They now receive cost of attendance as well. I believe walk ons received some benefits as well.

The attendance at LSU was 102,000 plus which makes our 985k payout trivial well at least they got their monies worth.

(10-04-2015 02:23 PM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 01:00 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear steve,
I read in the Baton Rouge newspaper that the payout was $985,000. That is what the reporter on the game said.

How much did the guys who risked their health get? Oh, nothing? How absolutely asinine.

You do realize EMU LOSES money on football? The players get more than the school does.

LSU players are a different story. LSU makes money on football. Their players don’t reap any of those profits. Your comment is applicable only to LSU.

95% of all football programs lose money, but still see the benefit of keeping a money losing program. If it was strictly about sports profits, basically all college sports would be gone. Baseball, wrestling, soccer, all girls sports, all lose money.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but actually partially agree with what Bob is saying. At worst, football players EARN every bit of their scholarships and perks. On top of all the extra time and effort, the risk of injury and long term consequences of concussions, have more recently been determined to be immeasurable. Please don't get me started by claiming these players owe the university some extra debt of gratitude for their 'FREE' rides. Nothing is free, again, they earn every bit of them.

On the flip side I don't necessarily buy the argument that their scholarships are a mere pittance for the risk they incur, or they are entitled to tens of thousands in additional compensation for their likenesses, etc.

Parents and players accept the risk and extra work, in return for the scholarship, nothing more, nothing less. Seems about right to me.

(10-02-2015 11:06 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-02-2015 10:44 AM)EagleTough Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 10:44 PM)Huron 61 Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 04:00 PM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-01-2015 03:55 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  As an outsider, I don't know why you have to keep pointing out things that everyone already knows. Pretty sure all the EMU fans want them to be competitive again and realize where EMU is at right now. But that isn't going to make the players faster, or the QB's arm stronger or whatever.

It seems like you rub it in, on your own team (if it is your team). Just my 2 cents.

You are unqualified to have an opinion on EMU football. If you sat through 20 straight losing NIU seasons, which you wouldn't have the guts to do, you would be mildly irritated too.

I've sat through more than 50 years of EMU football and I don't appreciate your ceaseless negativity. Although I have left some games with a feeling of bitter disappointment.

50 years, Wow! Now that's a great EMU football fan & alumni. So glad you're on this board.

If EMU had a 'fans section' for their HOF, Huron 61 deserves to be included...

I didn't mention that to be accorded some sort of accolade. I said that because I am sure there are some of us out there who can't wait too long for EMU to regain some of its past respect. I just hope I'll be able to enjoy it soon.
Also it's very trying to read over and over again that the defense needs improvement, that because the coaches made a decision or had a play run that didn't work they need to be replaced. all this over and over again. Most people on this forum realize we're not the Patriots. So slack off. Saying that shows how little respect you have for the intelligence of others.
One last thing while I'm ranting. If I were a high school prospective athlete I would check out a forum like this to get a different view of the institution I was thinking of attending. The negativity here would turn me off. I hate to bring them up but the ******* fans of the boys down the street pretend anything negative doesn't exist. Remember when we beat them in basketball last season and the vast majority said the weren't a basketball school. I'm not advocating that happen on here but the positive comments should far outnumber only one negative per sport

(10-04-2015 05:08 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  95% of all football programs lose money, but still see the benefit of keeping a money losing program. If it was strictly about sports profits, basically all college sports would be gone. Baseball, wrestling, soccer, all girls sports, all lose money.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but actually partially agree with what Bob is saying. At worst, football players EARN every bit of their scholarships and perks. On top of all the extra time and effort, the risk of injury and long term consequences of concussions, have more recently been determined to be immeasurable. Please don't get me started by claiming these players owe the university some extra debt of gratitude for their 'FREE' rides. Nothing is free, again, they earn every bit of them.

On the flip side I don't necessarily buy the argument that their scholarships are a mere pittance for the risk they incur, or they are entitled to tens of thousands in additional compensation for their likenesses, etc.

Parents and players accept the risk and extra work, in return for the scholarship, nothing more, nothing less. Seems about right to me.

