PDA

View Full Version : President Harker - Delaware Would Drop Athletics Before Paying Student-Athletes



superman7515
May 2nd, 2014, 08:07 AM
Full transcript at the link...
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/30/delaware-unionizing-sports
(http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/30/delaware-unionizing-sports)

HOBSON: But if they were employees, and they were injured, they would be entitled to things like workman's comp benefits.

HARKER: So how would we do this? So think about this, right. So we make them employees. That means not only for the football and basketball players, but with Title IX, we have to do that with all our student athletes. Now our costs have gone up dramatically. How can we afford to keep doing this? We would just drop sports.

And I'll tell you what we would do at the University of Delaware. Most likely we would drop all our varsity sports down to club status because we simply could not afford to provide varsity athletics.

HOBSON: Well, what's wrong with that?

HARKER: Well, there's an argument there that it's possible that that is something that we should consider. The things that you take away are for the vast majority of our 600 student athletes, half of whom are on scholarships, are those scholarships. We're helping these young people get through college.

The vast majority of our athletic budget is scholarship money. It's not coaches' salaries. At our level, coaches are not making millions of dollars.

Daytripper
May 2nd, 2014, 08:16 AM
He said what every lower level FBS and FCS President/AD was thinking.

OL FU
May 2nd, 2014, 08:17 AM
Full transcript at the link...
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/30/delaware-unionizing-sports
(http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/30/delaware-unionizing-sports)

Glad he said it. I am always amazed at the pundits who are in the pay student athlete camp based on the 30 or so schools that make multi millions on their athletic programs without taking into consideration the overwhelming number of scholarship athletes that are truly there to benefit from a free or almost free education through sports.

superman7515
May 2nd, 2014, 08:23 AM
My biggest concern is when the interviewer asks him what is wrong with just dropping all of the sports to club status and he says there's an argument it's something Delaware should consider... xeyebrowx

DFW HOYA
May 2nd, 2014, 08:31 AM
My biggest concern is when the interviewer asks him what is wrong with just dropping all of the sports to club status and he says there's an argument it's something Delaware should consider... xeyebrowx

A more telling quote: "I think we have to continue to push back on the expansion of athletics and the expansion of the amount of time students have to spend on it." (Great for recruiting...)

superman7515
May 2nd, 2014, 08:35 AM
A more telling quote: "I think we have to continue to push back on the expansion of athletics and the expansion of the amount of time students have to spend on it." (Great for recruiting...)

Yeah, pretty sure you can end the Delaware to FBS speculation right there.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 2nd, 2014, 09:01 AM
The vast majority of our athletic budget is scholarship money. It's not coaches' salaries. At our level, coaches are not making millions of dollars.

Something which I think ought to be said very loudly, very often.

MplsBison
May 2nd, 2014, 10:12 AM
Dropping all teams to non-varsity programs wouldn't be necessary. All they would need to do is drop to NCAA DIII.

I've often thought that if the B1G simply dropped down to DIII as a conference, would anything really change for them? All that would really change is that they would no longer provide "official" scholarships to players (though there would be plenty of "unofficial" scholarships being provided to players, like what happens at DIII schools now) and the players that would play the games might be a couple inches shorter and a step slower. Big deal.

You'd still be having millions of dollars in both game-day related and TV revenue because at the end of the day all of those fans just want to see 11 guys in their school's uniform play against 11 guys in the other school's uniform. They don't care if those 11 guys are 5-star or 1-star athletes out of high school.


Then you let the NFL build (and pay for) their own developmental league for the 5-star type kids, who don't want to go to school anyway.

Ivytalk
May 2nd, 2014, 10:18 AM
Harker comes off well in the interview: thoughtful responses. Hobson comes across as a bit of a jackass.

GannonFan
May 2nd, 2014, 01:43 PM
Dropping all teams to non-varsity programs wouldn't be necessary. All they would need to do is drop to NCAA DIII.

I've often thought that if the B1G simply dropped down to DIII as a conference, would anything really change for them? All that would really change is that they would no longer provide "official" scholarships to players (though there would be plenty of "unofficial" scholarships being provided to players, like what happens at DIII schools now) and the players that would play the games might be a couple inches shorter and a step slower. Big deal.

You'd still be having millions of dollars in both game-day related and TV revenue because at the end of the day all of those fans just want to see 11 guys in their school's uniform play against 11 guys in the other school's uniform. They don't care if those 11 guys are 5-star or 1-star athletes out of high school.


Then you let the NFL build (and pay for) their own developmental league for the 5-star type kids, who don't want to go to school anyway.

Hasn't the Ivy League, 50 years ago, tried the same thing you're saying? Sure, Ivy League games still get decent crowds, especially compared to other FCS teams, but it's a far cry from the heydays when the Ivy League was fielding some of the best teams in the land with players who were just a couple of inches taller and just a few steps faster. People will still watch because, like you say, they like watching their school in their uniforms play other schools. But you're being silly (and the Ivy League example proves it) when you pretend that attendance (and tv revenues) would not drop significantly if the B1G was no longer putting some of the top teams in the country out there on the field.

jimbo65
May 2nd, 2014, 01:44 PM
Delaware is not one of the schools that is making tens of millions of $s off the backs of "student" athletes. Big time sports is big time corruption. Personally, I believe we are better off at our present level of competition. While there likely are some shady things done by some members, there is not enough $s at stake for mega scandals such as the present Black Studies debacle at UNC.

MplsBison
May 3rd, 2014, 10:43 AM
Hasn't the Ivy League, 50 years ago, tried the same thing you're saying? Sure, Ivy League games still get decent crowds, especially compared to other FCS teams, but it's a far cry from the heydays when the Ivy League was fielding some of the best teams in the land with players who were just a couple of inches taller and just a few steps faster. People will still watch because, like you say, they like watching their school in their uniforms play other schools. But you're being silly (and the Ivy League example proves it) when you pretend that attendance (and tv revenues) would not drop significantly if the B1G was no longer putting some of the top teams in the country out there on the field.

Let's do a thought experiment.

Take the football team from Wisc. Whitewater (an exceptional DIII program) and dress them up in the U of Wisc (Madison) uniforms. Then take the football team from Mount Union (OH - another exceptional DIII program) and dress them up in the Ohio St uniforms.

Now have those dressed up teams play as if they were the actual teams during the actual Wisc. vs Ohio St football game. Do people suddenly not show up? Do they suddenly stop watching on TV? No and no. Nothing changes.


Fans of B1G programs wouldn't suddenly give up their tickets or fandom of their school simply because they were no longer recruiting the best players and no longer offering them scholarships.


Essentially, what moving down does is it freezes the fan base at whatever it is during the time of the move. When the Ivy League moved down, they had the fan base that they still have today. Likewise, the fan base that the B1G has now is what they'd have going forward.

tribe_pride
May 3rd, 2014, 12:28 PM
Let's do a thought experiment.

Take the football team from Wisc. Whitewater (an exceptional DIII program) and dress them up in the U of Wisc (Madison) uniforms. Then take the football team from Mount Union (OH - another exceptional DIII program) and dress them up in the Ohio St uniforms.

Now have those dressed up teams play as if they were the actual teams during the actual Wisc. vs Ohio St football game. Do people suddenly not show up? Do they suddenly stop watching on TV? No and no. Nothing changes.


Fans of B1G programs wouldn't suddenly give up their tickets or fandom of their school simply because they were no longer recruiting the best players and no longer offering them scholarships.


Essentially, what moving down does is it freezes the fan base at whatever it is during the time of the move. When the Ivy League moved down, they had the fan base that they still have today. Likewise, the fan base that the B1G has now is what they'd have going forward.

If they no longer got the elite players, I find it hard to believe that support would be just as good and the schools would lose a ton of tv and other types of revenue if the B1G was alone in dropping down.

MplsBison
May 3rd, 2014, 12:36 PM
It goes exactly to the question "why do you watch college football and why do you watch a particular team?"

I would guess that many on this board would say it's because they like the sport of football, perhaps from playing it at some level, and because they have a personal connection to that particular school.


If that is the case, I don't see what changes just because the players on that school's team started being shorter and slower by an imperceptible amount when viewed from the stands. Am I to believe that the 20 year fan is going to say "well to heck with this, that TE went from 6'5" 260lbs/4.6sec 40 to 6'2" 215lbs/4.75sec 40 - even though it's impossible to tell the difference when viewed a couple hundred feet away in the stadium seats"? No, that wouldn't happen.

ZableNoise
May 3rd, 2014, 01:01 PM
Let's do a thought experiment.

Take the football team from Wisc. Whitewater (an exceptional DIII program) and dress them up in the U of Wisc (Madison) uniforms. Then take the football team from Mount Union (OH - another exceptional DIII program) and dress them up in the Ohio St uniforms.

Now have those dressed up teams play as if they were the actual teams during the actual Wisc. vs Ohio St football game. Do people suddenly not show up? Do they suddenly stop watching on TV? No and no. Nothing changes.


Fans of B1G programs wouldn't suddenly give up their tickets or fandom of their school simply because they were no longer recruiting the best players and no longer offering them scholarships.


Essentially, what moving down does is it freezes the fan base at whatever it is during the time of the move. When the Ivy League moved down, they had the fan base that they still have today. Likewise, the fan base that the B1G has now is what they'd have going forward.

Wait I think people would definitely stop watching on tv. Not the Ohio State or Wisconsin fans but people like me who tuned in to watch some of the best players in the country. If all the best players were in some NFL development league wouldn't fans without a connection to the two schools tune into that game over the Ohio State-Wisconsin one?

Sader87
May 3rd, 2014, 01:15 PM
It's an interesting thought/discussion. From a strictly Holy Cross perspective, attendance dropped significantly when it dropped scholarships for football. How much of that was due to it leading to mostly losing teams??? Dunno...

MplsBison
May 3rd, 2014, 01:30 PM
Wait I think people would definitely stop watching on tv. Not the Ohio State or Wisconsin fans but people like me who tuned in to watch some of the best players in the country. If all the best players were in some NFL development league wouldn't fans without a connection to the two schools tune into that game over the Ohio State-Wisconsin one?

The players who play in Major League Baseball's AAA minor league teams are unquestionably more talented at the game of baseball than the players on any NCAA baseball team.

What do you know about the TV ratings between those two groups?

- - - Updated - - -


It's an interesting thought/discussion. From a strictly Holy Cross perspective, attendance dropped significantly when it dropped scholarships for football. How much of that was due to it leading to mostly losing teams??? Dunno...

I don't dispute you one bit, but I would be curious to know the numbers if you have them handy.

Are you saying HC was getting 50k fans per game and now only gets 15k? Or what are we talking here?

Sader87
May 3rd, 2014, 01:34 PM
HC probably averaged in the 15K range in the 80s....a game or two a year of 20+K crowds. Now an average crowd is in the 7K range with lows in the 2-3K range.

tribe_pride
May 3rd, 2014, 01:35 PM
The players who play in Major League Baseball's AAA minor league teams are unquestionably more talented at the game of baseball than the players on any NCAA baseball team.

What do you know about the TV ratings between those two groups?



Minor leagues in the major sports is less popular than the college level. The general population with no rooting interest watch the top at any type of level more than the others. That is why Major leagues are more popular than minor leagues and D-I sports are more popular than D-II and D-III

Edit: Minors for football I thought of CFL or the World League, for Basketball I thought of D-League, for hockey and baseball used any of the minor leagues though football and basketball are really the sports that people watch more at the college level than the others.

bkrownd
May 3rd, 2014, 04:13 PM
Wait I think people would definitely stop watching on tv. Not the Ohio State or Wisconsin fans but people like me who tuned in to watch some of the best players in the country. If all the best players were in some NFL development league wouldn't fans without a connection to the two schools tune into that game over the Ohio State-Wisconsin one?

That's my dream - get rid of the armchair "pro sports" fans. Drain the money out of the thing. Get back to real fans.

MplsBison
May 4th, 2014, 10:46 AM
HC probably averaged in the 15K range in the 80s....a game or two a year of 20+K crowds. Now an average crowd is in the 7K range with lows in the 2-3K range.

Ok, thanks for the info.

In my non-expert opinion, I would say that has more to do with winning and losing than classification of the team or the relative talent of the players.

MplsBison
May 4th, 2014, 10:50 AM
Minor leagues in the major sports is less popular than the college level. The general population with no rooting interest watch the top at any type of level more than the others. That is why Major leagues are more popular than minor leagues and D-I sports are more popular than D-II and D-III

Edit: Minors for football I thought of CFL or the World League, for Basketball I thought of D-League, for hockey and baseball used any of the minor leagues though football and basketball are really the sports that people watch more at the college level than the others.

Casual fans watch whatever is easily available to them on TV, which you're correct that's usually the top classification. AAA minor league baseball teams are never showing on easily accessible television (not that I've ever seen, anyway). College baseball, on the other hand, is often on ESPN networks, probably other basic tier cable sports networks and the CWS is on national broadcast networks (I think).

But the B1G teams will always be on easily accessible television because they have their own cable channel. And they can and still would be able to mandate that channel on the basic tier of all cable systems in B1G states because of the sheer number of alumni who tune into that channel to watch their alma mater teams. None of that would change, regardless of DI or DIII classification and regardless of 5-star or 1-star high school talent in the uniforms.

That's my argument, anyway.

Sader87
May 4th, 2014, 11:33 AM
I dunno...not debunking your theory altogether but the quality of football at Holy Cross was noticeably down from where it was up until they last had scholarships in the 1980s. I think a fair amount of casual fans (local CMass/Greater Boston etc) decided not to go see a watered-down product.

bkrownd
May 4th, 2014, 01:08 PM
But the B1G teams will always be on easily accessible television because they have their own cable channel.

You're making an odd assumption that everyone has cable.

You must be living in an alternate universe. Casual "sports fans" won't just watch whatever is on the tube. They don't watch "second tier" athletics. The vast majority of alumni have no interest in college athletics. If the B1G was FCS, they'd have an FCS sized audience. If they were DIII they would have a DIII sized audience. There will be no Big 10 Network with a diminished audience.

