The For Argument:

Why you should pay for football program

Quote:In last week’s issue we found out that we will have the opportunity to vote on whether or not KSU will have a football team and in turn, we’ll be asked how much we are willing to pay for such an endeavor. Immediately, the more vocal naysayers descended upon the comment section of the online article with arguments ranging from nonsensical to absurd.

A familiar argument from last year’s debate on the dining hall is that if football will be profitable, so why do we need to pay for it with student fees? To make a profit there first has to be a stadium, football team, and yes, games with ticket sales. From the point of approval, and it will be approved (more on that later), it will take many years before a game will be played on our home field. Initial capital will be needed before a profit can be gleaned from football.

Acquiring a football team will also force the University to add women’s sports to comply with Title IX.

According to KSU Athletic Director Dr. Dave Waples, here are the cost estimates (i.e. student fees) of the three options for having a football team and paying for the two women’s sports teams necessary to comply with Title IX.

Division I-A

Includes the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech.

You must play a minimum of two-years of I-AA football prior to any move to I-A .

Estimated at minimum of $120 per student.

Division I-AA

Includes Georgia Southern University and Appalachian State University.

Estimated at $75 per student.

Division I-Non-scholarship

Includes Jacksonville University, University of Dayton and Campbell University.

This level would not allow KSU to play scholarship teams, except on an irregular basis

Estimated at $35 per student.

The cost is malleable of course. If there is sufficient community involvement and support in terms of ticket sales and sponsorships, the cost could be lower to the student.

For football fans like me, this decision seems like a no-brainer, but if you’re not a football fan what’s in it for you? Some say KSU’s only job should be to educate. After all, those who want a football team should have to pay for it themselves right? Wrong. If we applied this logic to the rest of KSU there would be no university.

I’ve never taken a class in psychology at KSU, and based on that prior logic, I shouldn’t have to pay for the psychology department. If all students did what I just did, we wouldn’t have any academic departments because nobody would want to pay for the departments outside of their interests. Universities have to appeal to a broad range of interests and constituencies.

It’s also laughable for spending hawks to selectively care about when they believe their money is getting wasted. It is incredible how much money students groups spend on T-shirts, catering and other worthless paraphernalia. That’s just the tip of the iceberg at how recklessly money is spent at KSU. If you really care about how your money is being spent, there are plenty of places that deserve scrutiny.

Football will undoubtedly help KSU become more recognizable in the South and the nation. More recently, KSU baseball alums, Chad Jenkins and Kyle Heckathorn, were drafted in the first round of the MLB draft and have signed with the Toronto Blue Jays and Milwaukee Brewers respectively (not too mention $1.3 million and $776,000 signing bonuses. Has someone at the KSU Foundation called them since they left?)

Surely this will help elevate our university, which in turn will enhance your degree and attract students and distinguished faculty. If it wasn’t for sports (especially football), would anyone outside of the South know UGA (OK, maybe for Agricultural Economics)?

To stick with the spirit of the season, here’s my fantasy pick for October:

KSU votes for Division I-A football with at least 65% voting in favor.

Student fees to pay for the program: $140.

Women’s sports added: gymnastics and swimming (although, I would prefer equestrian).

The (laughable) Against column:

No football needed, vote 'no' in October

Quote:KSU is a curious college. It was a junior college for a commuter population and now is trying so gosh darned hard to grow up big and strong like the other schools on the playground.

It might be like a flagship university one day, but right now it’s in that awkward teenage phase: covered with zits and desperately wanting to fit in. First it was the dining hall. All the other kids had a dining hall, so KSU had to go buy one. Fine. Everyone wants to fit in sometimes. Now KSU wants a football team. This is where the line should be drawn.

KSU doesn’t need a football team. KSU is a fine school right now, and a football team isn’t going to add anything to the quality of education. In fact, it will probably subtract from it considering the increase in drinking and all around stupidity that follows football wherever it goes.

Every dollar that is spent on football is a dollar KSU could have spent on frivolities like professors and chairs. Who needs that stuff? And it will cost millions of dollars. Georgia Tech’s 2010 athletic budget is close to $4 million in total. Keep in mind they already have their stadium.