I’m not talking about scholarships, bur pay which is what Bob is referring to. EMU and most schools do not generate a profit from football. Therefore, the players at those schools do not deserve to be paid. It’s the ones at the schools who make enormous profits(UM, OSU) who deserve some compensation.

(10-04-2015 02:23 PM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 01:00 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear steve,
I read in the Baton Rouge newspaper that the payout was $985,000. That is what the reporter on the game said.

How much did the guys who risked their health get? Oh, nothing? How absolutely asinine.

Bob - I know that being cantankerous helps you get through the day, so allow this to be a source of fuel for Monday. Further, I usually smile at your angst and bitterness, and say thanks that I am not so bitter about anything in my life.
However, this statement caught my eye, and I thought I'd answer your question - "how much do they get?" I was a scrub/walk-on on an FCS team who was able 1x or 2x's a year to play in a "body bag" game. We won once, but the other years we lost pretty handily. (I could tell a few stories about when I realized my athletic limitations most fully). What I "got" was an opportunity to play up & try myself in an arena where we knew it would take near perfection to win. It was always worth the beating to have that chance. Perhaps the TR quote about competition might help you? I assure you we did not spend too much time dwelling on what the "Bob W's" of the world thought of us getting our butts whipped.

(10-04-2015 02:23 PM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 01:00 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear steve,
I read in the Baton Rouge newspaper that the payout was $985,000. That is what the reporter on the game said.

How much did the guys who risked their health get? Oh, nothing? How absolutely asinine.

What a troll.

(10-04-2015 07:59 PM)wolverineeagle Wrote:  

(10-04-2015 05:08 PM)EagleTough Wrote:  95% of all football programs lose money, but still see the benefit of keeping a money losing program. If it was strictly about sports profits, basically all college sports would be gone. Baseball, wrestling, soccer, all girls sports, all lose money.

Can't believe I'm saying this, but actually partially agree with what Bob is saying. At worst, football players EARN every bit of their scholarships and perks. On top of all the extra time and effort, the risk of injury and long term consequences of concussions, have more recently been determined to be immeasurable. Please don't get me started by claiming these players owe the university some extra debt of gratitude for their 'FREE' rides. Nothing is free, again, they earn every bit of them.

On the flip side I don't necessarily buy the argument that their scholarships are a mere pittance for the risk they incur, or they are entitled to tens of thousands in additional compensation for their likenesses, etc.

Parents and players accept the risk and extra work, in return for the scholarship, nothing more, nothing less. Seems about right to me.

I’m not talking about scholarships, bur pay which is what Bob is referring to. EMU and most schools do not generate a profit from football. Therefore, the players at those schools do not deserve to be paid. It’s the ones at the schools who make enormous profits(UM, OSU) who deserve some compensation.

Of course that sounds great as a Michigan or Ohio State fan. Since there are only 20 schools in the entire country that generate a profit from athletics, let's just allow only those 20 schools to pay their players, which in turn creates an unbelievable advantage in recruiting, and basically create a 20 team super conference?

Would never fly, antitrust written all over it. Corrupt NCAA and the P5 schools are already pushing their luck as it is.

Have any of you run a business? Why would you be in business to lose money and pay your "CEO" $400,000? For the prestige? You can easily argue that EMU football's losing reputation hurts the EMU "brand" so I'm not buying that. What I do know is that the young men that play football are risking their health (short and long term) and are getting the same thing that the women's volleyball or soccer team are getting and that is not fair.

(10-05-2015 07:56 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Have any of you run a business? Why would you be in business to lose money and pay your "CEO" $400,000? For the prestige? You can easily argue that EMU football's losing reputation hurts the EMU "brand" so I'm not buying that. What I do know is that the young men that play football are risking their health (short and long term) and are getting the same thing that the women's volleyball or soccer team are getting and that is not fair.

Gee, I never thought track and field was fair. NCAA champions, in the olden days, never made two nickels yet they were superior athletes. Got medals or maybe watches or similar for being a NCAA champion. A Boston Marathon champion got zero dollars for his (or her) victory.

There are 'opportunity' benefits of football, basketball, and even baseball because there are real possibilities after college for those with pro-level sports.

And not all sports are created equal.