MplsBison
May 4th, 2014, 01:13 PM
I dunno...not debunking your theory altogether but the quality of football at Holy Cross was noticeably down from where it was up until they last had scholarships in the 1980s. I think a fair amount of casual fans (local CMass/Greater Boston etc) decided not to go see a watered-down product.

But is not true that Holy Cross also won a lot more back in those days?

You don't think that if HC went undefeated in the Patriot League and was seeded in the FCS national bracket that HC fans wouldn't come out of the woodwork?


I just think that in these historical examples of PL and Ivy teams we have to be careful about not conflating two different ideas.

MplsBison
May 4th, 2014, 01:19 PM
You're making an odd assumption that everyone has cable.

You must be living in an alternate universe. Casual "sports fans" won't just watch whatever is on the tube. They don't watch "second tier" athletics. The vast majority of alumni have no interest in college athletics. If the B1G was FCS, they'd have an FCS sized audience. If they were DIII they would have a DIII sized audience. There will be no Big 10 Network with a diminished audience.

I think it is actually you who are making an entirely incorrect assumption. That being that a significant part of the ratings for college football telecasts are from people with no connection to the universities in the game.

That is a grossly incorrect assumption, in my opinion.


The reason Big Ten schools have such large followings is because they have such a sheer number of living alumni, on top of many of the programs having a long historical basis of winning.

And once again, none of that changes just because the B1G decides to drop down to DIII as a conference. In fact, they could just as well go completely independent of the NCAA and only play games amongst themselves, so a to avoid any implicit comparison to the rest of NCAA DIII, and not award any athletic scholarships to the players. They'd be making the same money from their media deals, since the demand for those games would be the same while eliminating the largest component of their costs.

centennial
May 4th, 2014, 01:24 PM
I think it is actually you who are making an entirely incorrect assumption. That being that a significant part of the ratings for college football telecasts are from people with no connection to the universities in the game.

That is a grossly incorrect assumption, in my opinion.


The reason Big Ten schools have such large followings is because they have such a sheer number of living alumni, on top of many of the programs having a long historical basis of winning.

And once again, none of that changes just because the B1G decides to drop down to DIII as a conference. In fact, they could just as well go completely independent of the NCAA and only play games amongst themselves, so a to avoid any implicit comparison to the rest of NCAA DIII, and not award any athletic scholarships to the players. They'd be making the same money from their media deals, since the demand for those games would be the same while eliminating the largest component of their costs.
You mean they field dIII quality football teams and people still want to see them? People want to see a good product, its true a lot of fans will still watch them but there will be a significant back lash.

clenz
May 4th, 2014, 01:44 PM
You mean they field dIII quality football teams and people still want to see them? People want to see a good product, its true a lot of fans will still watch them but there will be a significant back lash.

No different than, to use a big 10 team since they were brought up, Purdue or Indiana or Illinois in football.

At one point they had higher level players. Those players were fin to watch and won. They had big crowds. Now the talent at those schools is rather low and the crowds reflect that.

There is zero chance Michigan draws 113k if they switched uniforms with UW Whitewater. If the talent level is poor the results are poor the supporting is poor.

The hardcore of the hardcore would still be there but you'd lose nearly 100 percent of the casual fans,90 percent of the next level of fans, and probably 50-70 percent of the hardcore fans.

You would only be left with the most hardcore of the hardcore fans. Got most fcs schools that's proudly ra number in the very low 4 digits...If that high

Sent from my S4 using Tapatalk

MplsBison
May 4th, 2014, 02:37 PM
You mean they field dIII quality football teams and people still want to see them? People want to see a good product, its true a lot of fans will still watch them but there will be a significant back lash.

You make it seem like watching DIII football would be like watching 7th graders. You can choose to think that if you want, but like I already showed in the thought experiment - it's impossible to tell the difference at a viewing distance of a couple hundred feet away (unless you're an NFL scout with a stopwatch in hand).

The product is watching the U of MN football team that day take on another of the B1G teams. The product is the experience of going to the stadium, tailgating, etc. Or if you're a TV viewer, then the game itself.


Nothing changes just because the players are a couple inches shorter and a step slower than they are today. If your problem is some sort of stigma or expectation that's tied to the classification brand itself, then that's easily overcome by just being independent of DIII altogether. The B1G is a conference that could pull it off.


Of course that's a incredible length to resort to. But I could see it happening if the system starts diverging into the territory of paying players. At that point, the NFL would have to step in and create an actual minor league for football. And I don't see why that couldn't work anyway. There are quite a few secondary markets in the country that would sell 30-40k tickets for NFL minor league games (places like Portland, Des Moines, Omaha, Birmingham, etc.)

Sader87
May 4th, 2014, 02:37 PM
But is not true that Holy Cross also won a lot more back in those days?

You don't think that if HC went undefeated in the Patriot League and was seeded in the FCS national bracket that HC fans wouldn't come out of the woodwork?


I just think that in these historical examples of PL and Ivy teams we have to be careful about not conflating two different ideas.

The non-scholarship era (1986-2012) of the PL sort of debunks your thesis. Those teams were comprised (essentially) of what your saying i.e. actual students first, who weren't as talented in toto as teams with a full roster of scholarship players.

In general, people don't go out to see these games in large #'s outside of the Lafayette-Lehigh game.

It is a bit of an "apples and oranges" argument as all the PL schools are private with relatively small alumni-bases.

MplsBison
May 4th, 2014, 03:53 PM
The non-scholarship era (1986-2012) of the PL sort of debunks your thesis. Those teams were comprised (essentially) of what your saying i.e. actual students first, who weren't as talented in toto as teams with a full roster of scholarship players.

In general, people don't go out to see these games in large #'s outside of the Lafayette-Lehigh game.

It is a bit of an "apples and oranges" argument as all the PL schools are private with relatively small alumni-bases.

Your argument is valid and I respect you stating it here. And I have no way to refute it, especially deferring to your first hand experience of the situation in the Patriot League.


But as you've hit the apples/oranges nail on the head, I wasn't really trying to propose a universal concept that would work for anyone in DI football. Maybe I should've made that more clear. What I'm proposing is something that could work for the B1G. On the other hand, I do think that MVFC schools (for example) may take some hit in numbers by no longer having some association with "the top level" or "Division I".

I'm saying that for those very large schools with long associations, they should essentially have enough momentum to carry on at the present rate even if completely severing their association with the entire "outside world" of college football.

You're welcome to point to the Ivy League (or perhaps Army, Navy and maybe a few other historical programs) as a counter-example. But in that case I will still point at the apples/oranges comparison that you've brought up. The B1G schools of today look and feel nothing like those historical programs back in their respective heydays.


Now of course it would certainly help if other big leagues joined the B1G in their rejection of being the NFL's minor league and having to pay players (as Delaware's president has claimed he would do). For example if the P5 would band together to keep their brand, in a sense, while on the other hand using a DIII model - I just don't see how that much momentum would slow down simply because the players choosing to still come play for those programs would no longer be receiving official athletic scholarships. Everything else (facilities, support, coaching salaries, stadium & tailgating attendance, ticket revenue, TV revenue, TV ratings etc.) would seemingly stay right as it is.

And that would let those "elite, 5-star" players from poor, urban backgrounds that just want to make money in the league take a more direct route to that goal without having to pretend to be academic, in a true NFL D-league. Which is probably how it should be anyway.

bkrownd
May 5th, 2014, 12:50 AM
The product is watching the U of MN football team that day take on another of the B1G teams. The product is the experience of going to the stadium, tailgating, etc. Or if you're a TV viewer, then the game itself.

"The product" is the perception of "top level" competition.

AshevilleApp2
May 5th, 2014, 04:59 AM
If you don't pay athletes, at least remove existing regulations that prohibit them from holding an outside job.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 11:00 AM
"The product" is the perception of "top level" competition.

Not for anyone viewing the game or taking in the live experience because they have some kind of personal connection to the university.

As I said, these are the main constituents. There are very few people tuning in to U of MN football games that have nothing to do with the university. Same for most schools.

walliver
May 5th, 2014, 11:07 AM
HC probably averaged in the 15K range in the 80s....a game or two a year of 20+K crowds. Now an average crowd is in the 7K range with lows in the 2-3K range.

College football prior to the mid 80's was a very different business. Until the NCAA lost its lawsuit, about the only way to watch a college football game was to actually attend a college football game. The NCAA had an exclusive deal with ABC that allowed ONE nationally telecast game per week. Teams could allow a local broadcast in their home market only. As a result, "casual" fans, including students, were more likely to attend smaller school games. Once the television floodgates opened, smaller schools were suddenly competing against the big schools, and "casual" fans stayed home and watched the "big games" on television.

Sader87
May 5th, 2014, 11:14 AM
College football prior to the mid 80's was a very different business. Until the NCAA lost its lawsuit, about the only way to watch a college football game was to actually attend a college football game. The NCAA had an exclusive deal with ABC that allowed ONE nationally telecast game per week. Teams could allow a local broadcast in their home market only. As a result, "casual" fans, including students, were more likely to attend smaller school games. Once the television floodgates opened, smaller schools were suddenly competing against the big schools, and "casual" fans stayed home and watched the "big games" on television.

A very good point and this has been brought up on our board re: why has attendance dropped at Fitton?

DFW HOYA
May 5th, 2014, 12:00 PM
A very good point and this has been brought up on our board re: why has attendance dropped at Fitton?

Attendance dropped because familiarity breeds ticket sales.

Here was the 1984 schedule for the Cross:
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
at Harvard
Dartmouth
at Colgate
Connecticut
at Brown
at Boston U
New Hampshire
at Maine
Boston College

See a pattern here? Regional opponents. Nearby alumni bases. Local interest. Even the road games are within an hour or two.

In 2013:
at Bryant
Towson
at Central Connecticut
Monmouth
at Dartmouth
Harvard
at Bucknell
Lafayette
at Fordham
at Lehigh
Georgetown

How many fans came from Georgetown to see this game? More importantly, how many from Worcester? (Announced attendance: 2,478). Do locals even care about Towson or Monmouth? Or, for that matter, Lafayette?

The 2013 season average was 6,887, probably half of what the Crusaders were drawing (even without BC) a generation ago.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 12:14 PM
Once again the question can be asked, "why does someone choose to watch a Holy Cross football game?"

And how likely is such a person to be affiliated with the college?

DFW HOYA
May 5th, 2014, 12:20 PM
Once again the question can be asked, "why does someone choose to watch a Holy Cross football game?"
And how likely is such a person to be affiliated with the college?

Probably one of three things:

1. They (and/or their family) attended Holy Cross
2. They live in the region
3. They consider it a good value for the money

I live in Dallas but make it a point to attend one or two TCU home games a year. I didn't go there, but they play some good opponents, the atmosphere is great with the stadium upgrades, and the cost of attending a game is much less than driving three hours to Austin or College Station. Can HC make that same argument to the casual fan in New England?

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 01:17 PM
Or should such a school even put money and effort into attracting so-called "casual fans" in their area?

Given what I've read from ccd about that area, there are very few such people in existence for college football.

A case could be made that Holy Cross needs to put all of its marketing resources into getting people who actually attended HC, are still alive and still live within 1-2 hours of the stadium to come to games.

Sandlapper Spike
May 5th, 2014, 01:46 PM
There are very few people tuning in to U of MN football games that have nothing to do with the university. Same for most schools.

I'm not sure I agree with that. Just as one example, I would say that a strong plurality (if not a majority) of your typical SEC fan base did not attend the university, and doesn't have any immediate family members who did either.

Sandlapper Spike
May 5th, 2014, 01:51 PM
College football prior to the mid 80's was a very different business. Until the NCAA lost its lawsuit, about the only way to watch a college football game was to actually attend a college football game. The NCAA had an exclusive deal with ABC that allowed ONE nationally telecast game per week. Teams could allow a local broadcast in their home market only. As a result, "casual" fans, including students, were more likely to attend smaller school games. Once the television floodgates opened, smaller schools were suddenly competing against the big schools, and "casual" fans stayed home and watched the "big games" on television.

This is something that doesn't get nearly enough attention. For instance, in 1978 there were a *total* of 58 college football games broadcast on TV during the regular season (only 13 of which were nationally televised). These days there are on average more than 58 televised D-1 games each week (and that doesn't even count online streaming).

It was easier for a school like The Citadel to regularly draw good crowds from the surrounding area when the only option for watching "major college" football was to drive up to Columbia or Clemson or Atlanta to watch a game. Clemson and South Carolina combined for only 12 TV appearances from 1969-78; as late as 1989, South Carolina only had one TV game.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 02:12 PM
I'm not sure I agree with that. Just as one example, I would say that a strong plurality (if not a majority) of your typical SEC fan base did not attend the university, and doesn't have any immediate family members who did either.

Yes, I feel you are correct in your example, so I am wrong in a general sense of my claim.

But let's go one layer deeper on your statement. The SEC schools and therefore the fans that they attract are among the most (if not the most) provincial in the nation. For example, those born in Alabama may on average spend time watching 'Bama play, but aren't going to tune into watch Missouri just because they're a part of the SEC (and may well prefer to avoid it out of competitive sake). While it's probably true that a significant number of 'Bama fans may not have a direct relationship to the university, these people actually feel it's part of their birthright for having been born in the state and for it being the state's school (no disrespect to Auburn fans). Not that there's anything wrong with such behavior, I just think it's a little bit of cherry picking when you consider the entire nation.

And again, here is where the apples/oranges thing comes into play: you usually only see this type of behavior for public schools and more so in the south than other parts of the country. For example, here in Minnesota it's certainly less so than in Alabama, even though the states have roughly equal total populations (though demographically they're quite different).


Now if you start looking at private schools, the sentiment seems to be no longer applicable. I would guess that's because people don't feel strongly attached to a private school unless they actually become a member of that particular club.

