It was very curious to see a school that met the more stringent 1a standards in 1982 completely drop football a couple of years later

(10-07-2015 03:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

The issue with Wichita was they DIDN'T meet the I-A criteria - their stadium seated less than 30K, which was the requirement at the time.

That is 100% false. Cessna Stadium seated 30,000 until about 15 years ago when some seating was removed to expand the track. I could write a book on this but won't. What happened at WSU in regards to football was very similar to what went down at UAB. All of the state schools are under one board of Regents that at the time had only Kansas University grads on it. Since then, the state has enacted a law that requires equal representation but the damage was done. Everytime a study or commission has been done on reinstating football, the results were always yes only to be shut down by the Regents. The two previous Presidents at WSU were hired by an all KU regents and rumor was they were hired with the informal request to not bring back football. The current President, who was hired by a Board with fair representation did not have to agree to it and made it clear Football was up to him. If Football was to ever come back at Wichita State, it will be under him.

Is there any momentum currently to bring back football?

(10-07-2015 03:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

The issue with Wichita was they DIDN'T meet the I-A criteria - their stadium seated less than 30K, which was the requirement at the time.

That is 100% false. Cessna Stadium seated 30,000 until about 15 years ago when some seating was removed to expand the track. I could write a book on this but won't. What happened at WSU in regards to football was very similar to what went down at UAB. All of the state schools are under one board of Regents that at the time had only Kansas University grads on it. Since then, the state has enacted a law that requires equal representation but the damage was done. Everytime a study or commission has been done on reinstating football, the results were always yes only to be shut down by the Regents. The two previous Presidents at WSU were hired by an all KU regents and rumor was they were hired with the informal request to not bring back football. The current President, who was hired by a Board with fair representation did not have to agree to it and made it clear Football was up to him. If Football was to ever come back at Wichita State, it will be under him.

No, I am correct about the stadium seating. It was all the excuse the board needed to do that rest of your post.

Do you not agree with the ncaa article

(10-07-2015 02:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

The issue with Wichita was they DIDN'T meet the I-A criteria - their stadium seated less than 30K, which was the requirement at the time.

This actually correct.
A professor at Wichita State as an exercise for a class had the students count all the seats at the stadium and discovered the stadium was below the minimum seating (ridiculous number, like four or six seats short).

The legend as I was told was that the professor didn't think about it and had no idea that it was of any significance but had mentioned it in passing to another faculty member who was anti-football and contacted the NCAA.

The school was already facing financial issues and (per the legend) was going to have to play 1987 and possibly 1988 as a I-AA and dropped football rather than add that insult to the whole financial issue.

Note that the student paper article mentions the NCAA required Wichita State to hire a consultant.

Armstrong said that the financial picture, discouraging conversations with WSU supporters and a consultant’s report, mandated by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, that said “there is no other alternative but to drop football at Wichita State” convinced him to act.

Armstrong received the report Saturday from Synergos Inc. Keeping a football program, the report said, “could be considered reckless and irresponsible fiscal management.”

Well, regardless what happened. I think there's no doubt that WSU's stadium meets FBS requirements today.

(10-07-2015 02:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They didnt need stadium expansion. The requirement was 17k a year in average attendance over a 1 or 4 year span depending on the sizeof your stadium

The rule at the time was to join I-A:
1. Average 17k once in the prior four years if your stadium had 30k seats.
2. Average 17k over the prior four years (all four years worth of home games divided by the number of games) if you had less than 30k seats.
To stay I-A:
Meet 1 or 2 above OR
3. Average 20k home and away once in four years if 30k seats.
4. Average 20k home and away over four years if less than 30k.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half met the standard.

With no conference and less than 30k seats 1, 3, and 5 were off the table and depending on the mood of the NCAA 4 could have been off the table since 4 was only to for remaining and the NCAA could have held that Wichita attained I-A improperly by certifying they had 30k seats.

(10-06-2015 10:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:34 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 06:24 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 04:46 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Why would MO St and IL St leave MVC basketball for Sun Belt football?

Look at the basketball arenas and football stadiums of those two schools.

Because football is more important and brings in more revenue. If the Sun Belt took 4 schools at once, that would significantly weaken the MVC.

Our men's basketball team always turns a profit and our women's hoops and baseball teams have turned profits before, the football team never has.

There isn't a football team in the SBC that turns a profit.

Didn't say profit. I said revenue. Public institutions aren't private companies. They generate revenue, they account for it, they spend it. College football generates more revenue than college basketball. link link

Football is more popular and markets the school and program to more people. Even bad bowl games in December generate more viewers than the FCS championship game, and almost all regular season college basketball games up until the NCAA tournament. Two/three payout games vs P5 schools per year can generate $2-4 million in revenue alone. You can't do that in regular season college basketball. Football cost more, but it makes more.

