Why Don't Loyola U and Boston U Sponsor Football (Again)?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/06/why-dont-loyola-u-and-boston-u-sponsor.html

I don't think Loyola or Boston U. are going to sponsor football again soon. But they should.

[Laker]

Interesting article. I always like to read about the history of the sport at a school.

It has bothered me for decades that Vermont dropped football after the 1974 season. Maybe Ben and Jerry could kick in money to restart it.

I guess that doesn't have a snowball's chance.

[Sader87]

Nevah happening at BU....even when they had a D1 and later FCS program, BU football had a very poor following....it would be light-years worse today moving forward.

[32counter]

BU will get back a football team when Northeastern does.

Loyola will bring back a football team when Georgetown does.

[heath]

BU will get back a football team when Northeastern does.

Loyola will bring back a football team when Georgetown does.
The guys around and near the beltway that want to play football go to play at Hopkins. Its a shame JH and Georgetown don't just swap football leagues and move forward. Then, GU would be competitive and Hopkins would become the PL power they could.xnodx

[344Johnson]

For whatever reason, New England struggles with college football. I guess between BC, Rutgers, and apparently Notre Dame(brother in law says they are real big out there) seem to satisfy that area in addition to the FCS schools.

[clenz]

For whatever reason, New England struggles with college football. I guess between BC, Rutgers, and apparently Notre Dame(brother in law says they are real big out there) seem to satisfy that area in addition to the FCS schools.
Pro sports and Philly area/Georgetown hoops is all that matters out there sports wise.

It's the complete opposite of the Midwest where college sports, especially football, run the show by a mile plus

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[PAllen]

I'm honestly surprised that Loyola hasn't kicked off a FB program yet. The stadium issue was preventing any such discussion for years, but that's all fixed now. More importantly, Stevenson (formerly Villa Julie College) has been getting a ton of publicity locally (including televised games) as an upstart D-III program. It helps that they've taken over the old Ravens practice facility, but the growth of that school since they started their FB program not so long ago has been astounding. I'm shocked that Loyola is content to sit back and be passed in the public mind (at least locally) by a school like Stevenson. Perhaps they just don't care about their local perception anymore.

[PAllen]

The guys around and near the beltway that want to play football go to play at Hopkins. Its a shame JH and Georgetown don't just swap football leagues and move forward. Then, GU would be competitive and Hopkins would become the PL power they could.xnodx

On a side note: When did it become "the beltway" when referring to the combined DC/Baltimore metro area? I've heard this used bunch recently, but previously, and ever since growing up within a long pass of the Baltimore Beltway, it was always the beltway or DC/capital beltway for DC, the Baltimore Beltway for Baltimore, and the beltways (plural) for the combined metro.

Did somebody build a secret highway through Howard County that I don't know about? If so, I want in.

[Mattymc727]

A few years ago I heard of some UVM students starting up a UVM club football team, with the main goal trying to work their way back up to D1. However I have not heard of any progress the 2-3 years. Sounds like a tougher struggle than they originally thought.

[Mattymc727]

Well, looks like they still exist at least:

http://www.uvmfootball.com/ClubSpotlight.aspx?clubId=54683&

[Pinnum]

For whatever reason, New England struggles with college football. I guess between BC, Rutgers, and apparently Notre Dame(brother in law says they are real big out there) seem to satisfy that area in addition to the FCS schools.

You may find this interesting. You can zoom in and view by zip code.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html?_r=0#5,39.164,-96.460

I was surprised at how some programs reached various areas. Notre Dame has a pretty good following in certain areas of Boston.

[bonarae]

I thought Loyola in this article was the Ramblers... oh, nevermind...

I'm afraid that they're moving in the direction of Pacific/Cal States than UAB/New Haven... xsmhx

[Model Citizen]

Loyola-Chicago's team rambled into oblivion many decades ago. They would be a good geographic fit in the Pioneer, but does the PFL really need another team recruiting Chicago?

Unlike a lot of small D-I schools, Loyola-Chicago has never said never on the football question.

[MR. CHICKEN]

On a side note: When did it become "the beltway" when referring to the combined DC/Baltimore metro area? I've heard this used bunch recently, but previously, and ever since growing up within a long pass of the Baltimore Beltway, it was always the beltway or DC/capital beltway for DC, the Baltimore Beltway for Baltimore, and the beltways (plural) for the combined metro.

Did somebody build a secret highway through Howard County that I don't know about? If so, I want in.

......JES' GET UH......EZ-PASS ACCOUNT..........BRAWK!

[clenz]

Loyola-Chicago's team rambled into oblivion many decades ago. They would be a good geographic fit in the Pioneer, but does the PFL really need another team recruiting Chicago?

Unlike a lot of small D-I schools, Loyola-Chicago has never said never on the football question.
I would put the odds of Loyola-Chicago starting a team at less than .005% at this point.

[GannonFan]

FCS football, with no goal of going FBS, is not going to be a growth model in much of the country, and especially in the Northeast. There just isn't enough people interested in FCS football to say that adding two more programs are going to suddenly bring out fans who before have not come out. For better or for worse, new fans come out for FBS football (and even there there are limits) but they just don't come out for FCS. BU and Loyola are never, ever, ever going to have football programs. Ever.

[DFW HOYA]

For better or for worse, new fans come out for FBS football (and even there there are limits) but they just don't come out for FCS.

Tell that to Mercer.

[Mattymc727]

Notre Dame is big in New England because of all the Irish Catholics here, especially around Boston.

The Notre Dame/BC game is bigger than most other NE FCS games.

[Mattymc727]

You may find this interesting. You can zoom in and view by zip code.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html?_r=0#5,39.164,-96.460

I was surprised at how some programs reached various areas. Notre Dame has a pretty good following in certain areas of Boston.

Now if that could be done for all D1, that would be cool.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

FCS football, with no goal of going FBS, is not going to be a growth model in much of the country, and especially in the Northeast. There just isn't enough people interested in FCS football to say that adding two more programs are going to suddenly bring out fans who before have not come out. For better or for worse, new fans come out for FBS football (and even there there are limits) but they just don't come out for FCS. BU and Loyola are never, ever, ever going to have football programs. Ever.

The best way to disprove this unprovable theorum is for BU to restart their program and right the historic wrong.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Notre Dame is big in New England because of all the Irish Catholics here, especially around Boston.

The Notre Dame/BC game is bigger than most other NE FCS games.

But also worth mentioning that - let's say BU had an FCS program and were able to play BC at BC. There would be significant regional interest inside of Boston. Not sure how it would rank in terms of Holy Cross/BC (which is a bona-fide rivalry), but the interest level would be significant, much more than a Rice/BC game.

[Go Lehigh TU owl]

Notre Dame is big in New England because of all the Irish Catholics here, especially around Boston.

The Notre Dame/BC game is bigger than most other NE FCS games.

Notre Dame is big all over the Northeast. I grew up in Eastern PA and was born into the ND "side" of the family. I've followed the Irish my whole life.

I remember the ND-PSU games in the late 80's, early 90's being HUGE deals in Pennsylvania. Certainly bigger than any PSU- Pitt game that I can remember.

[Doc QB]

Interesting article. I always like to read about the history of the sport at a school.

It has bothered me for decades that Vermont dropped football after the 1974 season. Maybe Ben and Jerry could kick in money to restart it.

I guess that doesn't have a snowball's chance.

As an aside, I was in the OR as a third yr medical student at UVM when one of those famous ice cream peddlers has his quintuple coronary bypasses...super nice guy, too.

[ccd494]

Because the most popular Saturday football activity in New England is planning where to watch Sunday's Patriots game.

The ONLY popular sport at BU is men's hockey and that is because they are a historical power. "Diversifying" campus at BU isn't necessary- BU's campus is the city of Boston. City schools in the Northeast aren't ever going to have that gameday tailgate atmosphere that brings alums to campus- alums who are incredibly scattered across the country and world.

There are better ways for BU to flush 4-5 million dollars a year down the toilet.

[PAllen]

......JES' GET UH......EZ-PASS ACCOUNT..........BRAWK!

I said Howard, not Montgomery. :D

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Because the most popular Saturday football activity in New England is planning where to watch Sunday's Patriots game.

The ONLY popular sport at BU is men's hockey and that is because they are a historical power. "Diversifying" campus at BU isn't necessary- BU's campus is the city of Boston. City schools in the Northeast aren't ever going to have that gameday tailgate atmosphere that brings alums to campus- alums who are incredibly scattered across the country and world.

There are better ways for BU to flush 4-5 million dollars a year down the toilet.

Funny to think your use of "flushing $5 million down the toilet" to me means denying kids who play football an opportunity at education. The vast majority, perhaps $3 million of that, would be dedicated to scholarships.

[KPSUL]

I would put the odds of Loyola-Chicago starting a team at less than .005% at this point.
Throw a couple more zeroes in there (.00005) and you have the probability of Loyola -Maryland starting a varsity football program.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Throw a couple more zeroes in there (.00005) and you have the probability of Loyola -Maryland starting a varsity football program.

Like I said at the beginning, I didn't think this would necessarily happen - only that these schools should have football.