(10-05-2015 08:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 07:56 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Have any of you run a business? Why would you be in business to lose money and pay your "CEO" $400,000? For the prestige? You can easily argue that EMU football's losing reputation hurts the EMU "brand" so I'm not buying that. What I do know is that the young men that play football are risking their health (short and long term) and are getting the same thing that the women's volleyball or soccer team are getting and that is not fair.

Gee, I never thought track and field was fair. NCAA champions, in the olden days, never made two nickels yet they were superior athletes. Got medals or maybe watches or similar for being a NCAA champion. A Boston Marathon champion got zero dollars for his (or her) victory.

There are 'opportunity' benefits of football, basketball, and even baseball because there are real possibilities after college for those with pro-level sports.

And not all sports are created equal.

You have missed the point. What is the "incentive" for the university? For most universities to field football teams? They are all bleeding money? The argument presented here is that only U-M, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Penn State, etc. etc. are making money? I am not naïve enough to buy that argument. Wake up peeps. Take care of the kids who are shouldering the burden, of whom 98.9% will not make a dime in the NFL after their eligibility is exhausted.

P.S. my brother ran track/ C.C. at MSU--I have great respect for all athletes, but he didn't lay his health on the line.

Logically it makes sense that college athletes get compensated. In my opinion though the money should come from those that profit the most from the games. Namely TV networks, apparel companies, advertisers, etc.

The hypocritical NCAA allows money to lead to a severe competitive advantage for the big boys. Mandate that they all play some road games at the smaller programs or separate them into a separate division. NCAA could have D1, D2, D3, and the High Rollers.

(10-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 07:56 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Have any of you run a business? Why would you be in business to lose money and pay your "CEO" $400,000? For the prestige? You can easily argue that EMU football's losing reputation hurts the EMU "brand" so I'm not buying that. What I do know is that the young men that play football are risking their health (short and long term) and are getting the same thing that the women's volleyball or soccer team are getting and that is not fair.

Gee, I never thought track and field was fair. NCAA champions, in the olden days, never made two nickels yet they were superior athletes. Got medals or maybe watches or similar for being a NCAA champion. A Boston Marathon champion got zero dollars for his (or her) victory.

There are 'opportunity' benefits of football, basketball, and even baseball because there are real possibilities after college for those with pro-level sports.

And not all sports are created equal.

You have missed the point. What is the "incentive" for the university? For most universities to field football teams? They are all bleeding money? The argument presented here is that only U-M, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Penn State, etc. etc. are making money? I am not naïve enough to buy that argument. Wake up peeps. Take care of the kids who are shouldering the burden, of whom 98.9% will not make a dime in the NFL after their eligibility is exhausted.

P.S. my brother ran track/ C.C. at MSU--I have great respect for all athletes, but he didn't lay his health on the line.

You are also missing a huge point:

W/out FBS (or even FCS) FB, EMU would be more irrelevant in MI and nationally than Wayne State.

I've made this point many times here:

Wayne State has scores of PhD programs, med school, engineering, law, mortuary, social work, etc. etc. but gets no respect. (really only lacks a dental school and things like aeronautics, but like let them go to UDM or WMU for those majors).

EMU has only a few PhD program and none of the others yet got on national TV and had its score all over all of the newspapers for playing LSU.

Without FB (and basketball), EMU would be almost irrelevant nationally...

Long live D-I (FBS) athletics... :)

(10-05-2015 09:03 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 07:56 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Have any of you run a business? Why would you be in business to lose money and pay your "CEO" $400,000? For the prestige? You can easily argue that EMU football's losing reputation hurts the EMU "brand" so I'm not buying that. What I do know is that the young men that play football are risking their health (short and long term) and are getting the same thing that the women's volleyball or soccer team are getting and that is not fair.

Gee, I never thought track and field was fair. NCAA champions, in the olden days, never made two nickels yet they were superior athletes. Got medals or maybe watches or similar for being a NCAA champion. A Boston Marathon champion got zero dollars for his (or her) victory.

There are 'opportunity' benefits of football, basketball, and even baseball because there are real possibilities after college for those with pro-level sports.

And not all sports are created equal.

