(09-26-2022 05:16 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  https://www.nola.com/sports/article_4706...71593.html

I wonder .... can students vote to end the fee in the future?

IMO, if the school can sock students with a mandator athletic fee based on a referendum vote, then it should be equally easy for students in the future to end the fee with the same kind of vote.

I don't know if that is true at UNO or not, but if not, it should be.

A few notes on this....

* Officials at UNO and the Southland office have told me they expect this vote to pass. You never *really* know with students, and some votes have failed recently, but the word on the street is that they are expecting to be successful.

* This has absolutely nothing to do with moving to FBS, and honestly, doesn't even have that much to do with winning football games. UNO sees this as a donor engagement move, a student recruitment and retention move, and a *real estate move*. There's a lot of undeveloped land on the lakefront near UNO's campus, and the school has actually turned a profit on renting out athletic facilities like tennis courts before...and with this facility potentially being used by professional soccer, high schools and concerts, and with that part of the city not having a higher quality stadium, there is optimism that costs can be contained even if attendance for UNO football isn't huge.

* Back last year, when it looked like the Southland was on the ropes, UNO called around several different conferences, and was told their lack of a FB program hurt their options. They see this as a way to give their athletic department stability and give them more options, just in case. The Southland really wants this too, because even though they look stable now, as we've all seen, membership can change very quickly.

* IMO, the only ethical way to do this is if UNO was able to substantially match any commitment from students with corporate and community money. They appear to have done that. If the students don't think this is worth $300 bucks, then they shouldn't do it, but the school has found other money, especially for the stadium project.

TL;DR, UNO doesn't really care if this team only goes .500 and draws 5000 people a game. That's not the point. If it helps them recruit and retain students, and if they can find multi-uses for the stadium, it was a good use of money and resources.

(09-27-2022 08:04 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few notes on this....

* Officials at UNO and the Southland office have told me they expect this vote to pass. You never *really* know with students, and some votes have failed recently, but the word on the street is that they are expecting to be successful.

* This has absolutely nothing to do with moving to FBS, and honestly, doesn't even have that much to do with winning football games. UNO sees this as a donor engagement move, a student recruitment and retention move, and a *real estate move*. There's a lot of undeveloped land on the lakefront near UNO's campus, and the school has actually turned a profit on renting out athletic facilities like tennis courts before...and with this facility potentially being used by professional soccer, high schools and concerts, and with that part of the city not having a higher quality stadium, there is optimism that costs can be contained even if attendance for UNO football isn't huge.

* Back last year, when it looked like the Southland was on the ropes, UNO called around several different conferences, and was told their lack of a FB program hurt their options. They see this as a way to give their athletic department stability and give them more options, just in case. The Southland really wants this too, because even though they look stable now, as we've all seen, membership can change very quickly.

* IMO, the only ethical way to do this is if UNO was able to substantially match any commitment from students with corporate and community money. They appear to have done that. If the students don't think this is worth $300 bucks, then they shouldn't do it, but the school has found other money, especially for the stadium project.

TL;DR, UNO doesn't really care if this team only goes .500 and draws 5000 people a game. That's not the point. If it helps them recruit and retain students, and if they can find multi-uses for the stadium, it was a good use of money and resources.

That's a great synopsis. It shows how schools look at athletic programs beyond whether it's a straight profit/loss calculation (whether it might be optimistic or not).

If they add football that gives the Southland nine football members with one not sponsoring football. A 9/10 setup is ideal as it gives everyone an eight game schedule in football and 18 in basketball.

(09-27-2022 05:42 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 06:03 PM)Bobcats30 Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 05:39 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  CUSA on Line 1.

Not happening. Would need more than the $4-5 million for the expenses in adding football, women's golf, women's soccer and marching band to the athletic department.

Isn’t marching band part of the music dept at most schools? Either way it is co-Ed. Would red a third woman’s sport to offset football scholarships.

Yeah, I have a very hard time imagining that a school in New Orleans of all places wouldn't have a marching band.

I also would be surprised if a conference actually required a school to have a marching band. If you don't have a band to excite your fans at games, that's kind of your school's problem- I'm not sure why the conference would care about it.