[KPSUL]

Like I said at the beginning, I didn't think this would necessarily happen - only that these schools should have football.
I enjoyed reading your article, particularly the histories of FB at both schools. But the title of the article begs responses about the likelihood of either school bringing back varsity FB.

[clenz]

Throw a couple more zeroes in there (.00005) and you have the probability of Loyola -Maryland starting a varsity football program.
Honestly, I was using the optomistic "anything could happen" percent for Loyola-Chicago.

The reality is with Loyola-Chicago being in the MVC they will not be starting a football program. I don't know if the MVC can stop them, should the really want too, but I'm going to assume that should they attempt to start it the MVC will put a very quick "unofficial" stop to it.

Whatever money they are going to spend will go towards MVC sports - mostly finding ways to make their high school gym more MVC appropriate in the coming years

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Honestly, I was using the optomistic "anything could happen" percent for Loyola-Chicago.

The reality is with Loyola-Chicago being in the MVC they will not be starting a football program. I don't know if the MVC can stop them, should the really want too, but I'm going to assume that should they attempt to start it the MVC will put a very quick "unofficial" stop to it.

Whatever money they are going to spend will go towards MVC sports - mostly finding ways to make their high school gym more MVC appropriate in the coming years

Not mentioned in my article, but it's worth mentioning that in the 20s and 30s there were four different Loyolas with football (ranked in order of size):

Loyola (IL)
Loyola (LA)
Loyola Marymount (CA)
Loyola (MD)

I think all of them had disbanded by the end of the 50s.

Loyola (IL) could theoretically restart football and play in the PFL. I don't think they were a part of that "non-scholarship football summit" that was held over a decade ago, but they might have been. Detroit U. was there.

[Model Citizen]

Unless you've talked to current school administrators, you shouldn't be putting too many decimal points on anyone's chances.

...unless, of course, you actually are the athletic director or president...in that case, you can say "no football" with absolute certainty for as long as you hold your job. But any comments about what your successor will do would be pure speculation.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I think what strikes me with Loyola (MD) and Boston U. is that if if there were a groundswell of popular support, the common tropes on why they can't restart football mostly don't apply.

* Need to build new Facilities - both have mid- to upper-echelon stadia capable of PL football
* Title IX compliance - BU is already well past proportionality compliance, could add 100 football schollies tomorrow and still be compliant
* Financially too difficult - Loyola already spends less than most of the PL, sponsoring FB would put them in the middle of the PL pack
* Conference opposition - majority of conference already sponsors FB
* Lack of Postseason access - PL already has autobid

[Model Citizen]

The alma mater of Charley Bidwill and George Halas Jr. has some interest, but lacks a proper facility. One big donor--however unlikely--could change everything.

[Bill]

I think one issue that’s gotten overlooked in this discussion is enrollment…specifically male enrollment. IF a school “needs” male enrollment numbers, then football is a fantastic vehicle to accomplish this. Monmouth is a great example of this, adding football back in the early 1990’s primarily to boost enrollment. Of course, Monmouth was playing by a different set of financial rules at that time – they were basically following the DIII model.

This brings me to Stevenson. Yes, the former Villa Julie added football as a way to boost male enrollment (as did Misericordia in the same MAC conference). For those of you that haven’t seen Stevenson’s facilities, they are jaw dropping. Many of the lower end FCS teams would be thrilled to have them!

The big, big difference when you mention Loyola and BU is cost. We’ve beaten this to death here, but for most schools FCS football is a money loser. If you don’t need male enrollment, it may be tough to justify starting a program whose only guarantee is to lose money!
DIII is a different animal. I currently work at a DIII school, and most DIII’s view athletics as a money maker. If you’re at a tuition driven school, a football team of 100 players paying 50K a year to attend is a virtual gold mine. If a school can rationalize that many of those 100+ players would NOT have attended that school without football, than adding football is a long term revenue positive endeavor.

[Model Citizen]

Loyola (IL) could theoretically restart football and play in the PFL. I don't think they were a part of that "non-scholarship football summit" that was held over a decade ago, but they might have been. Detroit U. was there.

The Pioneer needs a name change. With Loyola, Valparaiso, Dayton, and Detroit, they could be the Rust Belt Conference.

[ccd494]

Funny to think your use of "flushing $5 million down the toilet" to me means denying kids who play football an opportunity at education. The vast majority, perhaps $3 million of that, would be dedicated to scholarships.

Oh climb off the cross. They could take all $5M of that $5M and give it as financial aid to students who don't play football.

I don't see BU's failure to sponsor football as a tragedy befalling the nation's potential college athletes. There are about 500 other colleges in the country offering football.

Lehigh University doesn't offer varsity parasailing. By sponsoring football instead of parasailing, Lehigh is denying kids who parasail an opportunity at an education. Other than the $24 million or so that Lehigh would need to spend building a world class parasailing facility in central Pennsylvania, about $3M more would be dedicated to scholarships.

[GannonFan]

Oh climb off the cross. They could take all $5M of that $5M and give it as financial aid to students who don't play football.

I don't see BU's failure to sponsor football as a tragedy befalling the nation's potential college athletes. There are about 500 other colleges in the country offering football.

Lehigh University doesn't offer varsity parasailing. By sponsoring football instead of parasailing, Lehigh is denying kids who parasail an opportunity at an education. Other than the $24 million or so that Lehigh would need to spend building a world class parasailing facility in central Pennsylvania, about $3M more would be dedicated to scholarships.

Agreed, that line about denying kids who play football a chance at education just came off sounding really schmaltzy. How come the NCAA is so against denying kids who play croquet a chance at an education too?

[clenz]

Unless you've talked to current school administrators, you shouldn't be putting too many decimal points on anyone's chances.

...unless, of course, you actually are the athletic director or president...in that case, you can say "no football" with absolute certainty for as long as you hold your job. But any comments about what your successor will do would be pure speculation.
What about Loyola-Chicago's situation is making you think football is a possibility sans a donor going "here's $50,000,000. Make it happen".

They are only 38% male enrollment...BUT nothing else is going for it

1. The MVC "won't allow" it if they want to remain in the MVC
2. They do have a club team...that plays at a high school that's 25 minutes NW of campus and closer to Northwestern than Loyola
3. They have zero room on campus for a stadium. Much like NW they are butted up again Lake Michigan on one side and the dense jungle that is urban Chicago on the other 3. Unlike Northwestern they didn't build a stadium in 1926 when there was room. Where are you putting a stadium?
4. They are 12 minutes from Northwestern. Good luck with running 2 D1 football programs 4 miles apart
5. Where are you putting a stadium?
6. With only 38% male enrollment they are going to have years of recruiting to get a male enrollment to support football
7. Cost - tuition at Loyola is over 38K. It's going to take $2.4m per year just to fund the players. It's another 13k per year for room and board beyond tuition
8. Admission - yes, Loyola takes 91% of applications here's the catch - a 25 ACT composite puts you in the bottom 25% of students there. That means that they aren't getting applications from "common" students
9. Where are you building a stadium?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Agreed, that line about denying kids who play football a chance at education just came off sounding really schmaltzy. How come the NCAA is so against denying kids who play croquet a chance at an education too?

No less schmatlzy than equivocating sponsorship of football as "flushing money down the toilet".

[Pinnum]

* Title IX compliance - BU is already well past proportionality compliance, could add 100 football schollies tomorrow and still be compliant


That is not true. BU is (slightly) out of compliance based on opportunity proportionality but is in compliance with funded opportunities. Adding football, and even worse, scholarship football would make them drastically out of compliance.

Here is the real data on BU...



Boston University
Men
Women


Enrollment (Total)
6,320
9,715


Enrollment (Percent)
39%
61%


Athletes (Total)
354
414


Athletes (Percent)
46%
54%


Scholarships (Total)
$5,955,813
$9,362,454


Scholarships (Percentage)
39%
61%

[Model Citizen]

With 50 Mil, I'd go door to door and make some offers. That's where I'd put the stadium.

Seriously, the university owns properties near campus. This may not be readily apparent to those driving by. Could they ever get the neighbors to let them build a 10k seat stadium? Don't know.

No $2.4 million to fund the players. Certainly not for scholarships.

[aceinthehole]

I think what strikes me with Loyola (MD) and Boston U. is that if if there were a groundswell of popular support ...

Another LFN posed question in a blog post that is a fantasy.

If my aunt had a d!ck, she would be my uncle.

[DFW HOYA]

1. The MVC "won't allow" it if they want to remain in the MVC


Yes and no. From the MVC constitution:

3.2.3.1 If a member institution sponsors a sport for which the Conference conducts a championship or regular season competition, the member institution must participate...This committee shall have the authority to waive mandatory participation in a given championship. All non-participation must be approved in advance."

Bottom-line: The MVC won't hold it against Loyola if it played nonscholarship football. However, if Wichita State thought about 63 scholarship football in the Southland, they would have a problem with that.

http://www.mvc.org/manual/constitution.pdf

[Model Citizen]

DFW HOYA, you posted the constitution of a conference that hasn't sponsored football in 30 years. They would have no veto power over any plans Loyola might have for football.

