Or in the case of Butler, add scholarships and go FBS?

It seems like it may be in the best interest of these programs if they don't want to be left behind by the big football schools potentially splitting off to form their own division/organization?

Even without that going down, it'd at least put them on more conferences radars. For example, Wichita and Gonzaga would have a solid shot at going to the MWC now if they had football because of their basketball.

I know Wichita football was a mess when the program ended in the mid-80's but having it would be advantageous at a time like this.

Let's look at Butler.

Butler is playing non-scholarship FCS football. An FCS scholarship program like Texas State is increasing its FB scholarships from 63 to a max of 85 when they move up to FBS, but Butler would be going from 0 to 85.

To add FBS football and comply with Title IX, Butler would have to add more women's D-I sports and give out 85 new women's athletic scholarships to offset the 85 football scholarships. So they would need enough money to start up 7 or 8 women's D-I scholarship sports in addition to the ones they already offer. Of course that's in addition to the millions in startup costs for football. (I'm not including the cost of building a stadium; I'll assume just for the sake of argument that they could rent the Colts' stadium.)

And this is a private school with fewer than 5,000 students.

Football attendance wouldn't ever be great -- they already have Notre Dame and two Big Ten schools in their state, and more Big Ten schools within a few hours' drive. The MAC school in Indiana, Ball State, reported average attendance of 12,930 in 2012.

Butler's best-case scenario is football attendance on the level of the small private schools that are in non-contract FBS leagues now. Which means FBS football would lose (as a guess) $10 to 30 million every year (I bet that's how much they lose at places like SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and Tulane), so you'd have to find boosters to cover those operating losses or dip into the university's general fund.

Butler joining the Big East and sticking with Pioneer League football is the right decision for them.

Well, they could fix up the Butler Bowl but point taken.

But what about big state schools like VCU, Wichita St. and then of course, private Gonzaga? Gonzaga would probably be in Butler's shoes but would stand a lot to gain by joining the state flagships and nationally known schools of the MWC, even at a big initial financial loss. Doing nothing, they risk falling into irrelevance like San Francisco, who was also nationally relevant for decades before becoming a basic zero now days. While they could do that as well in the MWC, it's easier to rise back up in that company than in a glorified low-major conference.

(03-30-2013 11:11 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Well, they could fix up the Butler Bowl but point taken.

But what about big state schools like VCU, Wichita St. and then of course, private Gonzaga? Gonzaga would probably be in Butler's shoes but would stand a lot to gain by joining the state flagships and nationally known schools of the MWC, even at a big initial financial loss. Doing nothing, they risk falling into irrelevance like San Francisco, who was also nationally relevant for decades before becoming a basic zero now days. While they could do that as well in the MWC, it's easier to rise back up in that company than in a glorified low-major conference.

USF was very successful in hoops all the way up to the early 1980s, but dropped men's basketball for three years because of a cheating scandal and brought it back in 1985. So USF basketball is like SMU football. USF has the potential to be a top WCC program, but the school isn't going to be aggressive about it. They're not going to fill their roster with "amateurs" from other countries (hello in there, St. Mary's) and they're not going to look the other way while boosters make like a Sam Gilbert wannabe anymore, either.

Gonzaga is not in the same boat.

(03-30-2013 10:23 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  Orf in the case of Butler, add scholarships and go FBS?

It seems like it may be in the best interest of these programs if they don't want to be left behind by the big football schools potentially splitting off to form their own division/organization?

Even without that going down, it'd at least put them on more conferences radars. For example, Wichita and Gonzaga would have a solid shot at going to the MWC now if they had football because of their basketball.

I know Wichtia football was a mess when the program ended in the mid-80's but having it would be advantageous at a time like this.

Honestly if the football conferences spin off they may take the new Big East with them. Too many good basketball and Olympic programs they would be best served having with them. You need to keep the basketball tourney interesting after all. In that event you'll see the BE add 4 more schools.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

(03-30-2013 11:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  USF was very successful in hoops all the way up to the early 1980s, but dropped men's basketball for three years because of a cheating scandal and brought it back in 1985. So USF basketball is like SMU football. USF has the potential to be a top WCC program, but the school isn't going to be aggressive about it. They're not going to fill their roster with "amateurs" from other countries (hello in there, St. Mary's) and they're not going to look the other way while boosters make like a Sam Gilbert wannabe anymore, either.