(09-26-2022 09:00 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 05:29 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Dream BIG (I guess). Just another method to try to increase enrollment.

Or lose lots of money you don’t have.

That always seems to be the end-goal for these schools.

(09-27-2022 05:50 AM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(09-27-2022 05:42 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 06:03 PM)Bobcats30 Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 05:39 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  CUSA on Line 1.

Not happening. Would need more than the $4-5 million for the expenses in adding football, women's golf, women's soccer and marching band to the athletic department.

Isn’t marching band part of the music dept at most schools? Either way it is co-Ed. Would red a third woman’s sport to offset football scholarships.

You're correct. Marching bands are part of music departments at any university.

Yes and no. Officially it's a course you sign up for through the music department, but there's also often a budget component that comes from the athletic department.

For reference, when UMass and App State played in the FCS Championship game, the funds to send the band along came from athletics (I had friends from various teams, field hockey and such, mention that they had to sacrifice some funding for new gear that year because of it).

My prediction: Football will be implemented at UNO, the hoped-for increases in enrollment and/or donations will either not happen, at least not anywhere near the level needed to make football a money-maker in the sense of the money value of the enrollment increase or donations increase exceeding the costs of the fees and transfers used to fund it, or if they do happen it won't be proved that they were attributable to football, and yet football will nevertheless go on and on, the program will not be canceled.

(09-27-2022 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2022 08:04 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few notes on this....

* Officials at UNO and the Southland office have told me they expect this vote to pass. You never *really* know with students, and some votes have failed recently, but the word on the street is that they are expecting to be successful.

* This has absolutely nothing to do with moving to FBS, and honestly, doesn't even have that much to do with winning football games. UNO sees this as a donor engagement move, a student recruitment and retention move, and a *real estate move*. There's a lot of undeveloped land on the lakefront near UNO's campus, and the school has actually turned a profit on renting out athletic facilities like tennis courts before...and with this facility potentially being used by professional soccer, high schools and concerts, and with that part of the city not having a higher quality stadium, there is optimism that costs can be contained even if attendance for UNO football isn't huge.

* Back last year, when it looked like the Southland was on the ropes, UNO called around several different conferences, and was told their lack of a FB program hurt their options. They see this as a way to give their athletic department stability and give them more options, just in case. The Southland really wants this too, because even though they look stable now, as we've all seen, membership can change very quickly.

* IMO, the only ethical way to do this is if UNO was able to substantially match any commitment from students with corporate and community money. They appear to have done that. If the students don't think this is worth $300 bucks, then they shouldn't do it, but the school has found other money, especially for the stadium project.

TL;DR, UNO doesn't really care if this team only goes .500 and draws 5000 people a game. That's not the point. If it helps them recruit and retain students, and if they can find multi-uses for the stadium, it was a good use of money and resources.

That's a great synopsis. It shows how schools look at athletic programs beyond whether it's a straight profit/loss calculation (whether it might be optimistic or not).

Yep. I remember reading some articles some time ago about how an emerging trend at a lot of smaller D3 liberal arts colleges was to add a football team and it how it made practical and economic sense on multiple levels:

1. D3 doens't award scholarships, so all students who enroll to play football usually pay some amount of tuition even after factoring in Financial aid (Ex: an 80-man roster paying an average of $25k/yr after financial aid can net about $2M in tuition revenue)
2. Helps even out Male-Female Student body ratios by bringing on an extra 80-100 male students on campus every year (not a small thing at small colleges that generally skew female)
3. Can influence campus atmosphere and school spirit, while also serving as a selling point to prospective students, and an additonal way to engage alumni (homecoming games, football banquets, etc.)
4. Facilities improvements can be easier to obtain/justify (i.e. convert a soccer stadium to a multi-use field, expanding locker rooms/weight rooms, etc) since they're also usually utilzed by other sports as well.
   

Found the article from 2013:
https://www.sbnation.com/longform/2013/1...revolution

Seems like UNO is basically trying to use the same playbook as a marketing tool and enrollment growth engine. Especially if they can use it as an excuse to build new sports stadiums/facilities to create a new revenue stream via facilities rentals.

