(04-30-2016 01:45 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 06:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-29-2016 09:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(04-28-2016 02:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-27-2016 08:35 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  Most of the math used to justify FBS is shakey.

That's because football at EMU is surely a money drain, and also because keeping football isn't about the cold hard math, it's about intangibles, like boosters and administrators ego, wanting to front that the school is "big time" because it has a football team, no matter how lousy.

But you can't just come out and say that, so ... faulty math is concocted.

If you draw 29k over the course of the season you may want to look at whether the booster/fan ego is relevant.

My point was that one often hears from defenders of money-bleeding football programs that the intangible costs of dropping football would be greater than the actual costs of keeping it - i.e., stuff like lost prestige, lost booster ego pride, lower public profile, public perception that the school is diminishing, etc.

And with their results and fan support, it could be argued that keeping the program loses prestige, lowers booster pride, creates an embarrassing public profile and gives the impression that the school is diminishing.

Have to admit, my perception of EMU given the impact of the recession on Michigan and the vacant stands was the school is shrinking. Then I looked it up and they seem to be growing.