Aside from that, Patty Viverito and a couple of staffers from the Valley office have administered two FCS leagues for the convenience of Valley member schools. One is the Gateway (since renamed the MVFC). The other is the Pioneer Football League. Both have their own charters/constitutions. Neither is comprised entirely of Valley schools.

The Valley has associate members, such as Dallas Baptist. This is not the case for either the Gateway/MVFC or the Pioneer.

It's worth noting that Valley football and Gateway football once existed side-by-side. That's where the mandatory participation waiver came into play.

Several Valley football schools were forced out of Division I-A in the early 1980s because they didn't meet NCAA mandated attendance levels. Southern Illinois was an example of a school that got permission to leave Valley football to join a new, exclusively I-AA conference (the Gateway). On the other hand, Drake stayed in Valley football with traditional rival Wichita State...perhaps delusional that they could eventually meet I-A attendance requirements via alternate means.

Bottom line is that Valley football is gone forever. Sad situation for a conference that roughly 10 percent of 20th Century D-I schools have been a part of at one time or another.

[Model Citizen]

For the record, sports that the Missouri Valley Conference sponsors are listed on the Valley's website, MVC-sports.com.

[BucBisonAtLarge]

Another LFN posed question in a blog post that is a fantasy.

If my aunt had a d!ck, she would be my uncle.

+1

the short answer... cuz they don't have to. You're in the Northeast, not Macon, Georgia nor west Texas. I am sure that 100 football players would diversify either campus, but that kind of diversity at that price? Under-appreciated, I would guess. I love Nickerson Field and watched one Bucknell game there ('81, 27-0 Boston). It is a gem of a stadium. I know football alums who felt completely dissed by the Silber-era attitudes and remain estranged from the institution. Everyone seems to have moved on.

[DFW HOYA]

Thanks for the clarification on the MVFC.

But back to BU and Loyola. One of the more unfortunate consequences of the Patriot's "all or nothing" scholarship manifesto is that it raised the competitive bar where schools like BU and Loyola will not tread.

It wasn't that long ago where a school like Stony Brook or Monmouth or Bryant could have room to build their programs. If SBU had to start at 60, they would have never made it. Today, the PL has sent a message that to be competitive in the league - competitive for championships, not competitive by showing up -- that five scholarships isn't enough, or 10, or 15 or whatever these schools can raise in the short term. If a PL school wants to play football, it must be fully funded (or in some cases over-funded).

A while back, I posed the question: how many scholarships would it take for Georgetown to be a consistent championship contender in the PL?. Six other presidents answered that question for them: nothing short of 60. And if you're Robert Brown, the president of BU, that's a show-stopper when 60 scholarships could fully fund at least four other team sports.

[RichH2]

A bit of an overstatement DFW. PL does not mandate a minimum. Hoyas' issue is lack of funding not the fact that others have schollies. GU could compete quite well with need equivalencies,IMO. Just not at the current level.

[DFW HOYA]

A bit of an overstatement DFW. PL does not mandate a minimum. Hoyas' issue is lack of funding not the fact that others have schollies. GU could compete quite well with need equivalencies,IMO. Just not at the current level.

Not an overstatement. If there was a number that worked less than 60, why wouldn't Bucknell or Holy Cross settle at 40 or 45 and be happy with it?

The PL presidents sent a message to Georgetown that everyone was on the road to 60. What message was sent to BU and Loyola?

Related topic: Do you see the PL ever mandating a minimum? Do any other conferences enforce a minimum number?

[PAllen]

DFW, if Georgetown had nice facilities and 30 scholarships or grant in aid equivalencies, a good coach would have them competing for the league title every year. A Georgetown degree buys you a bit more than a degree from most of the rest of the PL, and that means something at this level. Your disadvantage comes with you being the option of last resort for many of your recruits. Your facilities would struggle to cut it in D-III, and your financial aid policies are not much better. You can't support a program at a D-III level an then complain about others making it difficult to compete at the D-I level. Invest in the facilities, support the players with some decent level of financial support, and GU will do fine in the PL. Continue to play in an unfinished construction site and refuse to offer players any financial incentive to come to GU, and you will struggle in even the Pioneer.

I'll never say never, but I don't see the PL mandating a minimum number of scholarships. It really doesn't serve a purpose.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

By design it would be "ramped up" - 15 every year, up to 60. If a D-II school wanted to join the Patriot League, they would be in transition for five years befor being fully eligibilie.

If Loyola or BU wanted to start a football program, they would start with 15 1st year, 15 second year... Furthermore, as you point out, there's no rule saying BU or Loyola or Marist or a D-II team has to sponsor 15 a year. They could chose to sponsor, say, 5.

Point being that it's not like going from zero to $4 million in aid in a year. It builds gradually.

[DFW HOYA]

- - - Updated - - -


l. Your disadvantage comes with you being the option of last resort for many of your recruits. .

That's a lot of empty rhetoric. Show me a D-III school with a $1.6 million budget. And show me how many kids that are admitted to Georgetown as a place of last resort. It doesn't hold water.

[ccd494]

No less schmatlzy than equivocating sponsorship of football as "flushing money down the toilet".

When a student body and alumni base have been proven to aggressively not care about scholarship football (or athletics in general outside men's hockey), but a university spends $5M on it anyways, that seems like flushing money down the toilet.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

When a student body and alumni base have been proven to aggressively not care about scholarship football (or athletics in general outside men's hockey), but a university spends $5M on it anyways, that seems like flushing money down the toilet.

The student body care enough about the sport to have a club team, and has there been a survey asking the alumni whether they want to have a football team? I think you're confusing them with the faculty and the BOT.

[ccd494]

The student body care enough about the sport to have a club team, and has there been a survey asking the alumni whether they want to have a football team? I think you're confusing them with the faculty and the BOT.

And I'm sure that club team draws 12 students per game.

You seem to be the only one who is still beating the drum for BU football.

[WestCoastAggie]

Tell that to Mercer.

Well Mercer is south of the Mason-Dixon line.

[WestCoastAggie]

Instead of hoping BU brings back football, why doesn't the PL recruit a southern team to their fold? They could always recruit Howard or Hampton to join.

[PAllen]

- - - Updated - - -



That's a lot of empty rhetoric. Show me a D-III school with a $1.6 million budget. And show me how many kids that are admitted to Georgetown as a place of last resort. It doesn't hold water.

If Georgetown spends enough on their program, or has no problem recruiting against the rest of D-I, then what is all of your complaining about? The fact is, the rest of D-I offers more to the prospective FB recruit than GU does. Continually blaming the rest of D-I for that is completely misdirected. All the PL did by implementing true athletic scholarships is catch up with the rest of D-I.

[Pinnum]

The student body care enough about the sport to have a club team, and has there been a survey asking the alumni whether they want to have a football team? I think you're confusing them with the faculty and the BOT.

The ones that fund the $5MM are not the 40 men on the field they are all those in the classroom that are paying taxes on their education called 'student fees' which are redirected to athletics.

Using the opinions of athletes participating in a club sport is a poor metric since there is a very good chance the majority of those students would not have the chance to compete if the sport were varsity since they don't have the skillset required to play at such a level.

The faculty and BOT are two of the largest stakeholder groups. The BOT represents the interests of all stakeholders (alumni most often) and the faculty are the ones shaping the academic culture on campus.

[DFW HOYA]

Your disadvantage comes with you being the option of last resort for many of your recruits.


If Georgetown spends enough on their program, or has no problem recruiting against the rest of D-I, then what is all of your complaining about? The fact is, the rest of D-I offers more to the prospective FB recruit than GU does. Continually blaming the rest of D-I for that is completely misdirected. All the PL did by implementing true athletic scholarships is catch up with the rest of D-I.

No one was blaming the rest of Division I. Believe me, there's plenty of responsibility on Georgetown for a program which has stalled over the last 10 years in the Patriot League. That's for another thread. However, your comment that the school is a option of last resort for football recruits is baseless.

As to Loyola and BU, the short answer to the question of "Why Don't Loyola U and Boston U Sponsor Football (Again)?" is simply that as long as they're in the Patriot League, they don't have to.

[ccd494]

The ones that fund the $5MM are not the 40 men on the field they are all those in the classroom that are paying taxes on their education called 'student fees' which are redirected to athletics.

Using the opinions of athletes participating in a club sport is a poor metric since there is a very good chance the majority of those students would not have the chance to compete if the sport were varsity since they don't have the skillset required to play at such a level.

The further point regarding that club team is that there are also the following clubs and organizations at Boston University, under the Recreation and Athletics banner:

Bikes
Billiard Club
Boardgames Club
Curling Club
Fishing Club
LAW Softball Team
Outing Club
PC Gaming Club
Running Club
Ski & Snowboard Club
Soccer Club
Tennis Club
Video Game Society
X-ception Step Team

Do they all deserve to be elevated to intercollegiate status? BU Skiing?

Your argument seems to be "I like football, and my alma mater would benefit from BU having a football team. IT IS AN OUTRAGE BU DOESN'T HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM!"