A couple exceptions to that would be for cases where people may feel a birthright to a particular private school through its affiliation to certain religious groups: Notre Dame and BYU, off the top of my head. Perhaps some Catholics and Mormons feel that those schools are their birthright teams, respectively, and so follow them like someone born in Alabama might follow 'Bama, even though they never attended.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 02:23 PM
This is something that doesn't get nearly enough attention. For instance, in 1978 there were a *total* of 58 college football games broadcast on TV during the regular season (only 13 of which were nationally televised). These days there are on average more than 58 televised D-1 games each week (and that doesn't even count online streaming).

It was easier for a school like The Citadel to regularly draw good crowds from the surrounding area when the only option for watching "major college" football was to drive up to Columbia or Clemson or Atlanta to watch a game. Clemson and South Carolina combined for only 12 TV appearances from 1969-78; as late as 1989, South Carolina only had one TV game.

I get what you and walliver are saying, but I don't get the argument.

Are you saying that because there are so many college football games on TV, a "casual college football fan" doesn't need to go down to the local college football stadium to satisfy his need to watch a college football game?


Because Holy Cross games weren't on TV then and they aren't on TV now. So why would an increase in college football games on TV affect Holy Cross home game attendance? It's only people affiliated with HC (and opponents) who attend those games.

Thus, I attribute the drop in attendance to the lack of winning.

UAalum72
May 5th, 2014, 02:52 PM
Because a casual fan can sit at home, drink cheap beer, and watch six games of the best teams in the country on TV essentially for free, rather than fight traffic, pay for tickets, be exposed to the elements, and be sold overpriced refreshments at one third-rate game taking up most of the day. In 1978 there was no choice.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 02:59 PM
Because a casual fan can sit at home, drink cheap beer, and watch six games of the best teams in the country on TV essentially for free, rather than fight traffic, pay for tickets, be exposed to the elements, and be sold overpriced refreshments at one third-rate game taking up most of the day. In 1978 there was no choice.

Holy Cross games weren't on TV period in 1978 and today I doubt that even most Worcester area cable subscribers can watch Holy Cross home games on some cable channel.

Thus, it can't be the case that people who were going to Holy Cross games in 1978 are now saying "well heck, I can watch six college football games today that have nothing to do with the Patriot League while drinking Sam Adams beer - so I'm not going down there to watch HC play."

Lehigh Football Nation
May 5th, 2014, 03:10 PM
Holy Cross games weren't on TV period in 1978 and today I doubt that even most Worcester area cable subscribers can watch Holy Cross home games on some cable channel.

Thus, it can't be the case that people who were going to Holy Cross games in 1978 are now saying "well heck, I can watch six college football games today that have nothing to do with the Patriot League while drinking Sam Adams beer - so I'm not going down there to watch HC play."

Charter TV3 televises some Holy Cross games, while Patriot League fans can also connect online to catch the games for free on the Patriot League Network.

Some have said that the fact that the local team is on local TV/internet for free is a major reason why attendance is "down", incidentally. I put "down" in quotes because during the last ten years across the board, the opposite has been shown to be true - attendance has been up.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000340365/article/attendance-at-ncaa-football-games-tops-50-million-for-first-time


NCAA football (that's all divisions, from FBS to D-III) attendance topped 50 million for the first time in history, per the National Football Foundation. Although growth at the lower levels of the sport was notable, al.com points out (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2013/12/college_football_crowds_in_201.html) that returning FBS schools posted a one-percent increase in crowds to help lead the record-setting season.

The SEC, Big Ten, ACC and Pac-12 all ended up setting overall attendance records last season. Not surprisingly, the SEC led the way in most categories. Michigan took home the individual title for the 16th straight year after averaging 111,592 fans per home game.

Each teams' situation is different in terms of attendance. In Lehigh and Lafayette's case, the Rivalry ends up padding their attendance numbers every year, though in many cases (IMO) Lehigh should probably do better in regards to non-Lafayette attendance overall. For Holy Cross, the challenge is drawing people to the stadium when most of the teams at least three and a half hours away. For Bucknell and Colgate, it's attracting fans from a surrounding area that is rural. For Fordham and Georgetown, it's competing with pro sports.

PAllen
May 5th, 2014, 03:16 PM
Holy Cross games weren't on TV period in 1978 and today I doubt that even most Worcester area cable subscribers can watch Holy Cross home games on some cable channel.

Thus, it can't be the case that people who were going to Holy Cross games in 1978 are now saying "well heck, I can watch six college football games today that have nothing to do with the Patriot League while drinking Sam Adams beer - so I'm not going down there to watch HC play."

Yes, but "most Worcester area cable subscribers can watch" Auburn, Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, USC, and Oregon play all on the same day from the comfort of their couch. In 1978, the only options were to go watch the Holy Cross game in person, drive in to Chestnut Hill to see BC in person, or walk down the street and watch the local Peewees play football in the school yard. Otherwise, you weren't watching football that Saturday.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 04:10 PM
Yes, but "most Worcester area cable subscribers can watch" Auburn, Notre Dame, Texas, Ohio State, USC, and Oregon play all on the same day from the comfort of their couch. In 1978, the only options were to go watch the Holy Cross game in person, drive in to Chestnut Hill to see BC in person, or walk down the street and watch the local Peewees play football in the school yard. Otherwise, you weren't watching football that Saturday.

I don't believe for a second that there were thousands of people in 1978 who went to Holy Cross games simply because that was their only outlet to relieve their internal desire to view college football, and now because they can watch more games on TV they don't have to go to HC to watch in person.

There are much more reasonable explanations than that for why HC's attendance is down.

Sader87
May 5th, 2014, 04:10 PM
Holy Cross football was actually on ABC periodically in the 1970s and the early 80s. Just saying.

There's no "one answer"....it's basically a mixture of more TV/internet options, people are (or seem to be) busier on Saturdays (kid's games, errands, work etc) than they were in the 70s and 80s, going to games is seen as more of a chore (and less hospitable for tailgating in many cases), less local rivalries etc etc

Sader87
May 5th, 2014, 04:12 PM
I don't believe for a second that there were thousands of people in 1978 who went to Holy Cross games simply because that was their only outlet to relieve their internal desire to view college football, and now because they can watch more games on TV they don't have to go to HC to watch in person.

There are much more reasonable explanations than that for why HC's attendance is down.

I think you're wrong here actually. Holy Cross was very much "Worcester's Team" historically....much of that due to the rivalry with BC being "Boston's Team."

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 04:17 PM
Holy Cross football was actually on ABC periodically in the 1970s and the early 80s. Just saying.

There's no "one answer"....it's basically a mixture of more TV/internet options, people are (or seem to be) busier on Saturdays (kid's games, errands, work etc) than they were in the 70s and 80s, going to games is seen as more of a chore (and less hospitable for tailgating in many cases), less local rivalries etc etc

Them being on TV in 1978 only boosts the counter-argument against more college games on TV causing HC's attendance drop.

If in 1978 the HC games were on TV yet attendance was still high, it makes absolutely no sense that more college games being on TV now is any factor in why HC's attendance is down.


Every other thing you listed is a reasonable factor to explain the attendance drop. I can't accept the more games on TV argument as being a factor, unless someone provides a logical argument for how that could be the case.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 04:20 PM
I think you're wrong here actually. Holy Cross was very much "Worcester's Team" historically....much of that due to the rivalry with BC being "Boston's Team."

Then the factor would be the loss of the rivalry game with BC. Which I accept as a reasonable explanation.

That has nothing to do with more games being on TV now that have nothing to do with Holy Cross.

Again, unless someone goes around Worcester and finds that most people there are indeed saying "well I used to go down to HC and watch the game there in order to relieve my desire to watch college football, but these days I can just watch some random, out of region games on cable TV so I don't have to go down there anymore."

Lehigh Football Nation
May 5th, 2014, 04:31 PM
Then the factor would be the loss of the rivalry game with BC. Which I accept as a reasonable explanation.

That has nothing to do with more games being on TV now that have nothing to do with Holy Cross.

Again, unless someone goes around Worcester and finds that most people there are indeed saying "well I used to go down to HC and watch the game there in order to relieve my desire to watch college football, but these days I can just watch some random, out of region games on cable TV so I don't have to go down there anymore."

"Big Games" are in the perception of the beholder.

If you asked a person on the street almost anywhere when Alabama played Auburn in the Iron Bowl last year, they'd have likely said that it was a "big game". That's a college football game that is in direct viewership competition with, say, Jacksonville State/Samford, which was ironically happening at the same time. (As an aside, what the HELL WAS JACKSONVILLE STATE/SAMFORD DOING ON AT THE SAME F-ING TIME.... but I digress.)

The biggest of the "big games" are national and compete with all other games. Every American male had an opportunity to watch Alabama/Auburn, on national, network TV, that evening. They could sit at home and watch that... or make a choice to head to Jacksonville State (if they were in that area) and catch that game.

More importantly, though, casual fans could have Alabama/Auburn on the big screen, and have Jacksonville State/Samford on the laptop. If you're a "casual fan", why rearrange your life to head to Jacksonville State, when CBS cameras and ESPN cameras give you better views of the game, you don't have to move from your couch, the beer is cold, and you're not in any traffic?

These rules don't apply if you're a hardcore fan, but there are enough of them to make a big difference.

bkrownd
May 5th, 2014, 05:51 PM
Not for anyone viewing the game or taking in the live experience because they have some kind of personal connection to the university.

As I said, these are the main constituents. There are very few people tuning in to U of MN football games that have nothing to do with the university. Same for most schools.

That's just plain wrong. The vast majority of the television audience for well known teams has no relationship to the schools involved, except watching them on television, maybe purchasing swag, and perhaps being located in the same town/area or calling it home. This majority of casual viewers who are only watching for the sporting event is what drives the television money machine. The "bigger" the school's following, the greater proportion of the following has no connection to the insitution except football fandom. The whole idea is to attract as many of these casual viewers as possible, selling the brand, selling the advertising, generating $$$, and raising the public prestige of the institution.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 07:05 PM
"Big Games" are in the perception of the beholder.

If you asked a person on the street almost anywhere when Alabama played Auburn in the Iron Bowl last year, they'd have likely said that it was a "big game". That's a college football game that is in direct viewership competition with, say, Jacksonville State/Samford, which was ironically happening at the same time. (As an aside, what the HELL WAS JACKSONVILLE STATE/SAMFORD DOING ON AT THE SAME F-ING TIME.... but I digress.)

The biggest of the "big games" are national and compete with all other games. Every American male had an opportunity to watch Alabama/Auburn, on national, network TV, that evening. They could sit at home and watch that... or make a choice to head to Jacksonville State (if they were in that area) and catch that game.

More importantly, though, casual fans could have Alabama/Auburn on the big screen, and have Jacksonville State/Samford on the laptop. If you're a "casual fan", why rearrange your life to head to Jacksonville State, when CBS cameras and ESPN cameras give you better views of the game, you don't have to move from your couch, the beer is cold, and you're not in any traffic?

These rules don't apply if you're a hardcore fan, but there are enough of them to make a big difference.

I absolutely accept the fact that people in Worcester who have never been to HC home games likely choose to stay home and watch national games on TV. That in itself doesn't bother me and I accept that it happens.

But I will not believe that the same people who were going to games at Holy Cross in the 70's and 80's are now saying "nope, we don't go to the games anymore because we'd rather stay home and watch Alabama/Auburn on TV." It would be a completely different story if any Worcester cable TV subscriber could tune into a channel and see every snap of HC home games live (or even on a delay). But for the most part that's not the case.


Maybe an explanation is that all those people who were going to the games in the 1970's and 1980's are now too old to attend and no one replaced them from the younger generations, thus all those younger ones have never been to a HC game. But that doesn't make sense to me either because I've seen some pretty old folks who keep coming to home games well into their 70's and even 80's. So if they were going to HC games back then and they're still able to make it, I'd expect they're still going.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 07:09 PM
That's just plain wrong. The vast majority of the television audience for well known teams has no relationship to the schools involved, except watching them on television, maybe purchasing swag, and perhaps being located in the same town/area or calling it home. This majority of casual viewers who are only watching for the sporting event is what drives the television money machine. The "bigger" the school's following, the greater proportion of the following has no connection to the insitution except football fandom. The whole idea is to attract as many of these casual viewers as possible, selling the brand, selling the advertising, generating $$$, and raising the public prestige of the institution.

For a few teams, you are correct. For most, you're wrong. See post #43. Sandlapper already beat you to it.

Sader87
May 5th, 2014, 07:16 PM
Mpls said: Maybe an explanation is that all those people who were going to the games in the 1970's and 1980's are now too old to attend and no one replaced them from the younger generations, thus all those younger ones have never been to a HC game. But that doesn't make sense to me either because I've seen some pretty old folks who keep coming to home games well into their 70's and even 80's. So if they were going to HC games back then and they're still able to make it, I'd expect they're still going.


Each school is different, but I think you did hit on something here. HC did lose a fair amount (and gained very few) of football fans when they dropped both BC and scholarships.

I've long argued that HC has the "oldest fan-base per capita" in the country.

MplsBison
May 5th, 2014, 07:39 PM
Call it the "Holy Cross effect": a fanbase that doesn't initially lose anything, but stops adding new fans. Eventually, the older ones have to stop coming and they aren't replaced by younger ones.

And that goes back to my original argument: for a conference like the B1G, I feel that even if they decided to go independent of the NCAA as a conference and stop awarding any form of compensation for their football players, they would be immune to the Holy Cross effect. That's because of the sheer critical mass of their fanbases and the fact that they'd keep playing each other (familiar opponents).

superman7515
May 5th, 2014, 08:55 PM
Call it the "Holy Cross effect": a fanbase that doesn't initially lose anything, but stops adding new fans. Eventually, the older ones have to stop coming and they aren't replaced by younger ones.


I think Delaware is in a similar standing. The age in the stands is getting higher and higher, while attendance continues to drop back over the last few years. Some is definitely a result of the economy, but even the older fans who still come lament the good old days of Temple and UConn and Rutgers playing in Newark, and now you can add UMass to that list, who was a rival on-par or even ahead of the rivalry with Villanova for a long long time.

