 and, of course, would vary from year-to-year.