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The further point regarding that club team is that there are also the following clubs and organizations at Boston University, under the Recreation and Athletics banner:

Bikes
Billiard Club
Boardgames Club
Curling Club
Fishing Club
LAW Softball Team
Outing Club
PC Gaming Club
Running Club
Ski & Snowboard Club
Soccer Club
Tennis Club
Video Game Society
X-ception Step Team

Do they all deserve to be elevated to intercollegiate status? BU Skiing?

Your argument seems to be "I like football, and my alma mater would benefit from BU having a football team. IT IS AN OUTRAGE BU DOESN'T HAVE A FOOTBALL TEAM!"

The only sports you mention above that are also NCAA-sponsored sports are soccer (already sponsored by the school, men and women), tennis (ditto), running (cross country, men's and women's, track, men's and women's), skiing (none), and football (none).

I'm not sure how Lehigh benefits greatly from BU having a team over, say, Villanova or UNH joining the Patriot League. My position has been clear, and I said it multiple times: BU should have a football team because it is still outrageous how their football team and legacy was dropped in the ****ter by an arrogant president, and it's a historic wrong that should be righted simply because it's the right thing to do.

It's the same reason why I was all for UAB restoring football. I have absolutely zero personal stake in UAB starting football again. But it was an injustice how that program was terminated, the move justified with incorrect information, with a BOT who had no really good reason to pull the plug except to further the interests of an external entity (UA). The termination of BU's program was an injustice, too.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Worthy of mention, and something I'm going to address in a follow-up post, is that BU won't even allow their club team to practice on school grounds. The club team isn't sanctioned by the university, and has to play all their games across town at MIT. The club team has come about due to complete ground-up efforts encountering institutional roadblocks the entire way. I think this truly shows that the opposition is not the students or the alumni - in fact, I think it really tells us that students are still so adamant about this despite BU's best efforts to eradicate football from the campus. The real issue is that they're just a few voices going up against Goliath. I don't get the impression they're getting shouted down by fellow students.

[RichH2]

It has become an annual summer topic. Can,will,could Hoyas....? Answer every year is the same. They can if they want to. As of today,no indication that they actually want to. Dont want schollies? OK,give need aid,just give more of it. A GU with 30-40 equivalencies would be a factor most years.

[ccd494]

Worthy of mention, and something I'm going to address in a follow-up post, is that BU won't even allow their club team to practice on school grounds. The club team isn't sanctioned by the university, and has to play all their games across town at MIT. The club team has come about due to complete ground-up efforts encountering institutional roadblocks the entire way. I think this truly shows that the opposition is not the students or the alumni - in fact, I think it really tells us that students are still so adamant about this despite BU's best efforts to eradicate football from the campus. The real issue is that they're just a few voices going up against Goliath. I don't get the impression they're getting shouted down by fellow students.

The fellow students DO NOT CARE. That is the issue. So sixty kids out of 20,000 like playing football. Good for them. The university is doing more than fine, they get thousands of applicants who are fully aware that they are applying to a school that doesn't sponsor football. And those students are willing to pay $50,000 a year for the privilege of attending a football-less university. I don't see a problem anywhere.

[Dane96]

The student body care enough about the sport to have a club team, and has there been a survey asking the alumni whether they want to have a football team? I think you're confusing them with the faculty and the BOT.

I live not to far from the campus, and have an outside affiliation with the University. The students could care less about anything NOT named hockey. Truly. They are almost 25% international, mostly undergraduate but for a smidgen of kids in the MBA and J.D. programs.

Could football do well? Maybe. But it's not worth it financially for BU. The type of kid who goes to BU goes for an urban campus and the "name" on the school (I believe it to be overrated). They don't go for sports, though some assimilate to hockey.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

The fellow students DO NOT CARE. That is the issue. So sixty kids out of 20,000 like playing football. Good for them. The university is doing more than fine, they get thousands of applicants who are fully aware that they are applying to a school that doesn't sponsor football. And those students are willing to pay $50,000 a year for the privilege of attending a football-less university. I don't see a problem anywhere.

Are you quoting from some hitherto-unknown study that says only sixty kids at BU would like football there?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I live not to far from the campus, and have an outside affiliation with the University. The students could care less about anything NOT named hockey. Truly. They are almost 25% international, mostly undergraduate but for a smidgen of kids in the MBA and J.D. programs.

Could football do well? Maybe. But it's not worth it financially for BU. The type of kid who goes to BU goes for an urban campus and the "name" on the school (I believe it to be overrated). They don't go for sports, though some assimilate to hockey.

You could also say that the students don't "care" about football because they haven't been given a football team to get behind, with even tiny efforts at club football have been met with brick-wall opposition. It's like saying Lehigh "couldn't care less" about college hockey because there's no college hockey team there.

Yet at BU, despite the opposition, students still try. (And for that matter, club hockey has come up as a sport at Lehigh, too.)

[ccd494]

You could also say that the students don't "care" about football because they haven't been given a football team to get behind, with even tiny efforts at club football have been met with brick-wall opposition. It's like saying Lehigh "couldn't care less" about college hockey because there's no college hockey team there.

Yet at BU, despite the opposition, students still try. (And for that matter, club hockey has come up as a sport at Lehigh, too.)

Seeing as BU can't even draw 1,000 people to basketball games, I think that the traditional university sporting culture is not BU's culture. The students follow BU hockey and that is it.

[Pinnum]

Seeing as BU can't even draw 1,000 people to basketball games, I think that the traditional university sporting culture is not BU's culture. The students follow BU hockey and that is it.

I agree. The City of Boston is not a strong college sports town. The one exception is the sport of ice hockey which is very popular in the region but that could be partly due to the success of all the teams and their rivalries.

Also, BU seems to (culturally) have more in common with a school like NYU in NYC or George Washington in DC than they do with Fordham or Georgetown.

Students with a football interest do not pick a school like BU too often. As each year passes without a football program the interest in football is drastically reduced.

It really sounds like just advocating for football to advocate for football. Spending $5MM a year on football is not a wise use of recourses. Putting more into Ice Hockey is the only program that really makes sense for BU to increase funding.

[KPSUL]

Based on the 2008 similar thread started by LFN, this topic is beginning to remind me of one of my favorite childhood books:

http://www.anygivensaturday.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20807&stc=1

Loyola MD would you like football in a box, with a fox, on a train or on a plane? Would you like it in a house, with a mouse? Would you like it here or there, would you like it anywhere?

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree. The City of Boston is not a strong college sports town. The one exception is the sport of ice hockey which is very popular in the region but that could be partly due to the success of all the teams and their rivalries.

Also, BU seems to (culturally) have more in common with a school like NYU in NYC or George Washington in DC than they do with Fordham or Georgetown.

Students with a football interest do not pick a school like BU too often. As each year passes without a football program the interest in football is drastically reduced.

It really sounds like just advocating for football to advocate for football. Spending $5MM a year on football is not a wise use of recourses. Putting more into Ice Hockey is the only program that really makes sense for BU to increase funding.

You do realize that the vast majority of the $5 million a year would go to for scholarships for football players? This is not a situation where the cost involves massive upgrades to a stadium, new locker rooms or the like, or building up an empire of multi-millionare coaches.

More kids would have the opportunity to get an education for every dollar spent on football over spending even more money on hockey.

Want proof? Currently, the operating expenses of BU hockey players are $23,000 per participant/men's, $13,000 per participant/women's.

What is the expense per participant at Lehigh for football? A shade under $5,000.

What is it at William and Mary, already at 63 scholarships? $7,587.

What's a better use of money - making BU's expense per participant shoot up past $30,000/athlete on the men's side, or perhaps allowing 15 football players a year to get a scholarship to play ball, at operating expenses of, say. $8,000/athlete?


Students with a football interest do not pick a school like BU too often. As each year passes without a football program the interest in football is drastically reduced.

And yet, some students are clearly still interested.

[Pinnum]

You do realize that the vast majority of the $5 million a year would go to for scholarships for football players? This is not a situation where the cost involves massive upgrades to a stadium, new locker rooms or the like, or building up an empire of multi-millionare coaches.

More kids would have the opportunity to get an education for every dollar spent on football over spending even more money on hockey.

Want proof? Currently, the operating expenses of BU hockey players are $23,000 per participant/men's, $13,000 per participant/women's.

What is the expense per participant at Lehigh for football? A shade under $5,000.

What is it at William and Mary, already at 63 scholarships? $7,587.

What's a better use of money - making BU's expense per participant shoot up past $30,000/athlete on the men's side, or perhaps allowing 15 football players a year to get a scholarship to play ball, at operating expenses of, say. $8,000/athlete?



And yet, some students are clearly still interested.

Except schools don't increase scholarship spending. That is a fallacy. They reallocate current funding. Reducing the scholarships given to top academic performers to give them to football players is not a wise use of resources and is how you create a divide where people become vocal about the lack of priorities on campus. And if you want to make the (often erroneous) claim that the football players are high performing students that would qualify for those awards anyways then you're not providing more opportunities for them as they could go many places and get academic aid.