MplsBison
May 6th, 2014, 01:15 PM
I think Delaware is in a similar standing. The age in the stands is getting higher and higher, while attendance continues to drop back over the last few years. Some is definitely a result of the economy, but even the older fans who still come lament the good old days of Temple and UConn and Rutgers playing in Newark, and now you can add UMass to that list, who was a rival on-par or even ahead of the rivalry with Villanova for a long long time.

Too early to tell if UMass's move to FBS will ultimately result in a Holy Cross effect.

The effect can't really be measured unless a program has been stable (in the same conference, in the same classification) for a long period of time. Stagnation lead to the end of fanbase growth and ultimately the decay of fanbase replenishment (replacing older fans with younger ones).

superman7515
May 6th, 2014, 01:27 PM
Too early to tell if UMass's move to FBS will ultimately result in a Holy Cross effect.

I was meaning add UMass to the list of historic rivals that have moved away from UD that the older fans bemoan.

MplsBison
May 6th, 2014, 01:31 PM
Sorry, misread you.

So if Delaware is in the throes of the Holy Cross effect, what would be your prescription for breaking the stagnation and growing the fan base?

Sader87
May 6th, 2014, 01:40 PM
I will say, it does look like HC is being (for once) pro-active about this trend i.e. falling attendance.

Night games were introduced to some success (16K for the UMass game a few years back), the reintroduction of football schollies, the hiring of a young, energetic AD from a FBS school (Maryland), future games have been scheduled against BC, Syracuse and UConn etc.

We'll see if this brings about renewed support from both alumni and subway-alumni alike, creates new fans of the programs etc etc

MplsBison
May 6th, 2014, 01:45 PM
Sader, what are your personal thoughts on bringing in football talent to HC that isn't representative of the student body, academically?

Is it a no-no or is it a reasonable exception to take for the sake of marketing HC to the world via athletics?

superman7515
May 6th, 2014, 01:48 PM
Sorry, misread you.

So if Delaware is in the throes of the Holy Cross effect, what would be your prescription for breaking the stagnation and growing the fan base?

I'll only say that every suggestion that has actually been tried out so far has yet to stem the tide. They reduced ticket prices, reduced mandatory donations, opened up some areas for family season ticket holders that are very affordable, started selling beer in the stadium to STH's, brought in regional opponents that would be easy wins (Delaware State, Duquesne, Wagner, Bucknell) but were geographically close enough for people to know someone who went to school there or for their fans to make the trip, had more outreach events, increased the marketing...

So far, the attendance continues to trend downward. There were two NC appearances sandwiched between some up and down seasons, so perhaps the inconsistency is partially to blame, but it can't be totally explained away by that. The economy, as I said, certainly took a toll, but they reduced prices lately and opened up more areas that don't require a donation.

And it's not just paid attendance anyway, fewer and fewer students have been coming over the years, partially due to a crack down on tailgating, but the vast majority have no interest in the level of football Delaware is playing and have never heard of Sacred Heart, Monmouth, Furman, etc.

MplsBison
May 6th, 2014, 01:59 PM
I'll only say that every suggestion that has actually been tried out so far has yet to stem the tide. They reduced ticket prices, reduced mandatory donations, opened up some areas for family season ticket holders that are very affordable, started selling beer in the stadium to STH's, brought in regional opponents that would be easy wins (Delaware State, Duquesne, Wagner, Bucknell) but were geographically close enough for people to know someone who went to school there or for their fans to make the trip, had more outreach events, increased the marketing...

So far, the attendance continues to trend downward. There were two NC appearances sandwiched between some up and down seasons, so perhaps the inconsistency is partially to blame, but it can't be totally explained away by that. The economy, as I said, certainly took a toll, but they reduced prices lately and opened up more areas that don't require a donation.

And it's not just paid attendance anyway, fewer and fewer students have been coming over the years, partially due to a crack down on tailgating, but the vast majority have no interest in the level of football Delaware is playing and have never heard of Sacred Heart, Monmouth, Furman, etc.

Do you know off the top of your head a time in Delaware football that would unquestionable be considered the heyday, in terms of attendance? And can you make any conclusions about what has changed between that time and now?

It's difficult to comprehend for NDSU fans, because our unquestioned heyday in terms of attendance is right now - for obvious reasons.

But all it would take is a decade of stagnation, starting this season and I could see attendance back down to around 15k a game and fans wishing for the good ole' days of the early 2010's.

Sader87
May 6th, 2014, 02:04 PM
Sader, what are your personal thoughts on bringing in football talent to HC that isn't representative of the student body, academically?

Is it a no-no or is it a reasonable exception to take for the sake of marketing HC to the world via athletics?

In all honesty, it never really happened....at least post coeducation at HC in 1972. The scholarship football players of the 70s and 80s were very representative of the student body and have gone on to very successful careers in medicine, law, business, education etc.

With the AI in place now, it's basically a given that the football players will be representative of the student body....note, still not a fan of the AI....we did this very well without one.

MplsBison
May 6th, 2014, 02:10 PM
Well I guess I wasn't looking for a discussion on if the AI is be a league enforced mandate vs just letting the schools decide their own policies.

I guess I'm asking you more directly, would it be acceptable to you to have football players on the HC team that don't quite "live up" to the level of incoming freshman in terms of what they achieved in high school, but allow HC to kick some tail on the field?

clenz
May 6th, 2014, 02:25 PM
Do you know off the top of your head a time in Delaware football that would unquestionable be considered the heyday, in terms of attendance? And can you make any conclusions about what has changed between that time and now?

It's difficult to comprehend for NDSU fans, because our unquestioned heyday in terms of attendance is right now - for obvious reasons.

But all it would take is a decade of stagnation, starting this season and I could see attendance back down to around 15k a game and fans wishing for the good ole' days of the early 2010's.
It wasn't that long ago NDSU was under 14K...08 or 09

superman7515
May 6th, 2014, 02:32 PM
Do you know off the top of your head a time in Delaware football that would unquestionable be considered the heyday, in terms of attendance? And can you make any conclusions about what has changed between that time and now?

It's difficult to comprehend for NDSU fans, because our unquestioned heyday in terms of attendance is right now - for obvious reasons.

But all it would take is a decade of stagnation, starting this season and I could see attendance back down to around 15k a game and fans wishing for the good ole' days of the early 2010's.

I wasn't in the stands at the time and have no paperwork in front of me at this minute, so I can't say with any degree of certainty, however the older fans insist that in the 1970's to mid 80's attendance was significantly higher. The stadium was expanded in 1970, 1972, and 1975 which would tend to lend some creedence to what they say if they were regularly expanding the stadium at that time with standing room only crowds. Add to that the single game record was set in 1973 in a home game versus Temple (7.5% above the current capacity), followed by home games against Navy in 1985 and 1987.

Delaware won three NC's in the 1970's ('71, '72, '79) so I'm sure that winning boosted attendance, but they weren't winning nearly as much in the 80's, so that is due in large part to the home games against regional 1A competition. Of the top 15 attended games, only one was in the last decade, a rivalry game (Villanova) at the end of the regular season in 2010 when UD was on the way to another NC appearance, so that appears to be an outlier.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 6th, 2014, 02:35 PM
I wasn't in the stands at the time and have no paperwork in front of me at this minute, so I can't say with any degree of certainty, however the older fans insist that in the 1970's to mid 80's attendance was significantly higher. The stadium was expanded in 1970, 1972, and 1975 which would tend to lend some creedence to what they say if they were regularly expanding the stadium at that time with standing room only crowds. Add to that the single game record was set in 1973 in a home game versus Temple (7.5% above the current capacity), followed by home games against Navy in 1985 and 1987.

Delaware won three NC's in the 1970's ('71, '72, '79) so I'm sure that winning boosted attendance, but they weren't winning nearly as much in the 80's, so that is due in large part to the home games against regional 1A competition. Of the top 15 attended games, only one was in the last decade, a rivalry game (Villanova) at the end of the regular season in 2010 when UD was on the way to another NC appearance, so that appears to be an outlier.

This seems to tail into the TV discussion where the general availability of college football games on TV seems to correspond to UD's general decline in attendance.

Sader87
May 6th, 2014, 05:29 PM
Well I guess I wasn't looking for a discussion on if the AI is be a league enforced mandate vs just letting the schools decide their own policies.

I guess I'm asking you more directly, would it be acceptable to you to have football players on the HC team that don't quite "live up" to the level of incoming freshman in terms of what they achieved in high school, but allow HC to kick some tail on the field?

There really is no way a poor to average high school student (low SATs, poor GPA etc) could survive 4 years academically at HC imo. They would stick out like a sore thumb in most classes and it would be very awkward for all involved. Hypothetically, no I would not support this nor do I think it is something that has to be done to make HC a Top 25 program again...there are a lot of good students who play football throughout the country.

bkrownd
May 6th, 2014, 07:22 PM
For a few teams, you are correct. For most, you're wrong. See post #43. Sandlapper already beat you to it.

You were talking specifically about the UofM and the Big 10, and you can't possibly deny that what I wrote is true for the Big 10. Alumni and students of the schools involved are a small minority of the TV audience for AT LEAST the "upper 2/3" of FBS. (It's a rare school where the students and alumni even care much)

clenz
May 6th, 2014, 07:47 PM
I
You were talking specifically about the UofM and the Big 10, and you can't possibly deny that what I wrote is true for the Big 10. Alumni and students of the schools involved are a small minority of the TV audience for AT LEAST the "upper 2/3" of FBS. (It's a rare school where the students and alumni even care much)
To back this up..

Iowa has 3 million people.

Out of those three million I'd bet 05-70sh percent would call themselves Hawkeye fans. Easy math we'll call it 2 million.

Iowa has an enrollment of about 25k with a VERY large out of state enrollment.

The TV ratings for Iowa is driven completely by non alumni.

I can tell you, from experience, a very very large portion of those fans would lose a ton of interest if they dropped scholarships and went d3. No chance at big name bowls, 30 million dollar checks from the btn, etc...

That fan base had zero interest anything other than their current level, or higher



Sent from my S4 using Tapatalk

bluehenbillk
May 7th, 2014, 07:23 AM
Do you know off the top of your head a time in Delaware football that would unquestionable be considered the heyday, in terms of attendance? And can you make any conclusions about what has changed between that time and now?


From 1999 to 2010 - 12 years straight UD averaged over 20K in attendance in a 22K seat stadium.

MplsBison
May 7th, 2014, 07:19 PM
There really is no way a poor to average high school student (low SATs, poor GPA etc) could survive 4 years academically at HC imo. They would stick out like a sore thumb in most classes and it would be very awkward for all involved. Hypothetically, no I would not support this nor do I think it is something that has to be done to make HC a Top 25 program again...there are a lot of good students who play football throughout the country.

Ok, sounds good to me.

MplsBison
May 7th, 2014, 07:30 PM
You were talking specifically about the UofM and the Big 10, and you can't possibly deny that what I wrote is true for the Big 10. Alumni and students of the schools involved are a small minority of the TV audience for AT LEAST the "upper 2/3" of FBS. (It's a rare school where the students and alumni even care much)


I
To back this up..

Iowa has 3 million people.

Out of those three million I'd bet 05-70sh percent would call themselves Hawkeye fans. Easy math we'll call it 2 million.

Iowa has an enrollment of about 25k with a VERY large out of state enrollment.

The TV ratings for Iowa is driven completely by non alumni.

I can tell you, from experience, a very very large portion of those fans would lose a ton of interest if they dropped scholarships and went d3. No chance at big name bowls, 30 million dollar checks from the btn, etc...

That fan base had zero interest anything other than their current level, or higher

Ok, if you guys really want to do this, we need to have more precise definitions for the people who tune in to watch a particular college football team play a game, based on the following variables.

- Are they alumni of that school?
- Are they fans of college football in general?
- Are they fans of that particular college football team?

That gives 8 combinations. For example, (Yes, Yes, Yes) is what you might expect for a typical fan (went to the school, likes college football and is a fan of his school's team).

I can accept that there are a considerable (if not a majority) of fans for certain large, public schools whose answer to the first question is "No".

But there are two things I reject:

1) that there are a significant number of (No, No, No) or (No, Yes, No) fans during the regular season. Maybe for a big rivalry game or for a bowl game, but not in general.

2) that a significant number of the (No, Yes, Yes) and (No, No, Yes) fans are suddenly going to say "to heck with 'em" because they're no longer in NCAA Division I. For example, they're still Iowa, they're still playing Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. Nothing changes for those people.

clenz
May 7th, 2014, 07:38 PM
Ok, if you guys really want to do this, we need to have more precise definitions for the people who tune in to watch a particular college football team play a game, based on the following variables.

- Are they alumni of that school?
- Are they fans of college football in general?
- Are they fans of that particular college football team?

That gives 8 combinations. For example, (Yes, Yes, Yes) is what you might expect for a typical fan (went to the school, likes college football and is a fan of his school's team).

I can accept that there are a considerable (if not a majority) of fans for certain large, public schools whose answer to the first question is "No".

But there are two things I reject:

1) that there are a significant number of (No, No, No) or (No, Yes, No) fans during the regular season. Maybe for a big rivalry game or for a bowl game, but not in general.

2) that a significant number of the (No, Yes, Yes) and (No, No, Yes) fans are suddenly going to say "to heck with 'em" because they're no longer in NCAA Division I. For example, they're still Iowa, they're still playing Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc. Nothing changes for those people.

You haven't met many p5 school fan bases. The extreme vast majority of p5 schools are "no no yes"...I mean extreme majorty. As I showed in my Iowa example 25k students with about half out of state yet roughly 2 million people in Iowa call themselves Hawkeye fans.

For the p5 it's all about prestige. Going d3 drops nearly all of it instantly with any "big time"gone within a decade

Sent from my S4 using Tapatalk

MplsBison
May 7th, 2014, 07:45 PM
You haven't met many p5 school fan bases. The extreme vast majority of p5 schools are "no no yes"...I mean extreme majorty. As I showed in my Iowa example 25k students with about half out of state yet roughly 2 million people in Iowa call themselves Hawkeye fans.