You could say profit and it would be true. Millions in CFP money, millions in game guarantees, millions in other revenue and football drives the donations as well. I guarantee that ASU would turn a big profit in it could play FBS football without sponsoring another sport.

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

I think West Texas A&M also met the criteria as well. Having 22,000 people going to the home games make them better than some teams that are in 1A and FBS. They have the potential to be part of an FBS school in the Amarillo, Texas area. That part of the state does not have a D1 school to fullfill the need in that area. It is like Wichita State as well.
Washburn in Kansas who was in the MVC did not meet the criteria, and fell to D2.
Both Topeka and Wichita could support an FBS team.

(10-07-2015 03:30 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 03:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:26 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:04 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Whats crazy was Wichita St was 1-A and even met the criteria to stay 1-A when the NCAA forced teams down into 1-AA. Unfortunately for them, half of the MVC did not meet the criteria to stay 1-A, only 3 out of 8 did, needed 3 out of 6 or 4 out of 7 or 8, and thus they had to make a decision, along with New Mexico st and Tulsa.

New Mexico St left immediately and joined up with the Big West. Tulsa and Wichita remained and played in the mixed 1-A, 1-AA league until the conference ended football after the 1985 season. Wichita and Tulsa went independent for football after that but Witchita only made it 1 year before pulling the plug on their program. If Wichita could have hung in there like Tulsa, I wonder if they would have been in on the WAC 16 or even Conference USA.

If Wichita could support a 1-A program under the old standards, I absolutely beleive they could under these new looser standards. You gotta wonder where they would be now if their conference had made the cut in 1982.

Wow, I didn't know that Wichita was actually right there with Tulsa.

How is it that a small, bible college like Tulsa was able to maintain football but a large, state university like Wichita had to drop it??

The issue with Wichita was they DIDN'T meet the I-A criteria - their stadium seated less than 30K, which was the requirement at the time.

That is 100% false. Cessna Stadium seated 30,000 until about 15 years ago when some seating was removed to expand the track. I could write a book on this but won't. What happened at WSU in regards to football was very similar to what went down at UAB. All of the state schools are under one board of Regents that at the time had only Kansas University grads on it. Since then, the state has enacted a law that requires equal representation but the damage was done. Everytime a study or commission has been done on reinstating football, the results were always yes only to be shut down by the Regents. The two previous Presidents at WSU were hired by an all KU regents and rumor was they were hired with the informal request to not bring back football. The current President, who was hired by a Board with fair representation did not have to agree to it and made it clear Football was up to him. If Football was to ever come back at Wichita State, it will be under him.

Is there any momentum currently to bring back football?

They were gonna try and start a club team back in 2012, but was tabled by the President. They are doing upgrading and adding new buildings to attract new students. If they reached the goals of students, they could do a study of re-starting the football program. If they want in the MWC? They need to have footabll before they will be accepted. MWC is opened to Wichita State because of their basketball, but the road block is that Wichita does not have football.

(10-07-2015 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They didnt need stadium expansion. The requirement was 17k a year in average attendance over a 1 or 4 year span depending on the sizeof your stadium

The rule at the time was to join I-A:
1. Average 17k once in the prior four years if your stadium had 30k seats.
2. Average 17k over the prior four years (all four years worth of home games divided by the number of games) if you had less than 30k seats.
To stay I-A:
Meet 1 or 2 above OR
3. Average 20k home and away once in four years if 30k seats.
4. Average 20k home and away over four years if less than 30k.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half met the standard.

With no conference and less than 30k seats 1, 3, and 5 were off the table and depending on the mood of the NCAA 4 could have been off the table since 4 was only to for remaining and the NCAA could have held that Wichita attained I-A improperly by certifying they had 30k seats.

Per the ncaa newsletter it was 17k home or 20k home and away. If your stadium was over 30k you had to meet the attendance standard once every 4 years. If it was under you had to meet it over a 4 year rolling period. Also per the newsletter Wichita met the 1a qualifications in 1982. If they later were found to have not met the qualifications i do not know but when the inital forced downgrades occurred Wichita was in the clear.