I enjoy sports and college sports are the most exciting but I am not blind to the fact that there are many students that end up with a burden as a result of athletic spending. If you want to compare football to ice hockey at least use a constant. How about the number of unique visitors to games. Looking at the NCAA Attendance Report, in 2012-13, BU Ice Hockey drew 4,527 fans on average for their 19 home contests (unique events). If we assume that football will have 6 home contests then that leaves ice hockey with three times the unique events compared to football. If you want to use the average attendance per unique event for visitor engagement metrics to judge return on engagement for the investment then football would not come out very well when comparing costs to operate the program when using other PL teams' attendance as a proxy.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the previous post, it would be a huge impact to Title IX compliance that would result in a drastic increase in female sports and spending. The only alternative would be to eliminate men's sports. Which, as you know, is a sure way to immediately alienate your current stakeholders.

It just sounds like you're trying to engineer a justification to have football. Sure, football would be nice to have, but it really isn't logical given the current situations.

[clenz]

Except schools don't increase scholarship spending. That is a fallacy. They reallocate current funding. Reducing the scholarships given to top academic performers to give them to football players is not a wise use of resources and is how you create a divide where people become vocal about the lack of priorities on campus. And if you want to make the (often erroneous) claim that the football players are high performing students that would qualify for those awards anyways then you're not providing more opportunities for them as they could go many places and get academic aid.

I enjoy sports and college sports are the most exciting but I am not blind to the fact that there are many students that end up with a burden as a result of athletic spending. If you want to compare football to ice hockey at least use a constant. How about the number of unique visitors to games. Looking at the NCAA Attendance Report, in 2012-13, BU Ice Hockey drew 4,527 fans on average for their 19 home contests (unique events). If we assume that football will have 6 home contests then that leaves ice hockey with three times the unique events compared to football. If you want to use the average attendance per unique event for visitor engagement metrics to judge return on engagement for the investment then football would not come out very well when comparing costs to operate the program when using other PL teams' attendance as a proxy.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the previous post, it would be a huge impact to Title IX compliance that would result in a drastic increase in female sports and spending. The only alternative would be to eliminate men's sports. Which, as you know, is a sure way to immediately alienate your current stakeholders.

It just sounds like you're trying to engineer a justification to have football. Sure, football would be nice to have, but it really isn't logical given the current situations.
1000000000% true.

UNI's AD said the exact same thing about FCOA, which UNI is doing for a handful of sports. The money isn't new money. It's money from elsewhere - salaries not going up, not getting full allocation to all sports, less "frills" in the athletic department, etc...

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Except schools don't increase scholarship spending. That is a fallacy. They reallocate current funding. Reducing the scholarships given to top academic performers to give them to football players is not a wise use of resources and is how you create a divide where people become vocal about the lack of priorities on campus. And if you want to make the (often erroneous) claim that the football players are high performing students that would qualify for those awards anyways then you're not providing more opportunities for them as they could go many places and get academic aid.

I enjoy sports and college sports are the most exciting but I am not blind to the fact that there are many students that end up with a burden as a result of athletic spending. If you want to compare football to ice hockey at least use a constant. How about the number of unique visitors to games. Looking at the NCAA Attendance Report, in 2012-13, BU Ice Hockey drew 4,527 fans on average for their 19 home contests (unique events). If we assume that football will have 6 home contests then that leaves ice hockey with three times the unique events compared to football. If you want to use the average attendance per unique event for visitor engagement metrics to judge return on engagement for the investment then football would not come out very well when comparing costs to operate the program when using other PL teams' attendance as a proxy.

Additionally, as I mentioned in the previous post, it would be a huge impact to Title IX compliance that would result in a drastic increase in female sports and spending. The only alternative would be to eliminate men's sports. Which, as you know, is a sure way to immediately alienate your current stakeholders.

It just sounds like you're trying to engineer a justification to have football. Sure, football would be nice to have, but it really isn't logical given the current situations.

Just to point out here that the Patriot League has an academic index/banding system similar to the Ivy League. The reasoning behind this academic index is so the incoming football classes are representative academically (within a standard deviation or so) of the incoming class. Additionally, if you like APRs as an indication of the "academic fitness" of the football athletes, the lowest APR registered last season for any Patriot League or Ivy League team was Bucknell's 969 and Harvard's 977. Year in and year out, as a league, the IL and PL top these tables.

People are saying I'm engineering a justification to have football, but I'm extremely unclear under which circumstances where it would be OK to start a football program them. Do they have to be a red state? Fought for the Confederacy? Do they need to be mentally ill, and want to spend gobs of money? Is it insanity to simply want to run an FCS-level program? Judging by the answers by everyone on here, the answer to that last question should be "yes" from all of you.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One more note. If schools are simply "reallocating current funding", then it's money they would have spent elsewhere anyway on schoalrships, so... isn't the whole idea of a football department "costing" $5 million a year ridiculous when $3.5 million of that is "reallocated" scholarship funds?

[clenz]

One more note. If schools are simply "reallocating current funding", then it's money they would have spent elsewhere anyway on schoalrships, so... isn't the whole idea of a football department "costing" $5 million a year ridiculous when $3.5 million of that is "reallocated" scholarship funds?
It is in the sense that the money is going towards a sport that is an extreme resource hog for a school that doesn't have enough alumni, student, booster and faculty sport to full invest. Football isn't a half ass thing - unless your Georgetown or the PFL.

There are universities that the money that would go towards football is much better spent elsewhere.

ROI...bang for the buck...all of that.

I'm sure you aren't too dense to understand that.

[ccd494]

Is it insanity to simply want to run an FCS-level program? Judging by the answers by everyone on here, the answer to that last question should be "yes" from all of you.

Bingo.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

#FreeBU

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/06/freeuab-worked-would-freebu-have-too.html

Before y'all get on my case, this is more of a historic lament about how BU football was killed rather than a plea for BU to restart the sport.

[DFW HOYA]

#FreeBU

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/06/freeuab-worked-would-freebu-have-too.html



Good article, but the significant diference between Watts and Silber is while Watts has many constituencies to answer to (students, faculty, alumni, legislature, the Birmingham community, the UA trustees), Silber had none but himself.

As dean of the college of arts and sciences at Texas in the early 1970's, Silber openly campaigned for the presidency of UT, arguing that it should eschew athletics and a burgeoning enrollment is favor of a smaller, liberal center of education in a state that was conservative about more than just politics. In two years, he replaced 22 of the college's 28 department chairs with his own allies, a staggering number. He was, by those accounts, charismatic and persuasive, but there was one vote he could not buy--that of Frank Erwin, the 50 year old chair of the board of regents. "John, I'm going to make you famous", said Erwin when he, and not the president, unilaterally fired Silber in 1970. What could the president do? If he wanted to keep his job, nothing.

Silber learned from Erwin's ability to consolidate power with impunity and no one in the faculty or the trustees would challenge Silver at BU. Every trustee owed his position to Silber, and none would challenge him without repercussion. If he had existed in the Twitter era, Silber would simply have fired or silenced the dissenters. On two different occasions the faculty voted for him to resign and Silber ignored them outright.

One quote from Erwin set the tone for Silber's reign at BU and Silber's outlook on football: "we do not fund that which we do not control."

[Pinnum]

One more note. If schools are simply "reallocating current funding", then it's money they would have spent elsewhere anyway on schoalrships, so... isn't the whole idea of a football department "costing" $5 million a year ridiculous when $3.5 million of that is "reallocated" scholarship funds?

Except the current aid offerings are available to any student. If you look at the makeup of Boston U, you realize that women would like to attend the school in higher volumes than men. What you're advocating is taking away aid that will be open to anyone without consideration for their sex and then allocating it to football players which makes it more narrow.

Let's assume that the acceptable variance with the AI results in the exact same quality of students (though I have found there to be a drop off). When looking at it from a football centric view we could say that there would be no change in the student body quality. But when you look at compliance then it is drastically different. Athletic programs do restrict funding on the basis of sex. As a result you have to have an equal balance. It is not like the general student body where you open it up to anyone and if you only get males or only get females that apply or meet standard then you're free of predominately accepting one sex.

What does this do? This means that you either have to cut male athletic scholarships to allow for the new football scholarships which will just upset the current stakeholders or you increase the athletic scholarships offerings (and sports) for women. The problem with this is that women that compete in college sports are much more likely to come from higher income families and the more sports you offer (moving away from the most popular sports to the more fringe sports) you end up in just alloacting aid that was previously available to lower and middle income families to give to middle and upper income families that have an athletic skillset despite the school maybe not actually caring about the sport but just using them as a compliance placeholder.

This is a big issue for schools that want to make an economically diverse student body. For a school like Boston U, I have no problem with them sponsoring a football program. However, I don't think it is good policy to take aid that is available for anyone with consideration given primarily to economic need and redirecting it to athletic merit without consideration for economic need all in an effort to sponsor a football team in a city and at a school that does not have a strong college football base.

And for the record, as I have said on the APR threads, I don't think the APR is a good metric (though I admit it is better than having nothing which was the case previously).

[Pinnum]

Just to point out here that the Patriot League has an academic index/banding system similar to the Ivy League. The reasoning behind this academic index is so the incoming football classes are representative academically (within a standard deviation or so) of the incoming class. Additionally, if you like APRs as an indication of the "academic fitness" of the football athletes, the lowest APR registered last season for any Patriot League or Ivy League team was Bucknell's 969 and Harvard's 977. Year in and year out, as a league, the IL and PL top these tables.

