The Chicago State story got me thinking about schools without football. Why don't more schools do the Pioneer type program to add football and increase male enrollment.

This has happened at the D3 level.

There are over 90 schools in D1 (many private) who do not have football.

As a Valpo fan, we could use as many like opponents as possible.

Here is the list thanks to wiki:

American
Belmont
Binghamton
Boston University
Bradley
Cal State Bakersfield
Cal State Fullerton
Cal State Northridge
Canisius
Charleston
Chicago State
Cleveland State
Creighton
Denver
DePaul
Detroit
Drexel
Evansville
Fairfield
Florida Gulf Coast
George Mason
George Washington
Gonzaga
Grand Canyon
Green Bay
High Point
Hofstra
IPFW
IUPUI
Iona
La Salle
Lipscomb
Little Rock
LIU Brooklyn
Long Beach State
Longwood
Loyola (Chicago)
Loyola (Maryland)
Loyola Marymount
Manhattan
Marquette
Maryland-Eastern Shore
Milwaukee
Mount Saint Mary's
Niagara
NJIT
North Florida
Northeastern
Northern Kentucky
Oakland
Omaha
Oral Roberts
Pacific
Pepperdine
Portland
Providence
Quinnipiac
Radford
Rider
Saint Bonaventure
Saint Francis
Saint Johns
Saint Joseph's
Saint Louis
Saint Mary's
Saint Peter's
San Francisco
Santa Clara
Seattle
Seton Hall
Siena
SIU Edwardsville
South Carolina Upstate
Texas A&M–Corpus Christi
Texas–Arlington
UC Riverside
UC Irvine
UC Santa Barbara
UIC
UMass Lowell
UMBC
UMKC
UNC Asheville
UNC Greensboro
UNC Wilmington
Utah Valley
UTRGV
Vermont
VCU
Wichita State
Winthrop
Wright State
Xavier

When the minor league baseball team in Fort Wayne moved from near IPFW to downtown I thought that would have been an opportunity for IPFW to start football with the site right across the street. But there is a pretty good St Francis NAIA school here in town so that was probably not a consideration

I can't speak for all schools, but non-scholarship football at Wichita would do nothing to enhance the university, the atmosphere or enrollment. The point to bringing back football, maybe, is to better position the university for those things and more. Playing Drake would draw about 100 people to a game. Nobody is enrolling at Wichita to watch such football games.

Football may not make money, but it has to bring value or it means nothing, at least here. I could see where it may be a benefit to some smaller schools, but that's never going to happen here. We may settle for long-term FCS if we must stay in the MVC. At least people would recognize the names of most of our Valley opponents, but nothing less than that would work or be worth the time, effort and money. And if Wichita does do football, the ultimate goal will be a new conference and playing at a higher level. Non-scholarship football doesn't bring either into play.

Marquette had football before, but - like our Warriors nickname - it's never coming back.

It's not just scholarship costs to consider. Football is the one sport that has by far the most players and coaches associated with it. That means big costs for equipment and salaries. Also, you need more field space for practice, compared to say soccer. Which means big costs for facilities. You have many urban schools on your list that don't have the room or money to start even non-scholarship football. I'm pretty sure that Title IX would still require a similar number of non-scholarship women's sports opportunities, which would be a hidden cost.

It would make way more sense for most of these schools to start lacrosse as a scholarship sport than non-scholarship football.

(12-15-2016 10:16 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I can't speak for all schools, but non-scholarship football at Wichita would do nothing to enhance the university, the atmosphere or enrollment. The point to bringing back football, maybe, is to better position the university for those things and more. Playing Drake would draw about 100 people to a game. Nobody is enrolling at Wichita to watch such football games.

Football may not make money, but it has to bring value or it means nothing, at least here. I could see where it may be a benefit to some smaller schools, but that's never going to happen here. We may settle for long-term FCS if we must stay in the MVC. At least people would recognize the names of most of our Valley opponents, but nothing less than that would work or be worth the time, effort and money. And if Wichita does do football, the ultimate goal will be a new conference and playing at a higher level. Non-scholarship football doesn't bring either into play.

Several schools started their first year as a club team before they go into the big time football. Wichita State may do that, but they could play one year in the Pioneer League first to build some momentum to move to bigger fish.

I think that's called 0-12.

- just because it's non-scholarship, doesn't mean it's cheap. These programs still have 95 (or more perhaps) active participants, and likely at least 8 coaches. The best of them are run the same way as full scholarship FCS programs, just without the athletic grants. (but the players aren't paying 100% out of pocket, rest assured)

- Title IX has nothing to do with scholarships. This is a very common misconception. Put it another way: just because the 95 players on the roster aren't getting athletic grants, does not mean they don't count against the school's title IX numbers.