For the p5 it's all about prestige. Going d3 drops nearly all of it instantly with any "big time"gone within a decade

I didn't deny that there are significant numbers of (No, No, Yes) fans in typical B1G fan bases.

If the problem is the "DIII" branding, then that's easily avoided. You simply say "we're the B1G, we are the brand. We are big time because we're B1G. We have our cable channel. We pay our coaches millions of dollars. We have millions upon millions of dollars" etc. You don't drop down to DIII, you simply become independent of the NCAA and just play yourself (or play the PAC, if they'll do the same thing)

clenz
May 7th, 2014, 08:02 PM
I didn't deny that there are significant numbers of (No, No, Yes) fans in typical B1G fan bases.

If the problem is the "DIII" branding, then that's easily avoided. You simply say "we're the B1G, we are the brand. We are big time because we're B1G. We have our cable channel. We pay our coaches millions of dollars. We have millions upon millions of dollars" etc. You don't drop down to DIII, you simply become independent of the NCAA and just play yourself (or play the PAC, if they'll do the same thing)

That is a completely different discussion than you initially brought up

Sent from my S4 using Tapatalk

MplsBison
May 7th, 2014, 08:09 PM
It shouldn't be, that's what I had in mind.

And if it is, so what? This is the discussion now. You don't want to participate anymore because you don't think you can easily win? It's an internet message board, there's no trophy to be had I'm afraid. Just discussion, for those interested.

bkrownd
May 7th, 2014, 08:17 PM
Nobody cares if they call it the "DAMN HUGE!1!" and pay celebrity coaches zillions. The audience will know if it's "second tier" competition or worse, and here in America only tiny cliques of the most hardcore fans will watch "second tier" competition. The networks certainly won't throw big TV money at a hugely diminished audience.

Essentially the Ivy League already did exactly what you're suggesting...they never needed the money or exposure, and they're happy not getting any.

clenz
May 7th, 2014, 08:18 PM
It shouldn't be, that's what I had in mind.

And if it is, so what? This is the discussion now. You don't want to participate anymore because you don't think you can easily win? It's an internet message board, there's no trophy to be had I'm afraid. Just discussion, for those interested.

What the hell are you talking about?

The discussion was whether or not fans would come out/watch like they do to watch d3 athletes/programs...which you brought up. You then decided to change it to "well, they just break away from the ncaa not go d3".

You are the one changing it because "you can't easily win"

I feel bad for you if you dont see the difference in d3 and a whole new league paying the top athletes to play there

Sent from my S4 using Tapatalk

MplsBison
May 7th, 2014, 08:53 PM
Nobody cares if they call it the "DAMN HUGE!1!" and pay celebrity coaches zillions. The audience will know if it's "second tier" competition or worse, and here in America only tiny cliques of the most hardcore fans will watch "second tier" competition. The networks certainly won't throw big TV money at a hugely diminished audience.

Essentially the Ivy League already did exactly what you're suggesting...they never needed the money or exposure, and they're happy not getting any.

That's a completely silly assertion, in my opinion.

The reason they'd maintain the same fan bases as they have now is because most people watching their games only care about one thing: 11 guys in their team's uniform playing 11 guys in the uniform of a known opponent team. It wouldn't be "second tier" competition. It'd be the B1G, as it is now.

Actually, the B1G is second tier competition to the NFL. So why do B1G fans watch the games?? They know those teams aren't as good as NFL teams.

MplsBison
May 7th, 2014, 08:56 PM
What the hell are you talking about?

The discussion was whether or not fans would come out/watch like they do to watch d3 athletes/programs...which you brought up. You then decided to change it to "well, they just break away from the ncaa not go d3".

You are the one changing it because "you can't easily win"

I feel bad for you if you dont see the difference in d3 and a whole new league paying the top athletes to play there

I wasn't saying that. You are confused.

I'm proposing that if the NCAA and P5 conference lose the upcoming lawsuits, then the B1G presidents may decide to pull the plug on big time athletics rather than being forced to pay players. And one way to implement that would be for the B1G conference to essentially "take it's brand and go home". It would play all of it's sports as an independent entity, marking itself still as the high level of "real student-athletes, competing at the highest level of collegiate athletics" or some marketing mumbo-jumbo like that.

They wouldn't provide players any scholarships at all, which would be how they avoid the requirements of the lawsuits. So in that sense, it would be like a DIII model. But completely different from the actual NCAA DIII in every other way.

henfan
May 7th, 2014, 11:35 PM
UD has tried earnestly to make strides in stemming the tide of attendance & season ticket losses over the last 2 years. IMO, the lack of wins recently has played only a small role in attendance decline at UD. Unfortunately, many of the most ardent supporters of UD's traditional role as a I-AA/FCS program were chased away in a badly bungled, very poorly timed mandatory ticket donation rollout several years back. The sad fact is that many younger potential fans in the DE region just don't identify with FCS FB, no matter how creative the sales pitch. To top it off, UD's lackluster homes schedules over the last few seasons have been a difficult sell to casual fans.

Not sure what the answer is but the current formula clearly isn't inspiring new fans to invest the time, money & interest in Blue Hen FB. Any perceived step backwards competitively would be met with mutiny among the remaining fanbase, this long time fan included.

Sader87
May 7th, 2014, 11:47 PM
A lot of it is technology methinks. I'm as bad as the people I'm deriding on this issue....there have been more than a few games over the last few years that I've basically said: "screw it, I'm not driving to Worcester...I can watch the game here on my lap-top."

It's sad because when I was a student at HC we would look forward to road-tripping to games against Dartmouth, Harvard, UMass, Colgate etc and I know it was vice versa to Worcester given friends that would stay with us, but I just don't think you see that anymore.

Not sure what the answer, if there is one, is to stem this tide.

Ivytalk
May 8th, 2014, 06:07 AM
To top it off, UD's lackluster homes schedules over the last few seasons have been a difficult sell to casual fans.

You mean Hen fans aren't storming the box office for tickets to Sacred Heart?xlolx

superman7515
May 8th, 2014, 08:07 AM
You mean Hen fans aren't storming the box office for tickets to Sacred Heart?xlolx

A Delaware vs Harvard home & home should happen.

henfan
May 8th, 2014, 08:15 AM
You mean Hen fans aren't storming the box office for tickets to Sacred Heart?xlolx

I don't want to rip a particular program. Suffice to say, there are very few CONFERENCE games that interest the ticket buying public in and around Newark, DE. Increasingly, FCS FB is becoming a tough sell with potential ticket buyers, students and even a segment of the existing season ticket base, whether fair or not. IMO, either UD is going to have to embrace the 'new reality' of continued attendance slides and further erosion of support or they'll have to more seriously consider reclassification... which comes with a whole different set of problems & challenges.

There aren't any easy answers, especially with the damage UD has done to its fanbase. They're also making a bad situation much more challenging and, IMO, prolonging the inevitable by operating their AD like it was 1988. The broad based nonsense makes zero financial sense for a quasi-public mid-major D-I school in 2014.

bluehenbillk
May 8th, 2014, 08:39 AM
I don't want to rip a particular program. Suffice to say, there are very few CONFERENCE games that interest the ticket buying public in and around Newark, DE. Increasingly, FCS FB is becoming a tough sell with potential ticket buyers, students and even a segment of the existing season ticket base, whether fair or not. IMO, either UD is going to have to embrace the 'new reality' of continued attendance slides and further erosion of support or they'll have to more seriously consider reclassification... which comes with a whole different set of problems & challenges.

There aren't any easy answers, especially with the damage UD has done to its fanbase. They're also making a bad situation much more challenging and, IMO, prolonging the inevitable by operating their AD like it was 1988. The broad based nonsense makes zero financial sense for a quasi-public mid-major D-I school in 2014.

I agree. I'm as big a fan as UD has & my enthusiasm is way down. Both the CAA & FCS are becoming more watered down every season it seems like. UD's older fanbase has largely disappeared & the younger fanbase isn't as enthusiastic about playing 3rd-tier college football & playing some teams at home that almost aren't even "third-tier"....

Lehigh Football Nation
May 8th, 2014, 08:44 AM
You mean Hen fans aren't storming the box office for tickets to Sacred Heart/Duquesne/Jacksonville?xlolx

Fixed somewhat.

Also:

Attendance 2005, Lehigh vs. Delaware (Sat. evening): 22,537
Attendance 2013, Jacksonville vs. Delaware (Thu. evening): 19,120

Just sayin'.

superman7515
May 8th, 2014, 09:13 AM
Attendance 2005, Lehigh vs. Delaware (Sat. evening): 22,537
Attendance 2013, Jacksonville vs. Delaware (Thu. evening): 19,120

Just sayin'.

Delaware average attendance in 2005: 22,177
Lehigh game 1.6% above average.

Delaware average attendance in 2013: 18107
Jacksonville game 5.6% above average.

Just sayin'.

walliver
May 8th, 2014, 09:47 AM
I agree. I'm as big a fan as UD has & my enthusiasm is way down. Both the CAA & FCS are becoming more watered down every season it seems like. UD's older fanbase has largely disappeared & the younger fanbase isn't as enthusiastic about playing 3rd-tier college football & playing some teams at home that almost aren't even "third-tier"....

But, would the disillusioned fans feel any better about playing Georgia State, Kent State, Ball State, FIU, FAU, or Tulane?

Or, do they really want to see Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama and Notre Dame?

Moving to FBS while interest is falling is a risky "Field of Dreams" maneuver.

Sader87
May 8th, 2014, 10:16 AM
I think both Holy Cross and Delaware are very similar in this regard....the Fightin' Blue Hens issue is only written a bit larger and not quite as drastic in terms of fans lost.

HC basically lost about half of its normal schedule from the 1980s due to both its own reclassification (non-scholly) and therefore dropped BC, Army from the schedule. Joining the PL forced HC's hand somewhat to drop annual opponents like UMass and UConn as well as other semi-regular opponents like UNH, URI etc.

Again, there are a multitude of other reasons for attendance lost, but the schedule one plays has to be taken into account too I believe.

superman7515
May 8th, 2014, 10:19 AM
But, would the disillusioned fans feel any better about playing Georgia State, Kent State, Ball State, FIU, FAU, or Tulane?

Or, do they really want to see Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama and Notre Dame?

Moving to FBS while interest is falling is a risky "Field of Dreams" maneuver.

The biggest lament that I hear (not saying that it's even close to a consensus, just the loudest voices I hear on some boards) from the older fans who have waning interest is wanting to play teams like Temple, Navy, Army, UConn, UMass, Buffalo, etc.

Now some of the younger people would probably be more interested in Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Penn State, Pitt, but they'd still be more interested in the mid-tier FBS then they are in the low-tier FCS schools that UD is bringing in now. And I'm not saying that UD should or shouldn't go FBS, just saying that even the regional FBS schools would be a boost in younger interest than those LFN showed above.

They've tried to turn James Madison into a rival, but it hasn't really worked out as it was more of a dislike of Mickey Matthews, but not so much of a rivalry in basketball or the non-revenue sports. They've tried with Towson thinking that just because they're relatively close it would turn into something, but there's no real rival feeling there yet considering the teams haven't been playing for generations or anything close to that, just 15 times in the last 32 years and most of that has been since 2004. Same goes for DelState, geography alone does not a rival make, and Delaware/DelState play in basketball with DelState winning the majority, but UD students haven't really cared about basketball over the years, so no one really cared. Villanova is about the only football rival left.

The only two southern CAA schools Delaware has a history (25+ games) with are Richmond and William & Mary and there's certainly no rivalry-esque hatred of them. Other than that you're looking at a heavily northeast influence of UConn, UMass, Temple, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Villanova, Bucknell, Lafayette, Lehigh. A lot of the New England schools complain about the addition of the southern schools, but it hasn't exactly done anything to excite the UD fanbase either.

clenz
May 8th, 2014, 10:34 AM
The biggest lament that I hear (not saying that it's even close to a consensus, just the loudest voices I hear on some boards) from the older fans who have waning interest is wanting to play teams like Temple, Navy, Army, UConn, UMass, Buffalo, etc.

Now some of the younger people would probably be more interested in Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Penn State, Pitt, but they'd still be more interested in the mid-tier FBS then they are in the low-tier FCS schools that UD is bringing in now. And I'm not saying that UD should or shouldn't go FBS, just saying that even the regional FBS schools would be a boost in younger interest than those LFN showed above.

They've tried to turn James Madison into a rival, but it hasn't really worked out as it was more of a dislike of Mickey Matthews, but not so much of a rivalry in basketball or the non-revenue sports. They've tried with Towson thinking that just because they're relatively close it would turn into something, but there's no real rival feeling there yet considering the teams haven't been playing for generations or anything close to that, just 15 times in the last 32 years and most of that has been since 2004. Same goes for DelState, geography alone does not a rival make, and Delaware/DelState play in basketball with DelState winning the majority, but UD students haven't really cared about basketball over the years, so no one really cared. Villanova is about the only football rival left.

The only two southern CAA schools Delaware has a history (25+ games) with are Richmond and William & Mary and there's certainly no rivalry-esque hatred of them. Other than that you're looking at a heavily northeast influence of UConn, UMass, Temple, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Villanova, Bucknell, Lafayette, Lehigh. A lot of the New England schools complain about the addition of the southern schools, but it hasn't exactly done anything to excite the UD fanbase either.It's really quite simple and would happen at most schools.

UNI has played ISUr, ISUb, SIU, and MSU every year since 1985 (MSU for longer) in football and every other sport since 1992. If those 4 left and were replaced with SEMO, EIU, USD (yes, I realize they are football already), and Valpo you can count on UNI's attendance going from 14k ish per year to 8-10K and maybe 13 or 14 in VERY GOOD seasons.