People are saying I'm engineering a justification to have football, but I'm extremely unclear under which circumstances where it would be OK to start a football program them. Do they have to be a red state? Fought for the Confederacy? Do they need to be mentally ill, and want to spend gobs of money? Is it insanity to simply want to run an FCS-level program? Judging by the answers by everyone on here, the answer to that last question should be "yes" from all of you.


One more note. If schools are simply "reallocating current funding", then it's money they would have spent elsewhere anyway on schoalrships, so... isn't the whole idea of a football department "costing" $5 million a year ridiculous when $3.5 million of that is "reallocated" scholarship funds?


One more note. If schools are simply "reallocating current funding", then it's money they would have spent elsewhere anyway on schoalrships, so... isn't the whole idea of a football department "costing" $5 million a year ridiculous when $3.5 million of that is "reallocated" scholarship funds?

Except the current aid offerings are available to any student. If you look at the makeup of Boston U, you realize that women would like to attend the school in higher volumes than men. What you're advocating is taking away aid that will be open to anyone without consideration for their sex and then allocating it to football players which makes it more narrow.

Let's assume that the acceptable variance with the AI results in the exact same quality of students (though I have found there to be a drop off). When looking at it from a football centric view we could say that there would be no change in the student body quality. But when you look at compliance then it is drastically different. Athletic programs do restrict funding on the basis of sex. As a result you have to have an equal balance. It is not like the general student body where you open it up to anyone and if you only get males or only get females that apply or meet standard then you're free of predominately accepting one sex.

What does this do? This means that you either have to cut male athletic scholarships to allow for the new football scholarships which will just upset the current stakeholders or you increase the athletic scholarships offerings (and sports) for women. The problem with this is that women that compete in college sports are much more likely to come from higher income families and the more sports you offer (moving away from the most popular sports to the more fringe sports) you end up in just alloacting aid that was previously available to lower and middle income families to give to middle and upper income families that have an athletic skillset despite the school maybe not actually caring about the sport but just using them as a compliance placeholder.

This is a big issue for schools that want to make an economically diverse student body. For a school like Boston U, I have no problem with them sponsoring a football program. However, I don't think it is good policy to take aid that is available for anyone with consideration given primarily to economic need and redirecting it to athletic merit without consideration for economic need all in an effort to sponsor a football team in a city and at a school that does not have a strong college football base.

For the record, as I have said on the APR threads, I don't think the APR is a good metric (though I admit it is better than having nothing which was the case previously).

And no, I do not think an FCS level football program is great just because it is FCS level. There are instances where FBS or D3 schools are much more practical. Just because I am a fan of sport, a school, or a conference, doesn't mean I will advocate for each and every instance that a question comes up about any of those things.

[Ivytalk]

I suppose it's possible to get a good liberal arts education without FCS football. Or any football.xpeacex

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I suppose it's possible to get a good liberal arts education without FCS football. Or any football.xpeacex

Its just way better with football, IMO. xpeacex

[clenz]

Its just way better with football, IMO. xpeacex
How so?



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Sader87]

The education one receives is obviously not bettah whether or not a school has a football team, but I would argue that it does enhance (for some) the overall student experience. Big games, tailgating, Homecoming....road trips to othah schools for games etc etc all made for fun times and cherished memories during my years at Holy Cross.

[Go...gate]

The education one receives is obviously not bettah whether or not a school has a football team, but I would argue that it does enhance (for some) the overall student experience. Big games, tailgating, Homecoming....road trips to othah schools for games etc etc all made for fun times and cherished memories during my years at Holy Cross.

Amen.

[RichH2]

The education one receives is obviously not bettah whether or not a school has a football team, but I would argue that it does enhance (for some) the overall student experience. Big games, tailgating, Homecoming....road trips to othah schools for games etc etc all made for fun times and cherished memories during my years at Holy Cross.
Yup.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

I suppose it's possible to get a good liberal arts education without FCS football. Or any football.xpeacex

It's possible to get a good liberal arts education without a lot of stuff colleges spend money on these days.

[Pinnum]

It's possible to get a good liberal arts education without a lot of stuff colleges spend money on these days.

Which is the problem. There are a lot of pet projects and various niche programs on college campuses. Most people here would not say that their program waste's money since it is only other people's pet programs that waste money but never their program.

When the counter to something being wasteful spending is 'but you waste money on XYZ' there isn't a strong argument and many of those things will be at risk of being cut. As a result, FCS football ends up being cut in some instances. The other option is doubling down and trying to maximize the program but that leads to teams transitioning to FBS which does no good for FCS.

[ccd494]

The education one receives is obviously not bettah whether or not a school has a football team, but I would argue that it does enhance (for some) the overall student experience. Big games, tailgating, Homecoming....road trips to othah schools for games etc etc all made for fun times and cherished memories during my years at Holy Cross.

Right. At certain schools it makes sense. No one is ever going to tailgate at BU. You don't need to build a homecoming event around a football game in Boston- there are plenty of other events on and off campus to entice alums back.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Right. At certain schools it makes sense. No one is ever going to tailgate at BU. You don't need to build a homecoming event around a football game in Boston- there are plenty of other events on and off campus to entice alums back.

BU at one time was such a place until Silber came and strangled football out of the university.

[ccd494]

BU at one time was such a place until Silber came and strangled football out of the university.

Was it? My dad is a BU alum. My uncle is a BU alum. I have 2 (soon to be 3) cousins who are BU alums. Not a one ever attended a BU football game. My uncle has had hockey season tickets since 1986. My dad can recite goal by goal the 1978 hockey tournament. I asked why they never went to football games:

"I didn't know anyone else going, so I just never went."
"I had a friend who played, but sitting outside for three hours in the fall didn't seem like a great thing to do. I was probably in the library." "Really, the library on a Saturday afternoon?" "Sure, it was the quietest place to nurse a hangover. Plus, [his ex-wife] worked there."

My cousins are all too young to have seen BU football. I asked if they missed out.
Female, class of 2004: "Not really. I don't think I would have went."
Male, class of 2006: "Nah. I'd rather try to get Sox or Pats tickets. And its not like they'd play Miami or Notre Dame like BC did." Do you wish you could have tailgated? "I don't even know how I would have done that. Who brings the grill? No one had a car, where would we have kept all our stuff during the game?" What about homecoming?: "I don't think we have homecoming [editor's note: they actually do]. I didn't miss it or anything."

Current student, male, finished junior year, not really a sports fan: "Do you wish BU had football?" "No." "Do you go to any sports games?" "Not BU ones." "What have you gone to?" "[His Girlfriend] gets free Red Sox tickets once or twice a year from her boss at [financial services provider internship]. That's about it." "Do you think your classmates wish there was football?" "No one has said anything about it."

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Was it? My dad is a BU alum. My uncle is a BU alum. I have 2 (soon to be 3) cousins who are BU alums. Not a one ever attended a BU football game. My uncle has had hockey season tickets since 1986. My dad can recite goal by goal the 1978 hockey tournament. I asked why they never went to football games:

"I didn't know anyone else going, so I just never went."
"I had a friend who played, but sitting outside for three hours in the fall didn't seem like a great thing to do. I was probably in the library." "Really, the library on a Saturday afternoon?" "Sure, it was the quietest place to nurse a hangover. Plus, [his ex-wife] worked there."

My cousins are all too young to have seen BU football. I asked if they missed out.
Female, class of 2004: "Not really. I don't think I would have went."
Male, class of 2006: "Nah. I'd rather try to get Sox or Pats tickets. And its not like they'd play Miami or Notre Dame like BC did." Do you wish you could have tailgated? "I don't even know how I would have done that. Who brings the grill? No one had a car, where would we have kept all our stuff during the game?" What about homecoming?: "I don't think we have homecoming [editor's note: they actually do]. I didn't miss it or anything."

Current student, male, finished junior year, not really a sports fan: "Do you wish BU had football?" "No." "Do you go to any sports games?" "Not BU ones." "What have you gone to?" "[His Girlfriend] gets free Red Sox tickets once or twice a year from her boss at [financial services provider internship]. That's about it." "Do you think your classmates wish there was football?" "No one has said anything about it."

Per the New York Times, 5,240 fans attended Temple/BU in 1969 at Nickerson field, the second year it had AstroTurf, en route to their Pasadena Bowl qualifying season at 9-2. Nickerson Field is actually on the site where MLB's Boston Braves used to play, which was converted later to the multi-purpose field that stands there today and can host about 10,000.

This was equivalent to the same gate when BU played at Temple a couple weeks later - 5,000 fans.

Of course, in 1955, back in the days when BU hosted BC - that game drew more than 25,000.

QED - BU football did have a following in the pre-Silber era that was not insignificant. Loyola's "golden era" consisted of exactly one year, but BU at least used to have the attention of the town at one point.

Some of the statements you have from family members and their lack of a BU football team, are actually pretty funny, like being unaware of homecoming and not attending any BU sports events.