You have missed the point. What is the "incentive" for the university? For most universities to field football teams? They are all bleeding money? The argument presented here is that only U-M, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Penn State, etc. etc. are making money? I am not naïve enough to buy that argument. Wake up peeps. Take care of the kids who are shouldering the burden, of whom 98.9% will not make a dime in the NFL after their eligibility is exhausted.

P.S. my brother ran track/ C.C. at MSU--I have great respect for all athletes, but he didn't lay his health on the line.

You are also missing a huge point:

W/out FBS (or even FCS) FB, EMU would be more irrelevant in MI and nationally than Wayne State.

I've made this point many times here:

Wayne State has scores of PhD programs, med school, engineering, law, mortuary, social work, etc. etc. but gets no respect. (really only lacks a dental school and things like aeronautics, but like let them go to UDM or WMU for those majors).

EMU has only a few PhD program and none of the others yet got on national TV and had its score all over all of the newspapers for playing LSU.

Without FB (and basketball), EMU would be almost irrelevant nationally...

Long live D-I (FBS) athletics... :)

EMU may have gotten a little national publicity for the LSU game but there wasn't even a mention of it in the Ann Arbor News. Obviously they are way to busy covering the over publicized UM team. Bring back the Ypsi Press.

(10-05-2015 09:30 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:03 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 07:56 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  Have any of you run a business? Why would you be in business to lose money and pay your "CEO" $400,000? For the prestige? You can easily argue that EMU football's losing reputation hurts the EMU "brand" so I'm not buying that. What I do know is that the young men that play football are risking their health (short and long term) and are getting the same thing that the women's volleyball or soccer team are getting and that is not fair.

Gee, I never thought track and field was fair. NCAA champions, in the olden days, never made two nickels yet they were superior athletes. Got medals or maybe watches or similar for being a NCAA champion. A Boston Marathon champion got zero dollars for his (or her) victory.

There are 'opportunity' benefits of football, basketball, and even baseball because there are real possibilities after college for those with pro-level sports.

And not all sports are created equal.

You have missed the point. What is the "incentive" for the university? For most universities to field football teams? They are all bleeding money? The argument presented here is that only U-M, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Penn State, etc. etc. are making money? I am not naïve enough to buy that argument. Wake up peeps. Take care of the kids who are shouldering the burden, of whom 98.9% will not make a dime in the NFL after their eligibility is exhausted.

P.S. my brother ran track/ C.C. at MSU--I have great respect for all athletes, but he didn't lay his health on the line.

You are also missing a huge point:

W/out FBS (or even FCS) FB, EMU would be more irrelevant in MI and nationally than Wayne State.

I've made this point many times here:

Wayne State has scores of PhD programs, med school, engineering, law, mortuary, social work, etc. etc. but gets no respect. (really only lacks a dental school and things like aeronautics, but like let them go to UDM or WMU for those majors).

EMU has only a few PhD program and none of the others yet got on national TV and had its score all over all of the newspapers for playing LSU.

Without FB (and basketball), EMU would be almost irrelevant nationally...

Long live D-I (FBS) athletics... :)

EMU may have gotten a little national publicity for the LSU game but there wasn't even a mention of it in the Ann Arbor News. Obviously they are way to busy covering the over publicized UM team. Bring back the Ypsi Press.

Pathetic.

(10-05-2015 10:00 AM)HuronDave Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:30 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:03 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:23 AM)emu steve Wrote:  Gee, I never thought track and field was fair. NCAA champions, in the olden days, never made two nickels yet they were superior athletes. Got medals or maybe watches or similar for being a NCAA champion. A Boston Marathon champion got zero dollars for his (or her) victory.

There are 'opportunity' benefits of football, basketball, and even baseball because there are real possibilities after college for those with pro-level sports.

And not all sports are created equal.

You have missed the point. What is the "incentive" for the university? For most universities to field football teams? They are all bleeding money? The argument presented here is that only U-M, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Penn State, etc. etc. are making money? I am not naïve enough to buy that argument. Wake up peeps. Take care of the kids who are shouldering the burden, of whom 98.9% will not make a dime in the NFL after their eligibility is exhausted.

P.S. my brother ran track/ C.C. at MSU--I have great respect for all athletes, but he didn't lay his health on the line.