How successful it may be is TBD, but I can see the logic. NOLA and Louisiana love football for sure. And since LSU is some distance away in Baton Rouge, while Tulane seems to be its own thing independent of the city as an selective private university (ala Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulsa etc.), I think there is a space in the market for UNO to take up. Especially if they attract local recruits not good enough for LSU or who are overlooked by/not interested in Tulane and want to stay close to home...and having a brand new and eye-catching lakefront stadium doesn't hurt either.

(09-26-2022 09:00 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  

(09-26-2022 06:28 PM)46566 Wrote:  Makes sense and helps the southland. I guess there's also hopes for buy games.

Doesn’t help the SLC, they don’t need it anyway.

. I think C-USA. isn't done expanding. It's always best to backfill at FCS level and at least UNO would count immediately as a FCS game.

Overlooked/not interested could ALSO mean “can’t get in”

(09-28-2022 12:36 PM)Cruhawk Wrote:  

(09-27-2022 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2022 08:04 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few notes on this....

* Officials at UNO and the Southland office have told me they expect this vote to pass. You never *really* know with students, and some votes have failed recently, but the word on the street is that they are expecting to be successful.

* This has absolutely nothing to do with moving to FBS, and honestly, doesn't even have that much to do with winning football games. UNO sees this as a donor engagement move, a student recruitment and retention move, and a *real estate move*. There's a lot of undeveloped land on the lakefront near UNO's campus, and the school has actually turned a profit on renting out athletic facilities like tennis courts before...and with this facility potentially being used by professional soccer, high schools and concerts, and with that part of the city not having a higher quality stadium, there is optimism that costs can be contained even if attendance for UNO football isn't huge.

* Back last year, when it looked like the Southland was on the ropes, UNO called around several different conferences, and was told their lack of a FB program hurt their options. They see this as a way to give their athletic department stability and give them more options, just in case. The Southland really wants this too, because even though they look stable now, as we've all seen, membership can change very quickly.

* IMO, the only ethical way to do this is if UNO was able to substantially match any commitment from students with corporate and community money. They appear to have done that. If the students don't think this is worth $300 bucks, then they shouldn't do it, but the school has found other money, especially for the stadium project.

TL;DR, UNO doesn't really care if this team only goes .500 and draws 5000 people a game. That's not the point. If it helps them recruit and retain students, and if they can find multi-uses for the stadium, it was a good use of money and resources.

That's a great synopsis. It shows how schools look at athletic programs beyond whether it's a straight profit/loss calculation (whether it might be optimistic or not).

Yep. I remember reading some articles some time ago about how an emerging trend at a lot of smaller D3 liberal arts colleges was to add a football team and it how it made practical and economic sense on multiple levels:

1. D3 doens't award scholarships, so all students who enroll to play football usually pay some amount of tuition even after factoring in Financial aid (Ex: an 80-man roster paying an average of $25k/yr after financial aid can net about $2M in tuition revenue)
2. Helps even out Male-Female Student body ratios by bringing on an extra 80-100 male students on campus every year (not a small thing at small colleges that generally skew female)
3. Can influence campus atmosphere and school spirit, while also serving as a selling point to prospective students, and an additonal way to engage alumni (homecoming games, football banquets, etc.)
4. Facilities improvements can be easier to obtain/justify (i.e. convert a soccer stadium to a multi-use field, expanding locker rooms/weight rooms, etc) since they're also usually utilzed by other sports as well.
   

Found the article from 2013:
https://www.sbnation.com/longform/2013/1...revolution

Seems like UNO is basically trying to use the same playbook as a marketing tool and enrollment growth engine. Especially if they can use it as an excuse to build new sports stadiums/facilities to create a new revenue stream via facilities rentals.

How successful it may be is TBD, but I can see the logic. NOLA and Louisiana love football for sure. And since LSU is some distance away in Baton Rouge, while Tulane seems to be its own thing independent of the city as an selective private university (ala Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulsa etc.), I think there is a space in the market for UNO to take up. Especially if they attract local recruits not good enough for LSU or who are overlooked by/not interested in Tulane and want to stay close to home...and having a brand new and eye-catching lakefront stadium doesn't hurt either.