The MVC sees it with basketball right now. Creighton left and Loyola IL was brought in. UNI didn't draw dick for UNI/Loyola basketball but UNI/Creighton was always a sell out, or real close. Same goes for every other school in the conference with Creighton. The MVC hadn't changed in 20ish years and then a long time rival is replaced by a lower "tier" team and it just doesn't draw.

Going back to the football with UNI. UNI would draw more as a SBC team playing SIU, MSU, ISUr, ISUb than they would as an FCS playing SEMO, EIU, Valpo, USD.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 8th, 2014, 11:18 AM
The biggest lament that I hear (not saying that it's even close to a consensus, just the loudest voices I hear on some boards) from the older fans who have waning interest is wanting to play teams like Temple, Navy, Army, UConn, UMass, Buffalo, etc.

Now some of the younger people would probably be more interested in Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Penn State, Pitt, but they'd still be more interested in the mid-tier FBS then they are in the low-tier FCS schools that UD is bringing in now. And I'm not saying that UD should or shouldn't go FBS, just saying that even the regional FBS schools would be a boost in younger interest than those LFN showed above.

They've tried to turn James Madison into a rival, but it hasn't really worked out as it was more of a dislike of Mickey Matthews, but not so much of a rivalry in basketball or the non-revenue sports. They've tried with Towson thinking that just because they're relatively close it would turn into something, but there's no real rival feeling there yet considering the teams haven't been playing for generations or anything close to that, just 15 times in the last 32 years and most of that has been since 2004. Same goes for DelState, geography alone does not a rival make, and Delaware/DelState play in basketball with DelState winning the majority, but UD students haven't really cared about basketball over the years, so no one really cared. Villanova is about the only football rival left.

The only two southern CAA schools Delaware has a history (25+ games) with are Richmond and William & Mary and there's certainly no rivalry-esque hatred of them. Other than that you're looking at a heavily northeast influence of UConn, UMass, Temple, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Villanova, Bucknell, Lafayette, Lehigh. A lot of the New England schools complain about the addition of the southern schools, but it hasn't exactly done anything to excite the UD fanbase either.

I trust your view of the Delaware fanbase, but it must be said, though, that UD over the last decade could have done more to cultivate local OOC rivalries than they have between like-minded institutions. UD and Lafayette or UD and Lehigh could have been rivalries that alums look forward to seeing, but UD chose not to schedule them for the last ten years, so any young alums buying tickets now for those games would be like "Lee-High?" instead of "I remember when we kicked their ass in 2008 and 2011, and when they upset us back in '04.."

In Lehigh's specific case there was a true, historic link between the two schools that could have been better exploited. The Tubby and Whitehead rivalry could have been played to the hilt. You know Lehigh fans make the trip to Delaware for that game, and there is future potential upside. You can't say that about Jacksonville.

West Chester was cultivated as a rivalry, and then Delaware State, but you correctly point out they were fatally flawed. WCU is a fine D-II school, but they're D-II. Del State has no prior history, with Delaware and hasn't been able to be competitive with the Hens on the field.

A big part of this was more than a decade in the making. IMO. The CAA was never in its history a league regional to Delaware.

henfan
May 8th, 2014, 11:21 AM
But, would the disillusioned fans feel any better about playing Georgia State, Kent State, Ball State, FIU, FAU, or Tulane?

Or, do they really want to see Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, Alabama and Notre Dame?

Moving to FBS while interest is falling is a risky "Field of Dreams" maneuver.

Even the most ardent FBS UD fans probably realize that playing PSU, UM, UA, UND, etc. on a regular basis isn't in the offing, nor would it be responsible/possible. As mentioned, there's hope for a return to playing historic & regional rivals like Temple, Rutgers, UMd, Navy, UConn, UMass, etc. on a regular or semi-regular basis, along with others like Army, ODU, UVa, VPI, 'Cuse, BC, etc. The trade off would likely involve playing FBS schools that many/most aren't interested in but, then again, that's really not any different from the current situation.

As enjoyable as FCS FB is for us hardcores and for as good as this level of play has been for UD over the decades, it's becoming more evident that growing and even sustaining the current fanbase may not be possible without dramatic action. The school has tried to do the little things to bring fans back to no avail. Continuing down the same path is very probably going to result in a continuation of an attendance death spiral.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 8th, 2014, 11:22 AM
It's really quite simple and would happen at most schools.

UNI has played ISUr, ISUb, SIU, and MSU every year since 1985 (MSU for longer) in football and every other sport since 1992. If those 4 left and were replaced with SEMO, EIU, USD (yes, I realize they are football already), and Valpo you can count on UNI's attendance going from 14k ish per year to 8-10K and maybe 13 or 14 in VERY GOOD seasons.

The MVC sees it with basketball right now. Creighton left and Loyola IL was brought in. UNI didn't draw dick for UNI/Loyola basketball but UNI/Creighton was always a sell out, or real close. Same goes for every other school in the conference with Creighton. The MVC hadn't changed in 20ish years and then a long time rival is replaced by a lower "tier" team and it just doesn't draw.

Going back to the football with UNI. UNI would draw more as a SBC team playing SIU, MSU, ISUr, ISUb than they would as an FCS playing SEMO, EIU, Valpo, USD.

I agree. Conference realignment has wrecked rivalries that took decades to build, and it will take decades to build it back, if it can be built back at all.

bluehenbillk
May 8th, 2014, 12:14 PM
I trust your view of the Delaware fanbase, but it must be said, though, that UD over the last decade could have done more to cultivate local OOC rivalries than they have between like-minded institutions. UD and Lafayette or UD and Lehigh could have been rivalries that alums look forward to seeing, but UD chose not to schedule them for the last ten years, so any young alums buying tickets now for those games would be like "Lee-High?" instead of "I remember when we kicked their ass in 2008 and 2011, and when they upset us back in '04.."

In Lehigh's specific case there was a true, historic link between the two schools that could have been better exploited. The Tubby and Whitehead rivalry could have been played to the hilt. You know Lehigh fans make the trip to Delaware for that game, and there is future potential upside. You can't say that about Jacksonville.

West Chester was cultivated as a rivalry, and then Delaware State, but you correctly point out they were fatally flawed. WCU is a fine D-II school, but they're D-II. Del State has no prior history, with Delaware and hasn't been able to be competitive with the Hens on the field.

A big part of this was more than a decade in the making. IMO. The CAA was never in its history a league regional to Delaware.

UD had no interest in continuing playing that game for a few reasons but the biggest of which was money. UD got no revenue from a trip to Bethlehem versus a couple hundred thousand from playing a home game. Lehigh was a draw certainly in the 70's & 80's but it goes back to the perception problem UD has now - fewer people, especially the younger crowd would be excited by any PL team including Lehigh.

I may be wrong but aren't Lehigh's attendance numbers down in similar fashion percentage wise? There'd be fewer LU fans making the trip as well versus yesteryear.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 8th, 2014, 12:21 PM
UD had no interest in continuing playing that game for a few reasons but the biggest of which was money. UD got no revenue from a trip to Bethlehem versus a couple hundred thousand from playing a home game. Lehigh was a draw certainly in the 70's & 80's but it goes back to the perception problem UD has now - fewer people, especially the younger crowd would be excited by any PL team including Lehigh.

I may be wrong but aren't Lehigh's attendance numbers down in similar fashion percentage wise? There'd be fewer LU fans making the trip as well versus yesteryear.

The perception problem is essentially a circular argument: "we are not excited about Lehigh because we've never played them in my memory, and we've never played them in my memory because we don't draw well for them," with the closing of the circle coming when teams choose not to play, there is no draw.

Not here to rehash the old arguments as to why the games didn't happen, but I think a good argument could be made that Lehigh and Delaware playing on a more regular basis probably would have helped both teams in the long run, but perhaps with a year less of short-run profit, you could say.

It requires a lot to make a good OOC series, but I think the most important is buy-in at the highest university levels. Lehigh/Villanova could have been a slam dunk, but instead ended up as not much. Scheduling Lehigh's home game during Villanova's popular Volunteer Day leaps to mind.

DFW HOYA
May 8th, 2014, 12:25 PM
Lehigh/Villanova could have been a slam dunk, but instead ended up as not much. Scheduling Lehigh's home game during Villanova's popular Volunteer Day leaps to mind.

Georgetown/Villanova would really be that slam dunk [pun intended], but I think most Nova fans would rather carry an extra open date on the calendar.

superman7515
May 8th, 2014, 12:41 PM
The perception problem is essentially a circular argument: "we are not excited about Lehigh because we've never played them in my memory, and we've never played them in my memory because we don't draw well for them," with the closing of the circle coming when teams choose not to play, there is no draw.

Not here to rehash the old arguments as to why the games didn't happen, but I think a good argument could be made that Lehigh and Delaware playing on a more regular basis probably would have helped both teams in the long run, but perhaps with a year less of short-run profit, you could say.

I don't mind speaking mine a little, but even as a fan of above-average interest in the games at UD, there are teams like Sacred Heart that have little interest to me. I hope for a good game, I hope for a win, I hope for no injuries, but there's no pre-game excitement about that matchup for me personally, and I'm quite a bit younger than most of our remaining 60-80 year old fanbase that buys season tickets. I can't imagine it's doing a lot for those younger than me that are still in college. Lehigh would interest me, but more because of my interactions with you guys and the playoffs than with school itself, I'm not sure how much of my own interest would be shared by those a few years younger than me. I truly believe that a Harvard/Yale/Princeton game would be exciting for all of us from a pre-game interest point of view simply because of the name recognition, but beyond that, I can't think of a single school that would excite everyone from the old school to the college kids.

Montana would get those who are really interested in FCS football fired up, I know I would be, but not sure about the students; they weren't interested in a nationally ranked South Dakota State team for a litany of reasons, although SDSU doesn't have nearly as much football recognition as Montana does. AppState would have gotten an above average response a couple of years ago, a moot point now. A lot of the older fans have their nose in the air about the smaller schools we've been scheduling, and a lot of the younger fans couldn't care less because they've never heard of them, and even schools with history and tradition like Grambling, Youngstown State, McNeese, and Furman wouldn't draw well because of reasons like distance, lack of recent success, lack of name recognition, etc. I don't think there's an easy answer for Delaware, it may be that like the economy, we're just finding a new normal.

DFW HOYA
May 8th, 2014, 12:44 PM
I don't mind speaking mine a little, but even as a fan of above-average interest in the games at UD, there are teams like Sacred Heart that have little interest to me. I hope for a good game, I hope for a win, I hope for no injuries, but there's no pre-game excitement about that matchup for me personally, and I'm quite a bit younger than most of our remaining 60-80 year old fanbase that buys season tickets. I can't imagine it's doing a lot for those younger than me that are still in college. Lehigh would interest me, but more because of my interactions with you guys and the playoffs than with school itself, I'm not sure how much of my own interest would be shared by those a few years younger than me. I truly believe that a Harvard/Yale/Princeton game would be exciting for all of us from a pre-game interest point of view simply because of the name recognition, but beyond that, I can't think of a single school that would excite everyone from the old school to the college kids.

Montana would get those who are really interested in FCS football fired up, I know I would be, but not sure about the students; they weren't interested in a nationally ranked South Dakota State team for a litany of reasons, although SDSU doesn't have nearly as much football recognition as Montana does. AppState would have gotten an above average response a couple of years ago, a moot point now. A lot of the older fans have their nose in the air about the smaller schools we've been scheduling, and a lot of the younger fans couldn't care less because they've never heard of them, and even schools with history and tradition like Grambling, Youngstown State, McNeese, and Furman wouldn't draw well because of reasons like distance, lack of recent success, lack of name recognition, etc. I don't think there's an easy answer for Delaware, it may be that like the economy, we're just finding a new normal.

What is your ideal schedule? Sure, Penn State and Maryland aren't coming, but who is on your list of, say, 8-10 schools to rotate through a home schedule..and while we're at it, can that rotation be accomplished in the CAA?

superman7515
May 8th, 2014, 01:12 PM
What is your ideal schedule? Sure, Penn State and Maryland aren't coming, but who is on your list of, say, 8-10 schools to rotate through a home schedule..and while we're at it, can that rotation be accomplished in the CAA?

If you're asking me personally, I'm too easy, but apologies in advance to those not named...

I'd be (pre-game) interested in seeing anyone from the Big Sky (sans Idaho State & Northern Colorado), MVFC (except Missouri State), and Patriot (except Bucknell and Colgate).

From the rest: Coastal Carolina, Liberty, Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Penn, DelState (no one is interested in that game but me, I just want to be there when DelState eventually wins, suicide watch in Newark... Talk about attendance plummeting), FAMU, SC State, Eastern Illinois, Jacksonville State, Tennessee State, The Citadel, Furman, Chattanooga, Wofford, Central Arkansas, McNeese, Sam Houston State (that'd get them going), Grambling, and Southern. Once the game starts, I don't care who is out there, I just wanna see some good football and hopefully a win. But just speaking of pre-game interest, that's who I personally would like to see.

MplsBison
May 8th, 2014, 02:19 PM
Really interesting discussion. Thanks guys!

I agree on the front that losing games against long held opponents and then replacing them with teams that the fanbase considers "inferior" is likely to result in lower attendance.


The only way UD could realistically increase attendance in that sense then is to move up to FBS and try to schedule Temple, Buffalo, UMass and UConn as much as possible.

caribbeanhen
May 8th, 2014, 05:33 PM
Delaware should do a home and home with Sammy...... It would be a natural interest game, note I didn't say National.

buffalobill
May 9th, 2014, 04:46 PM
Joe Biden for President! Of the University of Delaware that is!xpeacex

superman7515
May 12th, 2014, 07:27 AM
Might be able to find out a little more about what UD is up to soon...

http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/bill-open-records-ud-dsu/8982857/


A bill in the Delaware General Assembly would bring the University of Delaware and Delaware State University under the state's open-records law by eliminating a special exemption allowing both institutions to conduct the bulk of their operations in secret.
House Bill 331 would add UD and DSU to the list of public bodies listed in the Delaware Freedom of Information Act and require them to comply with all provisions of the law.