KSU has about 20,000 students; to equal Georgia Tech’s budget we would need to shell out $200 per student, and I can guarantee you it’ll cost more than that to build a decent stadium.

The most compelling argument for football is that it will bring greater attention to KSU. I have to concede that it probably will, but is it the right kind of attention? Do we really want KSU to try to emulate these schools? Part of our allure is as a no-nonsense budget school where you can get an education without smelling the fragrant odor of stale beer and old hot dogs. A football program jeopardizes that olfactory well-being.

Has anyone ever considered that our hypothetical football team might stink? I hate to be the one to say it, but the only thing the “The Fighting Owls” have fought lately is traffic.

Would a bad football team enhance our image? No. A bad football team would make us the laughingstock of the region, and a decent football team would destroy our niche as an oasis of sobriety and relative maturity in the University System of Georgia. KSU loses either way.

This issue is a lost cause though. Everyone knows the outcome of this vote. I can only take solace in the fact that I will probably have graduated when the massive tuition hike kicks in.

In the meantime, if I want to pay for the privilege of going to a football game only to see my team lose it isn’t that much of a trip downtown to catch a Falcon’s game. Maybe they’ll finally get the consecutive winning seasons they’ve been chasing for 43 years. I for one won’t be holding my breath for either team.

I guess just express your support. Life goes on.

dpapp@kennesaw.edu
dwaples@kennesaw.edu

(09-02-2009 10:09 AM)Nick M Wrote:  I guess just express your support. Life goes on.

dpapp@kennesaw.edu
dwaples@kennesaw.edu

Hey Nick, I know you've been communicating with the Prez and the AD previously - do you know of any fundraising opportunities that have been undertaken related to FB? It would be nice to have a place to send a donation if they're taking them. It just seems like they're keeping that pretty underground. The alumni should have a way to get more involved since most would probably not be reading the Sentinel.

I'm sure any sizeable donation would be accepted. I do not know of a particular fundraising effort but you could definitely find someone to take a check without looking to hard in the Athletic department or KSU Foundation.

If you are looking to give a donation I believe the person you would want to contact is George Olney (golney@kennesaw.edu).

If you are looking to give to men's basketball I think the person to contact is coach Che Roth (croth5@kennesaw.edu)

As far as that 'against' article .... that was complete bs. It cites GT's 4 million dollar budget as a reason to not do football and claims that we will have a $200/student increase to make up for that.

1. KSU's athletic budget is already right at a million dollars, so even if we wanted to match their spending, we would only need to make up 3 million, which is $150/student.
2. We don't need to match their budget, because we don't play in the ACC, we don't have near the expenses, we don't pay guarantee games, etc...

The $125/student or whatever it is is strictly to get the program going, and then once we have the program going that student fee will go towards all of our athletic programs, allowing us to be more successful across the board. This fee increase is a great opportunity for the students to really put the athletic program, and therefore the university on the map. I have no doubt in my mind that if the athletic program is properly funded, then all of our programs will be very successful. We already have excellent coaches in almost every sport, often it is the financial competitive disadvantage that makes an impact on our teams.

Will be interesting.

Well said. The athletics fees wont just cover football. It will be interesting to see how farsighted the students will be, or whether they'll be the stereotypical "it's all about me and my education" folks who seem to deluge the Sentinel comments section every time football is mentioned. I wonder if they support the idea of collegiate athletics in general? I'd suspect not.

BTW the idea that we would spend as much on football as Tech is laughable. He just pulled a number out of his arse there.

The "no" article was awful haha. Has anybody heard how the vote is actually going to take place? The last voting method was lame.

Didn't you guys already have a vote? A couple of years ago? What were the results of that? Why are they redoing the vote? Do they expect a significant change from the results of a couple years ago?

Yeah, I brought that up a few posts down. 2007. same thing. It's just a diversion.

(09-04-2009 10:56 AM)GaStPanthers Wrote:  Didn't you guys already have a vote? A couple of years ago? What were the results of that? Why are they redoing the vote? Do they expect a significant change from the results of a couple years ago?

The only possible difference this time is they'll make the vote more 'official'. Last time it was a dodgy online poll and I doubt the results were taken 100% seriously. If they do it with polling booths or something of the sort then people around here might be more liable to think that something will come of it.