[Bill]

Some of the statements you have from family members and their lack of a BU football team, are actually pretty funny, like being unaware of homecoming and not attending any BU sports events.

There are plenty of schools, Lehigh included, who have students making similar statements.

By the way, for a good read, check out http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/10/24/oklahoma-sooners-library-game-day
It's a short article about students at the library during a home football game at Oklahoma, heaven forbid!

[clenz]

If 5K, even in 1969, was the big draw for a big name local rival that pretty much proves the point that it wasn't worth the ROI to them long run.

UNI has 13k students and one of the 5-10 all time best FCS programs. There are only 4kish students any given year that actually give a damn about UNI football. Almost all of that is because of Iowa, Iowa State and the NFL.

Believe it or not, outside of a few select schools that are football crazy, students are quite apathetic about sports in general. That doesn't mean drop any sport that doesn't draw, but it does mean the cost of funding vs the real, and perceived, ROI need to be greatly weighed - especially with a sport as expensive as football.

[ccd494]

Per the New York Times, 5,240 fans attended Temple/BU in 1969 at Nickerson field, the second year it had AstroTurf, en route to their Pasadena Bowl qualifying season at 9-2. Nickerson Field is actually on the site where MLB's Boston Braves used to play, which was converted later to the multi-purpose field that stands there today and can host about 10,000.

This was equivalent to the same gate when BU played at Temple a couple weeks later - 5,000 fans.

Of course, in 1955, back in the days when BU hosted BC - that game drew more than 25,000.

QED - BU football did have a following in the pre-Silber era that was not insignificant. Loyola's "golden era" consisted of exactly one year, but BU at least used to have the attention of the town at one point.

Some of the statements you have from family members and their lack of a BU football team, are actually pretty funny, like being unaware of homecoming and not attending any BU sports events.

This is all my point. Granted, this is a non-exhaustive sample, but it's just not the school's culture. There are big southern schools where not knowing about homecoming and not attending sports would be unfathomable. Some FCS schools are great at mimicking that culture. But BU doesn't fit that mold. BC will never play at BU again in football.

Heck, I don't think I was aware of homecoming when I was at Maine. I think it was better known as "That Day When Old People Come and Walk Through the Dorms to See Their Old Rooms."

[Pinnum]

There are plenty of schools, Lehigh included, who have students making similar statements.

By the way, for a good read, check out http://www.si.com/college-football/2014/10/24/oklahoma-sooners-library-game-day
It's a short article about students at the library during a home football game at Oklahoma, heaven forbid!

My better half use to complain about football games when she was in law school at Duke. Traffic was always congested on Saturday afternoons when she would be driving to the law library and she wasn't allowed to park in her normal lots. However, when I was in town she did enjoy going to the games.

[NDB]

UNI has 13k students and one of the 5-10 all time best FCS programs.


But you're number one in our hearts, you big furry purplecats!

[Sader87]

BU had some very good teams in the 70s and 80s but there really was nevah a strong backing/support for the football program then. I went to a fair amount of Holy Cross at BU games during that era and really only (vaguely) remembah a pretty good crowd (10-12K) in 1984 when BU upset a 7-0 HC in a great (albeit frustrating) 16-12 game.

They were one of the first college schools in the area (BC being the othah) that also had night games....but I particularly remembah a very sparse night crowd as a kid in 1974.

I would guesstimate they were drawing in the 5-8K range in this era whereas FCS schools in the area like Harvard, Holy Cross, UMass were drawing in the 15-18K range back then.

[Pinnum]

BU had some very good teams in the 70s and 80s but there really was nevah a strong backing/support for the football program then. I went to a fair amount of Holy Cross at BU games during that era and really only (vaguely) remembah a pretty good crowd (10-12K) in 1984 when BU upset a 7-0 HC in a great (albeit frustrating) 16-12 game.

They were one of the first college schools in the area (BC being the othah) that also had night games....but I particularly remembah a very sparse night crowd as a kid in 1974.

I would guesstimate they were drawing in the 5-8K range in this era whereas FCS schools in the area like Harvard, Holy Cross, UMass were drawing in the 15-18K range back then.

I just tried to look up information from the 1993 BU season--their best season--when they won the Yankee Conference. The only game I found was when UMass visited and they drew 7,508 fans. The same season Holy Cross at UMass was 12,887.

[DFW HOYA]

I just tried to look up information from the 1993 BU season--their best season--when they won the Yankee Conference. The only game I found was when UMass visited and they drew 7,508 fans. The same season Holy Cross at UMass was 12,887.

Would it be safe to say that HC was the #2 team in New England on attendance (behind BC) around this time?

[Sader87]

Would it be safe to say that HC was the #2 team in New England on attendance (behind BC) around this time?

Probably some years but whomevah hosted "The Game" during the 70s and 80s probably beat out Holy Cross most years.

Total guesstimate but I would rank average attendances in New England throughout say 1970-1990 as:

1. BC
2. Yale/Harvard
3. Holy Cross
4. UMass
5. Dartmouth
6. Brown
7. UConn
8. UNH
9. Maine
10. BU
11. URI
12. Northeastern

I could be off a bit on the Yankee Conference schools.....Brown drew pretty well in the 1970s, probably bettah than UConn

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I recall an article in the Hartford Courant around your 1990 time frame and UNH had a slightly higher average attendance than UConn. UNH was just under 10K and UConn was mid 9's. UMass lead the Yankee Conference at just under 13K IIRC. Did Holy Cross average more than that most years in the 70's and 80's? I recall being at Fitton Field on Nov. 10th, 1984 when UNH beat Holy Cross 14-13 in front of a large crowd. Were there small bleachers in the South End Zone then Sader87?

[Sader87]

I recall an article in the Hartford Courant around your 1990 time frame and UNH had a slightly higher average attendance than UConn. UNH was just under 10K and UConn was mid 9's. UMass lead the Yankee Conference at just under 13K IIRC. Did Holy Cross average more than that most years in the 70's and 80's? I recall being at Fitton Field on Nov. 10th, 1984 when UNH beat Holy Cross 14-13 in front of a large crowd. Were there small bleachers in the South End Zone then Sader87?

I think they would technically be called the "west end zone" i.e. the open pahht of the Fitton not quite horse-shoe configuaration at the time....and yes, there were. Fitton underwent a transformation between the 1985 and 1986 seasons...basically completing the horse-shoe and the wooden stands being replaced by metal...those end-zone seats nevah returned.

As for average attendance at Fitton in the 1970s and 1980s....there were some leanish years in the 1970s when the program was largely struggling to stay 1-A...again I'd guesstimate averge crowds per season around 12-15K then depending on if the BC game was at Fitton. Our high-water years in that 1970-1990 time frame was probably in the early/mid 1980s when there were 20K+ crowds against schools like Colgate and Yale as well as the BC games at Fitton. The average crowds actually started to drop by the late 80s for various and sundry reasons we've discussed here: more games on TV, societal changes, less local teams from the PL etc.

[KPSUL]

I recall an article in the Hartford Courant around your 1990 time frame and UNH had a slightly higher average attendance than UConn. UNH was just under 10K and UConn was mid 9's. UMass lead the Yankee Conference at just under 13K IIRC. Did Holy Cross average more than that most years in the 70's and 80's? I recall being at Fitton Field on Nov. 10th, 1984 when UNH beat Holy Cross 14-13 in front of a large crowd. Were there small bleachers in the South End Zone then Sader87?

UNH's attendance numbers have always been higher than it appears from the stands due to the 1000+ people partying and drinking on Boulder Field who rarely, or never walk over to watch the game. The only place I know where you have to have a game ticket to drive into the primary tailgating lot. The one exception was the 2014 home playoff games when the determine boulder field was "too wet" to be used for parking. Do you know if that will change with the new Stadium? Looking at the drawings it appears to me that the fencing will be between the stadium and boulder field.

[Go Green]

Probably some years but whomevah hosted "The Game" during the 70s and 80s probably beat out Holy Cross most years.

Total guesstimate but I would rank average attendances in New England throughout say 1970-1990 as:


2. Yale/Harvard


While there may have been some exceptions, my understanding is that Yale always outdrew Harvard even in years when Harvard hosted The Game.

[DFW HOYA]

For those with some extra time on their hands...the NCAA archive on season stats (and attendance), by school:

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch

[Sader87]

While there may have been some exceptions, my understanding is that Yale always outdrew Harvard even in years when Harvard hosted The Game.

You're probably right most years throughout the 1970s.....again my guesstimate (taking a lot of liberties on this thread, I know) is that by the mid/late 80s, if The Game was in Allston and not New Haven...Harvard probably had a higher average attendance then Yale those years....primarily due to Yale's attendance dropping for games not against the Crimson by that point.

ETA: Great link DFW, though I'm not getting stats for some of the older (70s etc) seasons for Holy Cross.

ETA Part Deux: Playing around with it, now I am. Attendences looked to be very "guestimated" then as well...lot of round figures: 14,000, 22,000 etc

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

UNH's attendance numbers have always been higher than it appears from the stands due to the 1000+ people partying and drinking on Boulder Field who rarely, or never walk over to watch the game. The only place I know where you have to have a game ticket to drive into the primary tailgating lot. The one exception was the 2014 home playoff games when the determine boulder field was "too wet" to be used for parking. Do you know if that will change with the new Stadium? Looking at the drawings it appears to me that the fencing will be between the stadium and boulder field.