Thank you arkst for pointing out the ncaa mandated study in the article. Very interesting as to why it was ncsa mandated. Something fishy happened because it appears the program was dropped out of the blue without any warning

(10-07-2015 08:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They didnt need stadium expansion. The requirement was 17k a year in average attendance over a 1 or 4 year span depending on the sizeof your stadium

The rule at the time was to join I-A:
1. Average 17k once in the prior four years if your stadium had 30k seats.
2. Average 17k over the prior four years (all four years worth of home games divided by the number of games) if you had less than 30k seats.
To stay I-A:
Meet 1 or 2 above OR
3. Average 20k home and away once in four years if 30k seats.
4. Average 20k home and away over four years if less than 30k.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half met the standard.

With no conference and less than 30k seats 1, 3, and 5 were off the table and depending on the mood of the NCAA 4 could have been off the table since 4 was only to for remaining and the NCAA could have held that Wichita attained I-A improperly by certifying they had 30k seats.

Per the ncaa newsletter it was 17k home or 20k home and away. If your stadium was over 30k you had to meet the attendance standard once every 4 years. If it was under you had to meet it over a 4 year rolling period. Also per the newsletter Wichita met the 1a qualifications in 1982. If they later were found to have not met the qualifications i do not know but when the inital forced downgrades occurred Wichita was in the clear.

Thank you arkst for pointing out the ncaa mandated study in the article. Very interesting as to why it was ncsa mandated. Something fishy happened because it appears the program was dropped out of the blue without any warning

It's interesting that the P5 schools have come full circle on this issue. Originally, they didn't want lesser schools infringing on the bowls and TV money. Now, they have their own designated bowls, TV deals, and playoffs, so now they would naturally want more G5s to increase the supply and lower the cost of guarantee games. Just wait a couple months.

(10-07-2015 08:09 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 02:31 PM)solohawks Wrote:  They didnt need stadium expansion. The requirement was 17k a year in average attendance over a 1 or 4 year span depending on the sizeof your stadium

The rule at the time was to join I-A:
1. Average 17k once in the prior four years if your stadium had 30k seats.
2. Average 17k over the prior four years (all four years worth of home games divided by the number of games) if you had less than 30k seats.
To stay I-A:
Meet 1 or 2 above OR
3. Average 20k home and away once in four years if 30k seats.
4. Average 20k home and away over four years if less than 30k.
5. Be a member of a conference where more than half met the standard.

With no conference and less than 30k seats 1, 3, and 5 were off the table and depending on the mood of the NCAA 4 could have been off the table since 4 was only to for remaining and the NCAA could have held that Wichita attained I-A improperly by certifying they had 30k seats.

Per the ncaa newsletter it was 17k home or 20k home and away. If your stadium was over 30k you had to meet the attendance standard once every 4 years. If it was under you had to meet it over a 4 year rolling period. Also per the newsletter Wichita met the 1a qualifications in 1982. If they later were found to have not met the qualifications i do not know but when the inital forced downgrades occurred Wichita was in the clear.

Thank you arkst for pointing out the ncaa mandated study in the article. Very interesting as to why it was ncsa mandated. Something fishy happened because it appears the program was dropped out of the blue without any warning

The rolling average was a bear, few schools even bothered to try it (think Boise and Troy the only ones to move up using it).

The NCAA study element raises the flag that the legend of Cessna being a few seats short may be the truth.

Interestingly enough though not related, Kansas State made one bowl game prior to Wichita State dropping football, since then 17. Kanasas six between 1948 and the dropping of football at Wichita and six since.

Travel expenses for MVFC teams to move all sports to the Sunbelt would be a killer financially.

Before Georgia States tourney win last year, no Sunbelt team had won a men's NCAA hoops tournament game since La Lafayette in 1992. They are also the last Sunbelt team to make a Sweet 16 appearance, 1973!

4 MVC teams have been to the Sweet 16 since 2000

SIU 02 & 07
Bradley 06
UNI 10
Wichita 06, 13 & 15.

The football/basketball programs make $ off of Bradley & Wichita's tourney wins

The Dakota Schools have a strangle hold on the Summit Conference Tournament and now that they've gained back a decent hoops only program in Oral Roberts whose tournament wins make the basketball/football programs $.

Youngstown is the only football playing member of the Horizon League, not that the league is that great anymore with Butler gone but when you have MVFC members split into 3 hoops leagues it improves their chances of winning a conference tournament and getting a tourney bid.

All those teams will never join 1 league because they'd never qualify for 3 tounament bids as they now get being in separate leagues.

(10-08-2015 10:04 AM)Policiious Wrote:  Travel expenses for MVFC teams to move all sports to the Sunbelt would be a killer financially.

Before Georgia States tourney win last year, no Sunbelt team had won a men's NCAA hoops tournament game since La Lafayette in 1992. They are also the last Sunbelt team to make a Sweet 16 appearance, 1973!