"The very definition of 'public body' in our code is those 'supported in whole or in part by any public funds,' " said the bill's sponsor in the House, Rep. John Kowalko, D-Newark South.

"In the past seven years, we've allocated more than $1 billion to these two universities that are exempt from FOIA, according to the comptroller. Many of my constituents and other taxpayers are asking why they should be exempt from disclosure of their innermosactivities, while continuing to ask for and accept public money."

Currently, only university records relating to the expenditure of public funds are subject to FOIA.
Also, meetings of the full board of trustees are public, although major decisions are generally hammered out by the boards' committees, who meet in private....
.
.
.
.

Critics argue that any university receiving taxpayer funds should be open to scrutiny, as is Delaware Technical & Community College.

They say eliminating the exemptions would reveal details on recent issues such as: UD's agreement to lease campus land for a gas-fired power plant and data center; the awarding of large construction contracts to out-of-state firms; the disbanding of the UD men's track and cross-country teams; and DSU's audit of no-bid contracts.

The exemptions are rare among publicly funded U.S. colleges and universities, the majority of which must divulge a host of information under the open-records laws in their state.

The exceptions are the University of Alaska and, in Pennsylvania, those considered "state-related institutions": Penn State University, the University of Pittsburgh, Temple University and Lincoln University, said attorney Frank LaMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center.

"You're in a very small category of institutions that don't have to respond to records requests," said LaMonte, whose organization advocates for open government on campus and advises student journalists about First Amendment issues...

bisonnation
May 12th, 2014, 08:00 AM
Hasn't the Ivy League, 50 years ago, tried the same thing you're saying? Sure, Ivy League games still get decent crowds, especially compared to other FCS teams, but it's a far cry from the heydays when the Ivy League was fielding some of the best teams in the land with players who were just a couple of inches taller and just a few steps faster. People will still watch because, like you say, they like watching their school in their uniforms play other schools. But you're being silly (and the Ivy League example proves it) when you pretend that attendance (and tv revenues) would not drop significantly if the B1G was no longer putting some of the top teams in the country out there on the field.

The Big 10 could put some of the worst teams in the nation and draw well since they have marketing tools like no other team has... most notably the Big Ten TV Network. They can also not play the FCA schools to give the illusion they are so much better. It's called putting lipstick on a pig but the general public is stupid

henfan
May 12th, 2014, 08:20 AM
Supe, I wouldn't count on the General Assembly passing legislation removing the FOIA exemption for UD and DSU... not this session, anyway. It's just a matter of time though. This is a legacy exemption left over from when the state and its institutions were subservient to the DuPont Company.

Both schools have been suspected recently of conducting shady business deals to the disadvantage of their communities. Despite the best efforts of their lobbyists, political pressure will continue to mount for the exemption to be removed.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 12th, 2014, 09:08 AM
What's interesting is that some Pennsylvania "state related" schools are pushing to go the other direction - completely heading to "private" status, perhaps so they don't need to disclose their finances.

clenz
May 12th, 2014, 09:16 AM
The Big 10 could put some of the worst teams in the nation and draw well since they have marketing tools like no other team has... most notably the Big Ten TV Network. They can also not play the FCA schools to give the illusion they are so much better. It's called putting lipstick on a pig but the general public is stupid
The estimated pay out from the BTN by 2017 is something lie 44 MILLION PER SCHOOL.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 12th, 2014, 09:24 AM
The estimated pay out from the BTN by 2017 is something lie 44 MILLION PER SCHOOL.

As an aside, think about this one second: Shave $10 milllion off this number - $34 million per B1G school, plenty to make a lot of people money.

Then, take the $140 million, and use it to stipend $2,000 for every B1G athlete. And every MAC athlete. And every MVFC athlete. Men or women.

There's plenty of money to do this EVERY YEAR, with PLENTY left over.

Try getting that proposed to Mr. Delany.

henfan
May 12th, 2014, 09:49 AM
What's interesting is that some Pennsylvania "state related" schools are pushing to go the other direction - completely heading to "private" status, perhaps so they don't need to disclose their finances.

And that's perfectly fine... or, IMO, so it should be. However, in DE, neither UD nor DSU have made similar proposals. They appear to want to continue the advantage of accepting public funding without all of the responsibilities of full public disclosure. I'm not sure how much longer that the political climate will allow them to have it both ways, especially as specific corporate influence has waned in the state and at the universities.

Sader87
May 12th, 2014, 10:10 AM
Can one of you guys briefly summarize how U Delaware and the "state-related" schools in PA LFN mentioned are/can be considered private or semi-private schools?

henfan
May 12th, 2014, 10:55 AM
Can one of you guys briefly summarize how U Delaware and the "state-related" schools in PA LFN mentioned are/can be considered private or semi-private schools?

Can't speak for PA schools but, in DE, UD and DSU are both largely exempt from state FOIA regulations, allowing them to conduct much of their business outside of the public's purview; hence, the "semi-public" monikers. HB 331 would remove the exemptions and clarify the status of both land-grant, publicly funded institutions

superman7515
May 12th, 2014, 10:57 AM
Can one of you guys briefly summarize how U Delaware and the "state-related" schools in PA LFN mentioned are/can be considered private or semi-private schools?

The private part is that UD is a privately chartered school (Newark Academy) that is older than the state (UD in 1743, the state of Delaware on Separation Day, June 15, 1776 when the state declared independence from Great Britain and Pennsylvania).

The public part is that it receives public funding from the state, but it is a small amount of it's overall operating budget, now less than 11%. It received state land under the Morrill Act as a land-grant college and is actually the merger of three different colleges: Newark Academy (the 1743 college), Newark College (a state chartered college that began in 1833 & merged in 1843), and Delaware Women's College (a state chartered college that began in 1913 and merged in 1921).

So it's privately chartered, but both of the schools that merged into it to make it University of Delaware were state chartered colleges.
It receives state funding, but only 1/10 of it's annual operating budget.
It received state land as a land-grant college.

Lehigh Football Nation
May 12th, 2014, 11:00 AM
http://www.pitt.edu/chancellor-search/state-related


As a state-related university, Pitt receives an annual, non-preferred financial appropriation from the state and offers discounted tuition to students who are Pennsylvania residents. In addition, Pitt’s Board of Trustees includes a minority of state-appointed representatives. Legally, however, state-related universities are separate and private entities, in contrast to state-owned schools. This public-private hybrid system of higher education is unique in the nation.
Pennsylvania’s other state-related universities are Penn State, Lincoln University, and Temple University.


Kind of the best of both worlds, huh? Extra state money without all that pesky accountability.

The PA situation and DE situation are pretty different.

Sandlapper Spike
May 12th, 2014, 11:03 AM
The private part is that UD is a privately chartered school (Newark Academy) that is older than the state (UD in 1743, the state of Delaware on Separation Day, June 15, 1776 when the state declared independence from Great Britain and Pennsylvania).

The public part is that it receives public funding from the state, but it is a small amount of it's overall operating budget, now less than 11%.

Not that it matters in this discussion, but for FY2014 The Citadel's allocation from the state was less than 9% of its operating budget. Because it was chartered as a public school, however, there is no question as to whether or not it is a "state" school (though plenty of national commentators/writers have confused it with a private institution).

MplsBison
May 12th, 2014, 12:24 PM
As an aside, think about this one second: Shave $10 milllion off this number - $34 million per B1G school, plenty to make a lot of people money.

Then, take the $140 million, and use it to stipend $2,000 for every B1G athlete. And every MAC athlete. And every MVFC athlete. Men or women.

There's plenty of money to do this EVERY YEAR, with PLENTY left over.

Try getting that proposed to Mr. Delany.

What's worse, in your opinion - that the B1G wouldn't agree to give up that money .... or that the student-athletes think they're entitled to more than that??

Point is, a $2k pay-off to every student athlete would still be seen as an artificially "capped" (low) value and so it would lose in court.

MplsBison
May 12th, 2014, 12:26 PM
The private part is that UD is a privately chartered school (Newark Academy) that is older than the state (UD in 1743, the state of Delaware on Separation Day, June 15, 1776 when the state declared independence from Great Britain and Pennsylvania).

The public part is that it receives public funding from the state, but it is a small amount of it's overall operating budget, now less than 11%. It received state land under the Morrill Act as a land-grant college and is actually the merger of three different colleges: Newark Academy (the 1743 college), Newark College (a state chartered college that began in 1833 & merged in 1843), and Delaware Women's College (a state chartered college that began in 1913 and merged in 1921).

So it's privately chartered, but both of the schools that merged into it to make it University of Delaware were state chartered colleges.
It receives state funding, but only 1/10 of it's annual operating budget.
It received state land as a land-grant college.

What if UD proposed that it would no longer accept state money and would pay the state of Delaware a one time deal as a "buy back" of the public land grant? Then Delaware State could be be re-purposed as the state's public university.

superman7515
May 12th, 2014, 12:38 PM
What if UD proposed that it would no longer accept state money and would pay the state of Delaware a one time deal as a "buy back" of the public land grant? Then Delaware State could be be re-purposed as the state's public university.

Delaware State, on a technicality, already is the state's public university. It's the only one of the two that has a public charter, UD just has a sort of scheduling-agreement if you will with the state where it accepts the state money in exchange for guaranteeing that in-state students who have a certain GPA, SAT scores, and class standing will be guaranteed entry.

MplsBison
May 12th, 2014, 12:47 PM
Delaware State, on a technicality, already is the state's public university. It's the only one of the two that has a public charter, UD just has a sort of scheduling-agreement if you will with the state where it accepts the state money in exchange for guaranteeing that in-state students who have a certain GPA, SAT scores, and class standing will be guaranteed entry.

That makes sense.

So what do you think, with such a small portion of their budget - would they offer to buy the state out in order to go fully private?

superman7515
May 12th, 2014, 01:28 PM
So what do you think, with such a small portion of their budget - would they offer to buy the state out in order to go fully private?

In a way it makes sense if they want to continue operating as they are, I guess it depends on how important it is for the BOT to be able to continue shielding day-to-day operations. The argument they made in the paper is that they need to be able to hide their proprietary information or they will fall behind other schools in the region in their research, recruitment, etc however FOIA already exempts proprietary information, trade secrets, and most confidential financial info, so it's simply a red herring on the part of UD to maintain the status quo.

This actually reverts back to our football discussion quite easily because there are a lot of fans that are turned off by the appearance of UD's lack of vision. Stadium drawings were released, taken back, released again, taken back, released again, we're going on a decade there with no improvements. Have they talked to the MAC, Sun Belt, etc to even gauge the financials or are they sitting with their noses in the air ignoring it all? Will UD sit back and do nothing until they are forced kicking and screaming into the 2000's a decade too late like they were forced kicking and screaming into the 1970's when they finally allowed freshmen to play and offered athletic scholarships in the 1980's? There is a lot of concern from fans of all ages and backgrounds about UD's perceived lack of action in doing anything about anything when it comes to athletics.

Not saying that they aren't doing anything, but they have a very poor history of communication. It's a very secretive circle in Newark, maybe 8-10 people know anything, and until all of them are ready to let you know something, speculation runs wild and rampant, which just hurts the programs fanbase. While it's certainly amusing to speculate from time to time, no one likes to feel like they are being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed a load of ****, which is how more and more are starting to feel each season. You've got the keep the faith crowd, which will probably always be there; the eternal pessimists, which probably aren't coming back; and the middle ground which is getting lost in the shuffle the longer UD plays their cards in the dark.

MplsBison
May 12th, 2014, 02:23 PM
Very nice write up. Thanks

henfan
May 12th, 2014, 02:24 PM
That makes sense.

So what do you think, with such a small portion of their budget - would they offer to buy the state out in order to go fully private?

I'm not even sure how anyone could put a number on all of the benefits & tax breaks that UD has reaped since the 1860's and will continue to reap into the indefinite future. Certainly, they've added tremendous value back to state residents over that period, which also need to be considered.

Removing the FOIA exemption is not a new idea; it's been floated from time to time since the early 1980's. UD has never threatened to change its charter, nor, IMO, would they, assuming they were to lose their FOIA exemption. Any attempt would result in a political bloodbath, with the public and pols lining up squarely against the school. Not going happen in DE in this day. The old adage that "The School (UD) runs the State" is no longer true. The DuPont Company no longer wields anywhere near the same amount of influence in state politics.

Chances are good that UD will eventually have to conduct their business in a more open and public manner, like just about every other state sponsored institution of higher learning in America. In doing so, they may find it easier to every June when they approach the state legislature with their hands out.

citdog
May 16th, 2014, 07:11 PM
Not that it matters in this discussion, but for FY2014 The Citadel's allocation from the state was less than 9% of its operating budget. Because it was chartered as a public school, however, there is no question as to whether or not it is a "state" school (though plenty of national commentators/writers have confused it with a private institution).


Should have come up with the 9% and shown the female 'Cadets' the door.

Sader87
May 17th, 2014, 12:06 PM
Thanks all for answering my query on public/private funding of U Delaware etc.....

caribbeanhen
August 11th, 2022, 09:29 PM
In a way it makes sense if they want to continue operating as they are, I guess it depends on how important it is for the BOT to be able to continue shielding day-to-day operations. The argument they made in the paper is that they need to be able to hide their proprietary information or they will fall behind other schools in the region in their research, recruitment, etc however FOIA already exempts proprietary information, trade secrets, and most confidential financial info, so it's simply a red herring on the part of UD to maintain the status quo.

This actually reverts back to our football discussion quite easily because there are a lot of fans that are turned off by the appearance of UD's lack of vision. Stadium drawings were released, taken back, released again, taken back, released again, we're going on a decade there with no improvements. Have they talked to the MAC, Sun Belt, etc to even gauge the financials or are they sitting with their noses in the air ignoring it all? Will UD sit back and do nothing until they are forced kicking and screaming into the 2000's a decade too late like they were forced kicking and screaming into the 1970's when they finally allowed freshmen to play and offered athletic scholarships in the 1980's? There is a lot of concern from fans of all ages and backgrounds about UD's perceived lack of action in doing anything about anything when it comes to athletics.