You are also missing a huge point:

W/out FBS (or even FCS) FB, EMU would be more irrelevant in MI and nationally than Wayne State.

I've made this point many times here:

Wayne State has scores of PhD programs, med school, engineering, law, mortuary, social work, etc. etc. but gets no respect. (really only lacks a dental school and things like aeronautics, but like let them go to UDM or WMU for those majors).

EMU has only a few PhD program and none of the others yet got on national TV and had its score all over all of the newspapers for playing LSU.

Without FB (and basketball), EMU would be almost irrelevant nationally...

Long live D-I (FBS) athletics... :)

EMU may have gotten a little national publicity for the LSU game but there wasn't even a mention of it in the Ann Arbor News. Obviously they are way to busy covering the over publicized UM team. Bring back the Ypsi Press.

Pathetic.

Dave, time to come back to Washtenaw County.

(10-05-2015 10:07 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 10:00 AM)HuronDave Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:30 AM)TheWoodenNickle Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 09:03 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:45 AM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  You have missed the point. What is the "incentive" for the university? For most universities to field football teams? They are all bleeding money? The argument presented here is that only U-M, Texas, LSU, Alabama, Penn State, etc. etc. are making money? I am not naïve enough to buy that argument. Wake up peeps. Take care of the kids who are shouldering the burden, of whom 98.9% will not make a dime in the NFL after their eligibility is exhausted.

P.S. my brother ran track/ C.C. at MSU--I have great respect for all athletes, but he didn't lay his health on the line.

You are also missing a huge point:

W/out FBS (or even FCS) FB, EMU would be more irrelevant in MI and nationally than Wayne State.

I've made this point many times here:

Wayne State has scores of PhD programs, med school, engineering, law, mortuary, social work, etc. etc. but gets no respect. (really only lacks a dental school and things like aeronautics, but like let them go to UDM or WMU for those majors).

EMU has only a few PhD program and none of the others yet got on national TV and had its score all over all of the newspapers for playing LSU.

Without FB (and basketball), EMU would be almost irrelevant nationally...

Long live D-I (FBS) athletics... :)

EMU may have gotten a little national publicity for the LSU game but there wasn't even a mention of it in the Ann Arbor News. Obviously they are way to busy covering the over publicized UM team. Bring back the Ypsi Press.

Pathetic.

Dave, time to come back to Washtenaw County.

Washtenaw County is lacking true coverage of any sport other than UM football. HS football gets a little coverage but all of the other HS sports get nothing. Nothing for Concordia or EMU either. I wish someone would create a media outlet and cover all of it (except UM). Might be a decent start up business.

I also think that the Ann Arbor news is quietly hoping EMU never succeeds on the football field. That would only make them feel obligated to do something they don't want to invest resources in.

BTW, I think MLive needed to break in a new reporter after Michael left. We are in a transition time. Hope we get a good replacement.

In all fairness to MLive, Michael did a lot of stories until he left to cover Auburn FB.

Reporters for MLive where a lot of hats and cover a LOT of sports. This isn't Detroit where the Detroit news can have say 3 or 4 or 5 reporters covering the Tigers.

(10-05-2015 12:00 PM)emu steve Wrote:  BTW, I think MLive needed to break in a new reporter after Michael left. We are in a transition time. Hope we get a good replacement.

In all fairness to MLive, Michael did a lot of stories until he left to cover Auburn FB.

Reporters for MLive where a lot of hats and cover a LOT of sports. This isn't Detroit where the Detroit news can have say 3 or 4 or 5 reporters covering the Tigers.

I disagree. There's no desire from them to cover EMU. At best, it's an inconvenient afterthought.

If a UM reporter (take your pick from the 5 of them) were to leave he would be replaced immediately. It's all about getting clicks on their website and not about serving the people with good local reporting. This is not just an emu sports subject. I know of local school leaders that cannot stand the deplorable misrepresentation that Mlive provides. "Shock and awe" is what they live on. Integrity and ethics are not.

True but EMU won't even take care of their own program! Ten minute pregame show and no post-game. That is inexcusable and it really sucks because Matt Shepard and Rob Rubick do a hell of a job. I listened to the entire game driving from Michigan to Iowa and was thoroughly entertained.