I'm just not sure how well this will work.

Though I don't think you mentioned it, I thought about the impact of a new stadium on football attendance, so I just picked two random years for Tulane, one before and one after the construction of Yulman. In 2010, Tulane's NCAA attendance figure was 23,000 per game. In 2019, the last year before covid-19, it was 20,000 per game. Maybe those are unrepresentative years, but it doesn't look like Yulman has been a big boost for football attendance. I love Yulman, btw, it's a far more fun place to watch a Tulane game than the cavernous Superdome, well at least when it isn't 90 degrees outside, but still.

I also read an article from a New Orleans outlet that mentioned that Texas State, ODU, Georgia State and USA all added football around 10 or so years ago and their enrollments shot up very significantly.

Again, not claiming this is scientific research, but I was able to find some info on all those schools. First, Texas State seems to have been playing football for over 100 years, but anyway, from what I could tell their enrollment was around 27k in 2006, about 34k in 2011, and around 38k in 2019 (again, to screen out covid), so it seems their enrollment has been going up for a while without football impact I can discern.

ODU ... ODU added football around 2009. Their enrollment was 18k in 1997, about 22k in 2007 and is about 24k today. Again, not much boost there since adding football, and enrollment was rising before football.

USA .... USA added football in 2009. In Fall 2007, enrollment was around 14.2k. In Fall 2019, enrollment was 14.6k, essentially flat, no boost I can see from football.

Georgia State ... started football in 2010. I could not find direct data but a peer-report from UTSA in 2016 said GS's enrollment was just above 30k in 2009 and was just above 32k in 2016, six years after football started. Not sure that is much of an increase.

Again, this is strictly an off-the-cuff presentation, I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong. But from what I could tell, I just don't see much of an enrollment boost from football at these schools.

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Again, not claiming this is scientific research, but I was able to find some info on all those schools. First, Texas State seems to have been playing football for over 100 years, but anyway, from what I could tell their enrollment was around 27k in 2006, about 34k in 2011, and around 38k in 2019 (again, to screen out covid), so it seems their enrollment has been going up for a while without football impact I can discern.

ODU ... ODU added football around 2009. Their enrollment was 18k in 1997, about 22k in 2007 and is about 24k today. Again, not much boost there since adding football, and enrollment was rising before football.

USA .... USA added football in 2009. In Fall 2007, enrollment was around 14.2k. In Fall 2019, enrollment was 14.6k, essentially flat, no boost I can see from football.

Georgia State ... started football in 2010. I could not find direct data but a peer-report from UTSA in 2016 said GS's enrollment was just above 30k in 2009 and was just above 32k in 2016, six years after football started. Not sure that is much of an increase.

Again, this is strictly an off-the-cuff presentation, I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong. But from what I could tell, I just don't see much of an enrollment boost from football at these schools.

I don't know about ODU and GSU, but for South Alabama your brief analysis is disingenuous. Yes, in 2022 enrollment is down at South Alabama from its peaks, but college enrollment is down in a lot of universities. Part of that is also intentional as South became more selective in its admissions following rapid growth. However, there is no doubt football has had a huge impact to the university. Check the growth when we moved to full FBS in 2013

2008 Fall Enrollment - 14,279
2008 - Announcement made to add football - first season 2009 playing prep teams
2009 Fall Enrollment - 14,757
2010 Fall Enrollment - 15,007
2011 Fall Enrollment - 15,009
2012 Fall Enrollment - 14,883
2013 Fall Enrollment - 15,311
2014 Fall Enrollment - 16,055
2015 Fall Enrollment - 16,462
2016 Fall Enrollment - 16,669

Since 2016 the enrollment has tapered off, but the university as a whole has been transformed since the announcement was made to add football.

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong.

Like student satisfaction or alumni engagement?

Or name recognition from having 4 hour commercials on tv?

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 12:36 PM)Cruhawk Wrote:  

(09-27-2022 08:35 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-27-2022 08:04 AM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  A few notes on this....

