(06-13-2014 08:20 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 12:26 AM)Enaiu Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:It's about as accurate as me pointing towards this thread/website/info and making a blanket statement.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-691603.html

Fair point, appreciate the response.

Why are you purposely being annoying? Because you can? You could justify your response, or at least back down from it.

Are you referring to me?

If so, then here would be my response.

The assertion yesterday that WMU's athletic dept. is a "house of cards" that receives "little fan support and donations" is absolutely ridiculous. The statement was made because the poster above wanted to use the general fund numbers as evidence. I would argue that those numbers do not tell the whole story...for the following reasons:

1. Comparing WMU to the rest of the MAC is not apples to apples. Only BGSU and Miami are comparable. Why would I say make that statement? Because we are the only 3 MAC schools that support DI hockey. That makes a huge difference in the numbers that are being discussed.

2. In regards to the "little fan support" and the lack of donations...I'd say that's unbelievably false. Why? Because we just came off a two years stretch that saw our football team go 4-20. Attendance is directly correlated to winning. If WMU wins, the fans show up. If they don't, the average attendance falls between 12k-15k on average...very similar to other MAC schools. The attendance ceiling hasn't be approached since the 99 and 00 seasons. When WMU does win, people show up. And in regards to the donations, I'm not sure where someone would have to bury their head to be completely ignorant in regards to the recent renovations our football facilities have implemented (around 4 million), the 800k scoreboard in University Arena that is getting installed this summer, the renovations at Lawson ice arena in the last two years, and the baseball stadium upgrades that occurred four years ago. All were made possible because of donations. Not saying WMU is superior to any MAC school here...just saying we are very comparable to our peer institutions and we are nothing like the "house of cards" the poster described.

3. Unless someone is an accountant for a MAC school, making sense of how healthy a athletic dept is hardly a exact science. There is no universal accounting formula used by every school.

4. Implying that schools which have a higher percentage of general fund usage are not as financially healthy as those who have a lower percentage is misleading. In fact, one could argue that a school which receives more money from it's general fund MIGHT be because the school is financially stable and can afford to do such. Not saying that is the case, just stating there is more than one way to interpret data.


I get it. PJ isn't winning the favorite alumni contest on the Dog Pound. But the blanket statement made above would qualify as ridiculous. In fact, I would challenge him/her to prove such statements.

Sorry for the rant fellas. The vast majority of NIU posters I respect and enjoy conversing with. I just couldn't look the other way on this one. I would expect you guys to do the same if some knucklehead on the Stampede made similar statement regarding NIU.

No, I was referring to PrideinthePack. I should have clarified. Sorry for that.

This article is spot on regarding the USA today database.

http://www.teamspeedkills.com/2013/5/8/4...abase-2012

(06-13-2014 10:26 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 09:45 AM)tampabayrocketfan Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 08:20 AM)EA3 Wrote:  

(06-13-2014 12:26 AM)Enaiu Wrote:  

Quote:Fair point, appreciate the response.

Why are you purposely being annoying? Because you can? You could justify your response, or at least back down from it.

Are you referring to me?

If so, then here would be my response.

The assertion yesterday that WMU's athletic dept. is a "house of cards" that receives "little fan support and donations" is absolutely ridiculous. The statement was made because the poster above wanted to use the general fund numbers as evidence. I would argue that those numbers do not tell the whole story...for the following reasons:

1. Comparing WMU to the rest of the MAC is not apples to apples. Only BGSU and Miami are comparable. Why would I say make that statement? Because we are the only 3 MAC schools that support DI hockey. That makes a huge difference in the numbers that are being discussed.

2. In regards to the "little fan support" and the lack of donations...I'd say that's unbelievably false. Why? Because we just came off a two years stretch that saw our football team go 4-20. Attendance is directly correlated to winning. If WMU wins, the fans show up. If they don't, the average attendance falls between 12k-15k on average...very similar to other MAC schools. The attendance ceiling hasn't be approached since the 99 and 00 seasons. When WMU does win, people show up. And in regards to the donations, I'm not sure where someone would have to bury their head to be completely ignorant in regards to the recent renovations our football facilities have implemented (around 4 million), the 800k scoreboard in University Arena that is getting installed this summer, the renovations at Lawson ice arena in the last two years, and the baseball stadium upgrades that occurred four years ago. All were made possible because of donations. Not saying WMU is superior to any MAC school here...just saying we are very comparable to our peer institutions and we are nothing like the "house of cards" the poster described.