4 MVC teams have been to the Sweet 16 since 2000

SIU 02 & 07
Bradley 06
UNI 10
Wichita 06, 13 & 15.

The football/basketball programs make $ off of Bradley & Wichita's tourney wins

The Dakota Schools have a strangle hold on the Summit Conference Tournament and now that they've gained back a decent hoops only program in Oral Roberts whose tournament wins make the basketball/football programs $.

Youngstown is the only football playing member of the Horizon League, not that the league is that great anymore with Butler gone but when you have MVFC members split into 3 hoops leagues it improves their chances of winning a conference tournament and getting a tourney bid.

All those teams will never join 1 league because they'd never qualify for 3 tounament bids as they now get being in separate leagues.

Western Kentucky won as a member of the Sun Belt. MTSU earned an at-large as a member of the Sun Belt.

(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  Didn't say profit. I said revenue. Public institutions aren't private companies. They generate revenue, they account for it, they spend it. College football generates more revenue than college basketball. link link

Football is more popular and markets the school and program to more people. Even bad bowl games in December generate more viewers than the FCS championship game, and almost all regular season college basketball games up until the NCAA tournament. Two/three payout games vs P5 schools per year can generate $2-4 million in revenue alone. You can't do that in regular season college basketball. Football cost more, but it makes more.

When you provide a link or your own analysis showing where Missouri St or Illinois St Sun Belt football would pull in more revenue than their respective MVC basketball teams do now, then you have a leg to stand on.

Until then, your argument isn't applicable. As was already pointed out, football does not generate more revenue than college basketball at most non-P5 schools.

So you're just going to ignore the evidence I provided? Do the research yourself buddy. It's out there. Football generates more revenue than basketball, especially at the FBS level. That's not disputable. You can't just say "I disagree with the facts, argument invalid." That's not good enough. You have to provide facts to counter my argument. Show me numbers. That's how this works. Again. link

The whole reason I suggested bringing four schools at the same time is to lessen the travel expense increase. Divisions would lessen it even further. Seven team divisions would mean only two cross division games per year. One of those cross division games would be a home game. No team that has ever moved up to FBS has ever moved back down. No school that has moved up has ever regretted it. Moving up won't lessen resources for the basketball program, it brings more in.

(10-08-2015 10:04 AM)Policiious Wrote:  Before Georgia States tourney win last year, no Sunbelt team had won a men's NCAA hoops tournament game since La Lafayette in 1992. They are also the last Sunbelt team to make a Sweet 16 appearance, 1973!

4 MVC teams have been to the Sweet 16 since 2000

SIU 02 & 07
Bradley 06
UNI 10
Wichita 06, 13 & 15.

Go back just 1 year farther and you can add Missouri State's sweet 16 appearance too. 50% of the conference has been to the sweet 16 in the last 16 years.

(10-08-2015 11:46 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 09:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 10:05 PM)Eagleditka Wrote:  Didn't say profit. I said revenue. Public institutions aren't private companies. They generate revenue, they account for it, they spend it. College football generates more revenue than college basketball. link link

Football is more popular and markets the school and program to more people. Even bad bowl games in December generate more viewers than the FCS championship game, and almost all regular season college basketball games up until the NCAA tournament. Two/three payout games vs P5 schools per year can generate $2-4 million in revenue alone. You can't do that in regular season college basketball. Football cost more, but it makes more.

When you provide a link or your own analysis showing where Missouri St or Illinois St Sun Belt football would pull in more revenue than their respective MVC basketball teams do now, then you have a leg to stand on.

Until then, your argument isn't applicable. As was already pointed out, football does not generate more revenue than college basketball at most non-P5 schools.

So you're just going to ignore the evidence I provided? Do the research yourself buddy. It's out there. Football generates more revenue than basketball, especially at the FBS level. That's not disputable. You can't just say "I disagree with the facts, argument invalid." That's not good enough. You have to provide facts to counter my argument. Show me numbers. That's how this works. Again. link

The whole reason I suggested bringing four schools at the same time is to lessen the travel expense increase. Divisions would lessen it even further. Seven team divisions would mean only two cross division games per year. One of those cross division games would be a home game. No team that has ever moved up to FBS has ever moved back down. No school that has moved up has ever regretted it. Moving up won't lessen resources for the basketball program, it brings more in.

You haven't provided any evidence that supports your argument.

Your argument may have well been: "NFL teams make more money than NBA teams, therefore I'm going to select two schools from the MVC that invest more money in bball than fball, have nicer bball arenas than fball stadiums and make more money on bball than fball, and decree that they should drop affiliation with their high/mid major bball conference to concentrate on low-major FBS football".