Not the case back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's when there wasn't a requirement for a game ticket to enter Boulder Field. Cowell Stadium had a larger capacity with home side seats all the way to the ground -- student section when I went to school. Multiple rows were removed when they enhanced the track. Both end zones had bleachers, also removed with the track enhancement. And IIRC the visitor's side had larger bleachers.

In the mid 90's they banned alcohol at tailgating (reinstated one year later) about the same time they killed the baseball, wrestling and men's lacrosse programs in a less than upfront manner. The effect was football attendance dropping 50% and once alcohol was allowed again and attendance improved the requirement to have a game ticket to enter Boulder Field became reality. Football attendance was solid until this time when thousands of fans and especially older alumni boycotted UNH going forward. I have an article in a scrapbook for the 1975 football game vs UMass and attendance was around 13.5K. The 1977 game vs UMass is in the media guide as the Cowell record attendance of 20K. They allowed you to stand closer to the gridiron in those days and the crowd was 4-5 deep all the way around the field.

I don't anticipate the ticket requirement to enter Boulder Field policy to change once the new stadium opens.

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

For those with some extra time on their hands...the NCAA archive on season stats (and attendance), by school:

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/careersearch

Many missing years for UNH, but the few I looked at supported my post. In fact the game I stated had 13.5K actually had 14.5K. I saw a 4-5 season in the 70's with average attendance of 9,968.

Besides the societal changes that Sader87 mentions there is also a "cultural" change that has occurred. I distinctly recall upperclassmen in my dorm saying that if you didn't go home for the weekend then you were expected to go to the football game. And with just minimal televised sports in black and white, there sure wasn't an enticing alternative. When I was in school, attending the football game was the norm and built a behavior that has endured four plus decades.

Looking at a few seasons you could guess when it rained because the low attendance was such an aberration. :D

[KPSUL]

I guess your memory of UNH football is better than mine. I'm sure I was at the 75 and 77 games you refer to as I was an undergrad those years. I was never at UNH games from 78-88 as I was on active duty in the Army, although I think I made one home coming around 85.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

One thing I'd like to resurrect is this comment from DFW.


One of the more unfortunate consequences of the Patriot's "all or nothing" scholarship manifesto is that it raised the competitive bar where schools like BU and Loyola will not tread.

It wasn't that long ago where a school like Stony Brook or Monmouth or Bryant could have room to build their programs. If SBU had to start at 60, they would have never made it. Today, the PL has sent a message that to be competitive in the league - competitive for championships, not competitive by showing up -- that five scholarships isn't enough, or 10, or 15 or whatever these schools can raise in the short term. If a PL school wants to play football, it must be fully funded (or in some cases over-funded).

A while back, I posed the question: how many scholarships would it take for Georgetown to be a consistent championship contender in the PL?. Six other presidents answered that question for them: nothing short of 60. And if you're Robert Brown, the president of BU, that's a show-stopper when 60 scholarships could fully fund at least four other team sports.

This is an extremely valid point. Let's say, for the sake of argument, NJIT wanted to start a program from scratch. Most here see the costs of sponsoring a full-blown 60 or 63 scholarship program, facilities, salaries, expenses, etc. are seen as prohibitive to get in the game at that level.

So then the thought is for a school to start out at a different level of scholarships. In the past, the option existed to host a non-scholarship program in the MAAC or the NEC (joining the PFL was not really an option - too far) or a somewhat limited Patriot League model, where all the need was determined through the admissions office and 0-63 loan components were converted to grants. Competing at the level of, say, Delaware, wasn't seen as realistic for a start-up program - hence why Albany and Stony Brook competed in the NEC, until their programs were "ready" for the CAA jump. (SBU of course spent a few years parked in the Big South to get there as well.)

In the Northeast that method of building a program from scratch is closed. A school could theoretically go from the nationwide PFL (which does include Marist, but also has a lot of travel involved) to the regional NEC (which is, in theory, limited-scholarship but schools like Wagner have bent that definition to essentially give out 63 scholarships) to a regional conference like the Big South, CAA, or Patriot League. But that's a lot of conference-hopping just to get to that level.

The Patriot League, in theory, *could* be a conference that is used to incubate new football programs from inception to ones that have 60 equivalent scholarships and are competing for national championships. However that' hasn't been the history of the conference. The last football member that accepted membership was Georgetown in 2001, and if comments here are any guide, folks are still waiting for Georgetown to build that contender.

It looks like any talk of BU or Loyola's possibilities of starting FCS football play into larger visions of FCS in general. Like, should FCS be a big tent to accommodate start-up programs and show them a roadmap to success? Is FCS a destination, or a roadway to the FBS? If FCS is to be a big tent, expanding D-I football on the coasts with smaller D-I schools, there needs to be a better way to incubate programs, and FCS needs to be the destination, not the roadway. If FCS is merely supposed to be a roadway, a purgatory schools need to suffer through before everyone gets into the SEC, then there's no need for schools to ever aspire to "only" be FCS schools.

There are exceptions to this, of course - ODU went from CAA start-up to Conference USA in five seasons. But that's unlikely to be replicated, too - you don't see Drexel or UNC-Wilmington chomping at the bit to adopt the Monarchs' business model.

[Lehigh'98]

In the last 25 years, have there been any schools that started up a program to remain in FCS and not move on to FBS? I'm struggling to think of any, but I could be way off. I don't know if that would make any financial sense for a school.

[UAalum72]

Sacred Heart, Monmouth, Bryant, and Robert Morris are all in that timeframe. So are Campbell, Mercer, Stetson, assume FCS is the final goal for Incarnate Word, Houston Baptist

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

I guess your memory of UNH football is better than mine. I'm sure I was at the 75 and 77 games you refer to as I was an undergrad those years. I was never at UNH games from 78-88 as I was on active duty in the Army, although I think I made one home coming around 85.

Not going from memory, but using the attendance figures in the linked documents and some quick math.

1970 -- Record: 5-3 Avg Attendance: 11,210
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men%27s_College%20Division_1970_469_Unive rsity%20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1971 -- Record: 4-4-1 Avg Attendance: 10,947
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men%27s_College%20Division_1971_469_Unive rsity%20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1972 -- Record: 4-5 Avg Attendance: 8,634 (with a low of 2,511 (Rain???) to a high of 14,700 (Homecoming))
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men%27s_College%20Division_1972_469_Unive rsity%20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1973 -- Record: 4-5 Avg Attendance: 9,968
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1973_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1974 -- Record: 5-4 Avg Attendance: 9,604
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1974_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1975 -- Record: 9-3 Avg Attendance: 9,878 (with a low of 2,833 for CCSU (rain???) and a high of 14,500 for UMass)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1975_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1976 -- Record: 8-3 Avg Attendance: 10,367 (with UMass game in Amherst)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1976_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1977 -- Record: 8-2 Avg Attendance: 12,080 (with UMass in Durham before 20,000)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1977_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

[Go Green]

Not going from memory, but using the attendance figures in the linked documents and some quick math.

1970 -- Record: 5-3 Avg Attendance: 11,210
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men%27s_College%20Division_1970_469_Unive rsity%20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1971 -- Record: 4-4-1 Avg Attendance: 10,947
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men%27s_College%20Division_1971_469_Unive rsity%20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1972 -- Record: 4-5 Avg Attendance: 8,634 (with a low of 2,511 (Rain???) to a high of 14,700 (Homecoming))
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/A/Football_Men%27s_College%20Division_1972_469_Unive rsity%20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1973 -- Record: 4-5 Avg Attendance: 9,968
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1973_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1974 -- Record: 5-4 Avg Attendance: 9,604
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1974_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1975 -- Record: 9-3 Avg Attendance: 9,878 (with a low of 2,833 for CCSU (rain???) and a high of 14,500 for UMass)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1975_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1976 -- Record: 8-3 Avg Attendance: 10,367 (with UMass game in Amherst)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1976_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

1977 -- Record: 8-2 Avg Attendance: 12,080 (with UMass in Durham before 20,000)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/statsPDFArchive/MFB2/B/Football_Men%27s_Division%20II_1977_469_University %20of%20New%20Hampshire.pdf

From memory (if possible), how did the UNH-Dartmouth game draw in those years?

[UNH_Alum_In_CT]

From memory (if possible), how did the UNH-Dartmouth game draw in those years?

Can't do it from memory but it wasn't much effort to go back and look those games up.

1968 in Hanover 11,785
1969 in Durham 14,000
1972 in Hanover 9,874
1973 in Durham 11,723 (First UNH win)
1976 in Hanover 13,650

[PAllen]

Can't do it from memory but it wasn't much effort to go back and look those games up.

1968 in Hanover 11,785
1969 in Durham 14,000
1972 in Hanover 9,874
1973 in Durham 11,723 (First UNH win)
1976 in Hanover 13,650


Interesting that those numbers aren't all that different from the season avg.