3. Unless someone is an accountant for a MAC school, making sense of how healthy a athletic dept is hardly a exact science. There is no universal accounting formula used by every school.

4. Implying that schools which have a higher percentage of general fund usage are not as financially healthy as those who have a lower percentage is misleading. In fact, one could argue that a school which receives more money from it's general fund MIGHT be because the school is financially stable and can afford to do such. Not saying that is the case, just stating there is more than one way to interpret data.


I get it. PJ isn't winning the favorite alumni contest on the Dog Pound. But the blanket statement made above would qualify as ridiculous. In fact, I would challenge him/her to prove such statements.

Sorry for the rant fellas. The vast majority of NIU posters I respect and enjoy conversing with. I just couldn't look the other way on this one. I would expect you guys to do the same if some knucklehead on the Stampede made similar statement regarding NIU.

WMU is the 2nd most subsidized (2nd poorest budget position) school in the MAC just behind EMU. Miami ang BGSU are doing a much better job on true revenues that are not derived from school funds or student fees. Just check the USA today numbers and click on your school. I wouldnt be happy with that at all if that was my school.

Again...that is the danger of looking at one piece of data and crowning it. How about I look at the website copied above and point to the fact that NIU shows the 3rd lowest revenues in the MAC. Under your logic, that must mean NIU has little fan support and receives hardly any donations. Must be a house of cards over in DeKalb. Get the point now?

If you think the 2nd most subsidized athletic dept in the MAC = 2nd poorest budget position....then you are grossly uneducated in the matter.

OK the subsidy #'s dont lie. Concentrating on that alone, the bottom line is that WMU is one of the most subsidized athletic departments in the country. I am sorry but you wont win this one. You have been drinkig too much coolaide. I suggest you get back in the boat and keep on rowing!

And what does that statement mean/imply?

It means something entirely different than what you are implying. In fact it's incredibly naive for a person to make the conclusion you have made.

I love it. A WMU - UT pissing match on the Dog Pound.

(06-13-2014 08:44 PM)DiehardHuskie Wrote:  I love it. A WMU - UT pissing match on the Dog Pound.

If that doesn't say off-season........

(06-11-2014 06:24 PM)armour248 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 05:28 PM)bikechuck Wrote:  I think that PJ will be successful at WMU and sooner rather than later. He is out recruiting everyone and as the old saying goes. In college football its not about the x's and o's, its about the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

Yeah, not really though. You're basing his recruiting success on ratings from online recruiting services. Show me how good at predicting player success those have been for non-AQ programs. I don't disagree that he is getting some good talent but there is a lot more to it than that. It will also be interesting to see how many of his well regarded recruits make it to their junior season.

Agreed that he needs to show that he can win games with the talent that he has recruited. I would not bet against him just yet and a small piece of me would like him to succeed.

(06-13-2014 09:32 PM)bikechuck Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 06:24 PM)armour248 Wrote:  

(06-11-2014 05:28 PM)bikechuck Wrote:  I think that PJ will be successful at WMU and sooner rather than later. He is out recruiting everyone and as the old saying goes. In college football its not about the x's and o's, its about the Jimmy's and the Joe's.

Yeah, not really though. You're basing his recruiting success on ratings from online recruiting services. Show me how good at predicting player success those have been for non-AQ programs. I don't disagree that he is getting some good talent but there is a lot more to it than that. It will also be interesting to see how many of his well regarded recruits make it to their junior season.

Agreed that he needs to show that he can win games with the talent that he has recruited. I would not bet against him just yet and a small piece of me would like him to succeed.

Agreed, I hope he succeeds against everyone but us of course. He's a nut but as 7 said earlier his remarks after last fall's game in Huskie Stadium were sincere and I've let go of any bad feelings. The guy can recruit like nobody's business and I'm sticking to my prediction of 5-ish wins for WMU this fall and a winning season in '15. Immediately after which he accepts the head coaching job at Rutgers.