Gonzaga is not in the same boat.

I'm aware of their death penalty but a big reason they weren't able to recover was because of being in the WCC whereas SMU would have been fine in a decade or so had the SWC stayed viable or if they had been given a life raft to the Big 12 or other major conference.

The point is that Gonzaga risks being virtually forgotten about in a generation if the basketball program goes into a coma. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago Southern Illinois was making the Dance each year and getting top-4 seeds. Now who thinks of them? New fans to college basketball in the last few years don't even know who they are.

And now people are shocked to learn (seriously, no pun intended) that this isn't the first time Wichita has been to the Final Four, let alone Elite 8. If they had somehow kept the football program alive, maybe they make the cut for the WAC-16, which was a solid basketball league in its short existence.

(03-30-2013 11:52 PM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(03-30-2013 11:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  USF was very successful in hoops all the way up to the early 1980s, but dropped men's basketball for three years because of a cheating scandal and brought it back in 1985. So USF basketball is like SMU football. USF has the potential to be a top WCC program, but the school isn't going to be aggressive about it. They're not going to fill their roster with "amateurs" from other countries (hello in there, St. Mary's) and they're not going to look the other way while boosters make like a Sam Gilbert wannabe anymore, either.

Gonzaga is not in the same boat.

I'm aware of their death penalty but a big reason they weren't able to recover was because of being in the WCC whereas SMU would have been fine in a decade or so had the SWC stayed viable or if they had been given a life raft to the Big 12 or other major conference.

The point is that Gonzaga risks being virtually forgotten about in a generation if the basketball program goes into a coma. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago Southern Illinois was making the Dance each year and getting top-4 seeds. Now who thinks of them? New fans to college basketball in the last few years don't even know who they are.

And now people are shocked to learn (seriously, no pun intended) that this isn't the first time Wichita has been to the Final Four, let alone Elite 8. If they had somehow kept the football program alive, maybe they make the cut for the WAC-16, which was a solid basketball league in its short existence.

I don't think a non-contract FBS conference would offer much "protection" for a program like Gonzaga or Wichita State or VCU. A hoops team that wins but then goes through a long down period would be forgotten just as easily in the MWC or CUSA as in the WCC or the A-10. The only argument you could make for an FBS move is if you have a realistic long-term plan to use the non-contract conference as a stepping stone to one of the five contract conferences. And IMO that's not realistic for anyone.

Damn can we please stop using the term "basketball only"??? It sounds idiotic.

Well, the current C-USA, you mean the Artists Formerly Known as the Big East which will rename themselves.

I think a team in the MWC would stand a much better chance of getting back on its feet because of the league is full of, at worst, second level state schools that are in the middle of the pack of D-1 schools. San Francisco, Loyola Marymount and Santa Clara (who has a Final Four to their credit) is doomed in my opinion, especially if the Zags leave.

(03-31-2013 12:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn can we please stop using the term "basketball only"??? It sounds idiotic.

I knew that and was going to change it but the title was too long. This still gets the point across.

(03-31-2013 12:11 AM)Caltex2 Wrote:  

(03-31-2013 12:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn can we please stop using the term "basketball only"??? It sounds idiotic.

I knew that and was going to change it but the title was too long. This still gets the point across.

major pet peeve. sorry.

Why would Butler up their FB when they make more than the GoF schools and they don't have to fund a FB program?

Also the Big East BBall conference has a better chance of going with the 5 BCS leagues than any of the GoF.

Nobody is going to split off. The Power conferences already get everything they need to maintain power and then some via the NCAA. There's a million other reasons it doesn't make sense to rock the boat to that degree. It sure makes for good message-board fodder though.

(03-30-2013 10:50 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Let's look at Butler.