* Officials at UNO and the Southland office have told me they expect this vote to pass. You never *really* know with students, and some votes have failed recently, but the word on the street is that they are expecting to be successful.

* This has absolutely nothing to do with moving to FBS, and honestly, doesn't even have that much to do with winning football games. UNO sees this as a donor engagement move, a student recruitment and retention move, and a *real estate move*. There's a lot of undeveloped land on the lakefront near UNO's campus, and the school has actually turned a profit on renting out athletic facilities like tennis courts before...and with this facility potentially being used by professional soccer, high schools and concerts, and with that part of the city not having a higher quality stadium, there is optimism that costs can be contained even if attendance for UNO football isn't huge.

* Back last year, when it looked like the Southland was on the ropes, UNO called around several different conferences, and was told their lack of a FB program hurt their options. They see this as a way to give their athletic department stability and give them more options, just in case. The Southland really wants this too, because even though they look stable now, as we've all seen, membership can change very quickly.

* IMO, the only ethical way to do this is if UNO was able to substantially match any commitment from students with corporate and community money. They appear to have done that. If the students don't think this is worth $300 bucks, then they shouldn't do it, but the school has found other money, especially for the stadium project.

TL;DR, UNO doesn't really care if this team only goes .500 and draws 5000 people a game. That's not the point. If it helps them recruit and retain students, and if they can find multi-uses for the stadium, it was a good use of money and resources.

That's a great synopsis. It shows how schools look at athletic programs beyond whether it's a straight profit/loss calculation (whether it might be optimistic or not).

Yep. I remember reading some articles some time ago about how an emerging trend at a lot of smaller D3 liberal arts colleges was to add a football team and it how it made practical and economic sense on multiple levels:

1. D3 doens't award scholarships, so all students who enroll to play football usually pay some amount of tuition even after factoring in Financial aid (Ex: an 80-man roster paying an average of $25k/yr after financial aid can net about $2M in tuition revenue)
2. Helps even out Male-Female Student body ratios by bringing on an extra 80-100 male students on campus every year (not a small thing at small colleges that generally skew female)
3. Can influence campus atmosphere and school spirit, while also serving as a selling point to prospective students, and an additonal way to engage alumni (homecoming games, football banquets, etc.)
4. Facilities improvements can be easier to obtain/justify (i.e. convert a soccer stadium to a multi-use field, expanding locker rooms/weight rooms, etc) since they're also usually utilzed by other sports as well.
   

Found the article from 2013:
https://www.sbnation.com/longform/2013/1...revolution

Seems like UNO is basically trying to use the same playbook as a marketing tool and enrollment growth engine. Especially if they can use it as an excuse to build new sports stadiums/facilities to create a new revenue stream via facilities rentals.

How successful it may be is TBD, but I can see the logic. NOLA and Louisiana love football for sure. And since LSU is some distance away in Baton Rouge, while Tulane seems to be its own thing independent of the city as an selective private university (ala Rice, Vanderbilt, Tulsa etc.), I think there is a space in the market for UNO to take up. Especially if they attract local recruits not good enough for LSU or who are overlooked by/not interested in Tulane and want to stay close to home...and having a brand new and eye-catching lakefront stadium doesn't hurt either.

I'm just not sure how well this will work.

Though I don't think you mentioned it, I thought about the impact of a new stadium on football attendance, so I just picked two random years for Tulane, one before and one after the construction of Yulman. In 2010, Tulane's NCAA attendance figure was 23,000 per game. In 2019, the last year before covid-19, it was 20,000 per game. Maybe those are unrepresentative years, but it doesn't look like Yulman has been a big boost for football attendance. I love Yulman, btw, it's a far more fun place to watch a Tulane game than the cavernous Superdome, well at least when it isn't 90 degrees outside, but still.

I also read an article from a New Orleans outlet that mentioned that Texas State, ODU, Georgia State and USA all added football around 10 or so years ago and their enrollments shot up very significantly.

Again, not claiming this is scientific research, but I was able to find some info on all those schools. First, Texas State seems to have been playing football for over 100 years, but anyway, from what I could tell their enrollment was around 27k in 2006, about 34k in 2011, and around 38k in 2019 (again, to screen out covid), so it seems their enrollment has been going up for a while without football impact I can discern.