Not saying that they aren't doing anything, but they have a very poor history of communication. It's a very secretive circle in Newark, maybe 8-10 people know anything, and until all of them are ready to let you know something, speculation runs wild and rampant, which just hurts the programs fanbase. While it's certainly amusing to speculate from time to time, no one likes to feel like they are being treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and fed a load of ****, which is how more and more are starting to feel each season. You've got the keep the faith crowd, which will probably always be there; the eternal pessimists, which probably aren't coming back; and the middle ground which is getting lost in the shuffle the longer UD plays their cards in the dark.

Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio

Superman really on a 56 post streak in this thread from 8 years ago

the guy was good

hengeek
August 11th, 2022, 10:56 PM
Always wondered what happened to superman.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Go...gate
August 12th, 2022, 02:38 AM
This was a terrific thread.

caribbeanhen
August 12th, 2022, 09:18 AM
Always wondered what happened to superman.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

I’m not sure why he stopped posting but he did mention on here he was getting very busy and was moving to another state to be a fireman.... I know that doesn’t explain much about his disappearance

Henfan as well ..... gone, but might be posting again on gohens with a different username

hengeek
August 12th, 2022, 12:18 PM
Ok thanks. Didn't notice henfan was absent.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

Redbird 4th & short
August 12th, 2022, 03:54 PM
Late to this thread ... so not sure if this point was raised.

But if athletes were to become paid EEs, then presumably they would have to pay income tax. Which means the school would have to increase their pay, in order to cover what they would owe in income taxes. Not to mention the additional payroll taxes required by the Employer for FICAH/FICAO (8.45%) an then both federal (.7%) and state unemployment (varies).

I hate the idea, period. but if they are EEs, they have to pay income taxes. This bumps a 40k schollie closer to 50k or more for the college .. all in. Then what about benefits, HR regulations.

And if a player is cut, is that like being fired ... for cause ? Do they get unemployment ? Can they sue from wrongful termination ?

They are student-athletes ... this has gotten so out of hand. 1-2% of D-I athletes will go on to play professional for some period of time. The other 98-99% will need to get a regular job.

Oh, and the colleges with their campus, their coaches, their programs, their 100+ years of history ... they'll keep drawing in and churning out the same kinds of teams, year over year. It's their investment .. the players come and go, and don't truly make a difference once they leave. Larry Bird is best example of a guy who single handedly put his program on the map ... can't think of too many other examples like that.

Novel idea .. just take your 40k schollie x 4 years and the diploma, and say thank you. 98-99% of you D-I athletes are actually over paid as is. It's only 1-2% who wind up playing professionally, that are arguably worth more than the schollie.

Bisonoline
August 12th, 2022, 08:56 PM
Late to this thread ... so not sure if this point was raised.

But if athletes were to become paid EEs, then presumably they would have to pay income tax. Which means the school would have to increase their pay, in order to cover what they would owe in income taxes. Not to mention the additional payroll taxes required by the Employer for FICAH/FICAO (8.45%) an then both federal (.7%) and state unemployment (varies).

I hate the idea, period. but if they are EEs, they have to pay income taxes. This bumps a 40k schollie closer to 50k or more for the college .. all in. Then what about benefits, HR regulations.

And if a player is cut, is that like being fired ... for cause ? Do they get unemployment ? Can they sue from wrongful termination ?

They are student-athletes ... this has gotten so out of hand. 1-2% of D-I athletes will go on to play professional for some period of time. The other 98-99% will need to get a regular job.

Oh, and the colleges with their campus, their coaches, their programs, their 100+ years of history ... they'll keep drawing in and churning out the same kinds of teams, year over year. It's their investment .. the players come and go, and don't truly make a difference once they leave. Larry Bird is best example of a guy who single handedly put his program on the map ... can't think of too many other examples like that.

Novel idea .. just take your 40k schollie x 4 years and the diploma, and say thank you. 98-99% of you D-I athletes are actually over paid as is. It's only 1-2% who wind up playing professionally, that are arguably worth more than the schollie.

Im pretty sure they will pay income tax on NIL money.

Go...gate
August 13th, 2022, 01:17 AM
I’m not sure why he stopped posting but he did mention on here he was getting very busy and was moving to another state to be a fireman.... I know that doesn’t explain much about his disappearance

Henfan as well ..... gone, but might be posting again on gohens with a different username

Sometimes it is a matter of health. That is why I was off AGS for nearly three years.

caribbeanhen
November 29th, 2023, 07:43 AM
I don't want to rip a particular program. Suffice to say, there are very few CONFERENCE games that interest the ticket buying public in and around Newark, DE. Increasingly, FCS FB is becoming a tough sell with potential ticket buyers, students and even a segment of the existing season ticket base, whether fair or not. IMO, either UD is going to have to embrace the 'new reality' of continued attendance slides and further erosion of support or they'll have to more seriously consider reclassification... which comes with a whole different set of problems & challenges.

There aren't any easy answers, especially with the damage UD has done to its fanbase. They're also making a bad situation much more challenging and, IMO, prolonging the inevitable by operating their AD like it was 1988. The broad based nonsense makes zero financial sense for a quasi-public mid-major D-I school in 2014.

an interesting look back to say the least

Questions going forward

It’s pretty obvious that FCS fan interest has declined over the past few decades

The question is, is the lack of interest confined to FCS or is FBS G5 football at risk?

Given the growing cost with no guarantees, will Americans continue to move away from the established mindset that a four year degree is absolutely necessary to succeed?

ElCid
November 29th, 2023, 09:09 AM
an interesting look back to say the least

Questions going forward

It’s pretty obvious that FCS fan interest has declined over the past few decades

The question is, is the lack of interest confined to FCS or is FBS G5 football at risk?

Given the growing cost with no guarantees, will Americans continue to move away from the established mindset that a four year degree is absolutely necessary to succeed?

To your last point, t's already happening. The growth of college attendance following WWII to the present day appeared to be a good thing. How can education not be a good thing? But that is a simplified concept. When it doesn't pay off in actual practice, something has to give.

Companies are already publicly eliminating degree requirements from their job requirement. Once a Bachelor's became commonplace, a Master's was required, and then a Doctorate. It was educational inflation with the actual quality dropping drastically as a result. The Educational Industrial Complex, like any industry will continue to push their product, it's how they make money, but the market will correct. Most don't need a college education for the jobs they hold. They simply need training. Once this dawns on people, they can figure on saving tens of thousands of dollars and gain years of experience instead of wasting the time and money on school.

A great example was the military. Eventually it was required that military officers had a degree. Then it was required that you needed an advanced degree to get promoted past a certain rank. It didn't matter what you got a master's in or the quality of the degree. Many diploma mills were born to simply cater to the military. It also didn't matter if it helped you do your job better. It was simply a process of box checking and an easy disqualifier if you didn't play the game.

The happy fat days of the college industry are probably over. This will trickle down to funding for all extracurricular activities. Travel will be very expensive for some of these schools who belong to far flung conferences. What will take the hit? Facilities, salaries, scholarship numbers, equipment, cutting some sports? Will future realignment and another reshuffling take place. Something big will eventually happen. When and what that is, is anyone's guess. But the consumer, ultimately the students, will be thinking twice about how their money is spent. And they take their business elsewhere.

Edit to add link detailing US companies dumping degree requirements. The next five years will show if this takes hold or is simply a fad.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/consumer/article-12806053/companies-ax-college-bachelors-degree-requirements-walmart.html

ngineer
November 29th, 2023, 02:00 PM
To avoid all or most of the problem issues with NCAA football today is return to the 'need based formula'. The original idea was for students from one school playing students from another school. The students and their families should be choosing the school based on the type of education goals they have in mind (which includes non-classroom education, which is what properly run athletic programs are to provide). Take away the "payment" to commit to a particular school via the athletic scholarship based on athletic skills. Colleges were not meant to become the 'minor leagues' to the pros. What made college football, and most college sports, interesting was the realization of watching these students from varying academic studies battling it out on field/court/etc. and not paid mercenaries. Money, as in most things, always seems to be the crux of any problems. Take away the profit motive from college athletics and make life simpler. "The answer is blowin' in the wind."

caribbeanhen
November 30th, 2023, 10:55 AM
To your last point, t's already happening. The growth of college attendance following WWII to the present day appeared to be a good thing. How can education not be a good thing? But that is a simplified concept. When it doesn't pay off in actual practice, something has to give.

Companies are already publicly eliminating degree requirements from their job requirement. Once a Bachelor's became commonplace, a Master's was required, and then a Doctorate. It was educational inflation with the actual quality dropping drastically as a result. The Educational Industrial Complex, like any industry will continue to push their product, it's how they make money, but the market will correct. Most don't need a college education for the jobs they hold. They simply need training. Once this dawns on people, they can figure on saving tens of thousands of dollars and gain years of experience instead of wasting the time and money on school.

A great example was the military. Eventually it was required that military officers had a degree. Then it was required that you needed an advanced degree to get promoted past a certain rank. It didn't matter what you got a master's in or the quality of the degree. Many diploma mills were born to simply cater to the military. It also didn't matter if it helped you do your job better. It was simply a process of box checking and an easy disqualifier if you didn't play the game.

The happy fat days of the college industry are probably over. This will trickle down to funding for all extracurricular activities. Travel will be very expensive for some of these schools who belong to far flung conferences. What will take the hit? Facilities, salaries, scholarship numbers, equipment, cutting some sports? Will future realignment and another reshuffling take place. Something big will eventually happen. When and what that is, is anyone's guess. But the consumer, ultimately the students, will be thinking twice about how their money is spent. And they take their business elsewhere.

Edit to add link detailing US companies dumping degree requirements. The next five years will show if this takes hold or is simply a fad.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/yourmoney/consumer/article-12806053/companies-ax-college-bachelors-degree-requirements-walmart.html

that’s a very interesting outlook El Cid

I like the outlook Daniel has

Daniel Moody, 19, was recruited to run plumbing for the plant after graduating from a Memphis high school in 2021. Now earning $24 an hour, he’s glad he passed on college.

https://fortune.com/2023/03/09/american ... ation/amp/ (https://fortune.com/2023/03/09/american-skipping-college-huge-numbers-pandemic-turned-them-off-education/amp/)

“If I would have gone to college after school, I would be dead broke,” he said. “The type of money we’re making out here, you’re not going to be making that while you’re trying to go to college.”

Now just sit back for a second and listen to pontificating Chen spin a yarn

The establishment insisted that you must attend college after HS and college attendance has boomed since the 70s, but so did the cost. Just take out a student loan, all is well. The enabling Big Guy will pay for it. Also, back in the day, some kids had to face the reality that they just might not be college material, and they were told so.

In my senior year when I visited the guidance counselor, I told her I wanted to go to the University of Delaware, and study journalism. She looked at my grades and threw up her hands and said, what do you expect me to do with you? The U of Delaware will laugh as both out of the room if I send in your application. You’ve totally wasted your time in high school. What have you been doing for the last four years? Well, ma’am I’ve been running a sports gambling ring and we bet on high school football games, and yea your football team was involved… she laughed and said get outta here but only I know if I was just joking…

Over the decades, college wasn’t necessarily for the best and brightest anymore and it became harder to tell Johnny because the establishment mindset had grown deeper roots. There is no other path, you just have to go.

The pandemic changed a lot of things. Before the pandemic I would be like … why do I have to physically go to that school? Just send me the material and final exam online and I’ll take it. Save on travel and lodging… of course they didn’t listen but now, post pandemic they wouldn’t think about flying employees to school, we can just do it virtually they said while they patted themselves on the back.

Apparently the pandemic has put a big dent into the number of young people attending college right out of high school. They are learning that it is absolutely not required, and you can still make something of yourself without college.

Corporations are also starting to offer their own training and teaching people the skills that are actually necessary to do their job. This means that the best of the best are starting to go right into the workforce and bypassing the traditional 4 year college degree after high school.

Where is all this is going? I don’t know, but you can bet your last dollar that the University of Delaware is it going to be asking for it http://www.gohens.net/boards/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif

blukeys
November 30th, 2023, 05:16 PM
Harker was the worst president in Delaware's athletic history. He engineered the firing of Keeler, who saw the need for UD change, and ushered in the Decade of disaster for Blue Hen football. Gotta thank Superman for resurrecting Harker's Pompous, arrogant approach to the reality of college football. The guy was never in doubt although he was consistently proven wrong.

His leadership was so bad that he has never been pursued by anyone for a college president position again.

caribbeanhen
November 30th, 2023, 05:53 PM
Harker was the worst president in Delaware's athletic history. He engineered the firing of Keeler, who saw the need for UD change, and ushered in the Decade of disaster for Blue Hen football. Gotta thank Superman for resurrecting Harker's Pompous, arrogant approach to the reality of college football. The guy was never in doubt although he was consistently proven wrong.

His leadership was so bad that he has never been pursued by anyone for a college president position again.

thanks for that recap Blukeys, he had Ivy syndrome meaning the last thing he wanted was for Delaware to be known as a football school. I agree with everything you said.

Keeler tried to get the upgrades going and 16 years later it happens. Cost UD 5 million as well.

I would bet Harker is the reason Keeler wasn’t hired at Albany as well, total hit job

Go...gate
December 1st, 2023, 12:00 AM
To avoid all or most of the problem issues with NCAA football today is return to the 'need based formula'. The original idea was for students from one school playing students from another school. The students and their families should be choosing the school based on the type of education goals they have in mind (which includes non-classroom education, which is what properly run athletic programs are to provide). Take away the "payment" to commit to a particular school via the athletic scholarship based on athletic skills. Colleges were not meant to become the 'minor leagues' to the pros. What made college football, and most college sports, interesting was the realization of watching these students from varying academic studies battling it out on field/court/etc. and not paid mercenaries. Money, as in most things, always seems to be the crux of any problems. Take away the profit motive from college athletics and make life simpler. "The answer is blowin' in the wind."

Well said.