Butler is playing non-scholarship FCS football. An FCS scholarship program like Texas State is increasing its FB scholarships from 63 to a max of 85 when they move up to FBS, but Butler would be going from 0 to 85.

To add FBS football and comply with Title IX, Butler would have to add more women's D-I sports and give out 85 new women's athletic scholarships to offset the 85 football scholarships. So they would need enough money to start up 7 or 8 women's D-I scholarship sports in addition to the ones they already offer. Of course that's in addition to the millions in startup costs for football. (I'm not including the cost of building a stadium; I'll assume just for the sake of argument that they could rent the Colts' stadium.)
And this is a private school with fewer than 5,000 students.

Football attendance wouldn't ever be great -- they already have Notre Dame and two Big Ten schools in their state, and more Big Ten schools within a few hours' drive. The MAC school in Indiana, Ball State, reported average attendance of 12,930 in 2012.

Butler's best-case scenario is football attendance on the level of the small private schools that are in non-contract FBS leagues now. Which means FBS football would lose (as a guess) $10 to 30 million every year (I bet that's how much they lose at places like SMU, Rice, Tulsa, and Tulane), so you'd have to find boosters to cover those operating losses or dip into the university's general fund.

Butler joining the Big East and sticking with Pioneer League football is the right decision for them.

Excellent response. I would just add that it's not just the cost of the additional scholarships for football and the 85 corresponding women's scholarships, but also coaching staffs, facilities for some of the women's programs and all kinds of uniforms, equiplment, trainers and other support staff. As you suggested Wedge, going from 63 to 85 is workable, but going from 0-170 is monumental.

(03-31-2013 12:08 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Damn can we please stop using the term "basketball only"??? It sounds idiotic.

It may be idiotic, but schools like Memphis have been basketball only for years. Sorry Tiger fans, just a little dig.

VCU and Wichita State I could see adding football because there are conferences of football-playing schools that fit their institutional profile. VCU also can fill a void should the Big East/America 12 find 11 schools in a conference to be undesirable, lose Navy, or perhaps pick up a second football-only member.

I could see the WCC setting up a football league like the Pioneer (no scholarships) or the NEC (reduced scholarships) if enough of its members were interested. There might even be a few Big West or WAC schools that would be interested, but that would probably be a decade or more away.

Football has been a heated topic on our board for years. We saw a lot of this conference movement coming and wondered if we should start football back up in order to open up more doors/give us options down the road. I don't know if it'll happen or not, it's still debated among fans and there's some speculation that the new president will address the issue within the next 5 years. After he gets some other priorities taken care of. Those include growing enrollment to 20-25k and expanding some things on the research front.

No matter what, basketball is priority number one and always will be in Wichita.

Wichita and Butler are in basketball-first states.

Why would there be any interest at all in a 3rd football school in Kansas or a 5th in Indiana? There's barely any interest for KU or IU football, and those schools have much larger fanbases. It would be a hindrance for them more than a help. That's why both schools dropped football down to D-1AA in the first place (and Wichita eventually dropped the program alltogether).

(03-31-2013 12:20 AM)NJRedMan Wrote:  Why would Butler up their FB when they make more than the GoF schools and they don't have to fund a FB program?

This. If you're not getting into a power conference at any point in the near future (and that's going to be the situation for any school that is only just now starting up a FBS program), then there's very little point for a school in Butler's position to move up in football when it's making more TV money from basketball alone than what UConn and Cincinnati are going to make for both basketball and football. Sure, if you get an invite to a power conference, then football means almost everything. If you're not in a power conference, though, it really should be buyer beware for sinking a lot of money into football when you could actually be making more money off of basketball at that level (or at least not being subject to massive expenses).

(03-31-2013 12:23 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Nobody is going to split off. The Power conferences already get everything they need to maintain power and then some via the NCAA. There's a million other reasons it doesn't make sense to rock the boat to that degree. It sure makes for good message-board fodder though.

Well when the NCAA president talks about it being a possibility, its more than just message board fodder. Like you, I don't think they will leave, but unlike you, I think its "fluid" and could go a lot of ways.