ODU ... ODU added football around 2009. Their enrollment was 18k in 1997, about 22k in 2007 and is about 24k today. Again, not much boost there since adding football, and enrollment was rising before football.

USA .... USA added football in 2009. In Fall 2007, enrollment was around 14.2k. In Fall 2019, enrollment was 14.6k, essentially flat, no boost I can see from football.

Georgia State ... started football in 2010. I could not find direct data but a peer-report from UTSA in 2016 said GS's enrollment was just above 30k in 2009 and was just above 32k in 2016, six years after football started. Not sure that is much of an increase.

Again, this is strictly an off-the-cuff presentation, I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong. But from what I could tell, I just don't see much of an enrollment boost from football at these schools.

FIU is the only school I'm aware of that's seen an increase in enrollment since their football team started. However, they have one of the worst attendance in FBS, so it's hard to credit to the football team.

I'm not sure why people ignore the attendance when they talk about a football team leading to more students. If your university has 50,000 students, but only 10,000 average attendance, that means that at most 20% of your students are attending football games. (And even that would only be if every single person attending your game is a current student.) That would mean it's highly unlikely that very many of your students attended the university because of the football team.

(09-29-2022 08:43 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong.

Like student satisfaction or alumni engagement?

Or name recognition from having 4 hour commercials on tv?

If students or alumni of these schools cared about having a football team, then why don't they actually attend the games?

(09-29-2022 09:05 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 08:43 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong.

Like student satisfaction or alumni engagement?

Or name recognition from having 4 hour commercials on tv?

If students or alumni of these schools cared about having a football team, then why don't they actually attend the games?

They're busy studying. Nose to the grindstone and all that.



Don't cheer for attendanceball, it's a boring sport. Football is a lot better.

(09-29-2022 09:20 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:05 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 08:43 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong.

Like student satisfaction or alumni engagement?

Or name recognition from having 4 hour commercials on tv?

If students or alumni of these schools cared about having a football team, then why don't they actually attend the games?

They're busy studying. Nose to the grindstone and all that.



Don't cheer for attendanceball, it's a boring sport. Football is a lot better.

So they attend a school because of football games they don't attend? And, for that matter, don't even watch, because most of the team's football games aren't even on local tv? (Except sometimes when an SEC team is using them as a sacrificial lamb they beat 52-10.)

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

(09-29-2022 09:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:20 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:05 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 08:43 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-28-2022 03:38 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I might be missing important data on all these schools that would make me wrong.

Like student satisfaction or alumni engagement?

Or name recognition from having 4 hour commercials on tv?

If students or alumni of these schools cared about having a football team, then why don't they actually attend the games?

They're busy studying. Nose to the grindstone and all that.



Don't cheer for attendanceball, it's a boring sport. Football is a lot better.

So they attend a school because of football games they don't attend? And, for that matter, don't even watch, because most of the team's football games aren't even on local tv? (Except sometimes when an SEC team is using them as a sacrificial lamb they beat 52-10.)

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just knowing the football team is out there helps them study harder. It's hard to quantify.

Why begrudge kids a football team? Football is fun.

(09-29-2022 09:40 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:31 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:20 AM)inutech Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 09:05 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-29-2022 08:43 AM)inutech Wrote:  Like student satisfaction or alumni engagement?

Or name recognition from having 4 hour commercials on tv?

If students or alumni of these schools cared about having a football team, then why don't they actually attend the games?

They're busy studying. Nose to the grindstone and all that.



Don't cheer for attendanceball, it's a boring sport. Football is a lot better.

So they attend a school because of football games they don't attend? And, for that matter, don't even watch, because most of the team's football games aren't even on local tv? (Except sometimes when an SEC team is using them as a sacrificial lamb they beat 52-10.)

Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Just knowing the football team is out there helps them study harder. It's hard to quantify.

Why begrudge kids a football team? Football is fun.

So is having an all you can eat sundae bar in the dining hall, and it's a hell of a lot cheaper.