Title IX has to do with participation. Chiefly, it has to do with making sure the desires of female students on campus to participate in activities are fairly and equitably supported, relative to male students.

What I'm getting at is simply this: let's say everything is well balanced ... then all of a sudden you dump 95+ additional male participants, 8+ male coaches, and probably a multi-million dollar per year budget on top. And you don't plan on spending a cent more on female teams, don't plan on adding a single additional female participant, and don't plan on adding a single additional female coaching opportunity?? Yeah ... that's gonna be a tough sell.

(12-15-2016 12:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  - just because it's non-scholarship, doesn't mean it's cheap. These programs still have 95 (or more perhaps) active participants, and likely at least 8 coaches. The best of them are run the same way as full scholarship FCS programs, just without the athletic grants. (but the players aren't paying 100% out of pocket, rest assured)

- Title IX has nothing to do with scholarships. This is a very common misconception. Put it another way: just because the 95 players on the roster aren't getting athletic grants, does not mean they don't count against the school's title IX numbers.

Title IX has to do with participation. Chiefly, it has to do with making sure the desires of female students on campus to participate in activities are fairly and equitably supported, relative to male students.

What I'm getting at is simply this: let's say everything is well balanced ... then all of a sudden you dump 95+ additional male participants, 8+ male coaches, and probably a multi-million dollar per year budget on top. And you don't plan on spending a cent more on female teams, don't plan on adding a single additional female participant, and don't plan on adding a single additional female coaching opportunity?? Yeah ... that's gonna be a tough sell.

Its not real expensive either. I remember Tom Herman talking about his first coaching job (D3 Texas Lutheran I think). He said he got a free food plan card and $5K a year. Im sure the entire staff didn't earn that little---but I'll bet the entire staff cost less than $200K a year. I'd bet a lot of high schools staffs cost more that these non-scholarship staffs. Of course, its fair to point out that most high school coaching staff members are required to teach class as well as coach.

These schools actually have a great luxury in not supporting a football program by being able to invest fully in other sports. And with football slowly, very slowly, going the way of the dodo I imagine very few if any Division One football programs will start again. Each of these schools could pick a sport and fund it to the max and ride that wave to national championship athletics in lieu of football.

Course, history says very few of them have (for instance, recently Loyola Chicago and MVball did as much) but the potential is there.

Using the http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ website, I looked at Valpo U. They report:

- 1 full-time head coach
- 3 full-time assistant coaches
- 7 part-time assistant coaches

- avg men's team head coach salary of $90k (bball is probably highest, but I bet fball is above the average)
- avg men's team asst coach salary of $34k (these could be really skewed across sports ...)

Taking it at the simple averages, that's: $90k x1 + $34k x3 + $34k x3.5 (giving part timers a half-time appointment) = $311k


The total budget reported for football was $1.1M. And they reported 104 male participants (players on the roster).

(12-15-2016 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Using the http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ website, I looked at Valpo U. They report:

- 1 full-time head coach
- 3 full-time assistant coaches
- 7 part-time assistant coaches

- avg men's team head coach salary of $90k (bball is probably highest, but I bet fball is above the average)
- avg men's team asst coach salary of $34k (these could be really skewed across sports ...)

Taking it at the simple averages, that's: $90k x1 + $34k x3 + $34k x3.5 (giving part timers a half-time appointment) = $311k


The total budget reported for football was $1.1M. And they reported 104 male participants (players on the roster).

104 male students that do not attend Valpo without football, lets say they average paying $10,000 each, Valpo costs around $40,000. Each year players drop from the football program a portion of those stay enrolled. That makes this just about breakeven.

(12-15-2016 10:16 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I can't speak for all schools, but non-scholarship football at Wichita would do nothing to enhance the university, the atmosphere or enrollment. The point to bringing back football, maybe, is to better position the university for those things and more. Playing Drake would draw about 100 people to a game. Nobody is enrolling at Wichita to watch such football games.

Football may not make money, but it has to bring value or it means nothing, at least here. I could see where it may be a benefit to some smaller schools, but that's never going to happen here. We may settle for long-term FCS if we must stay in the MVC. At least people would recognize the names of most of our Valley opponents, but nothing less than that would work or be worth the time, effort and money. And if Wichita does do football, the ultimate goal will be a new conference and playing at a higher level. Non-scholarship football doesn't bring either into play.

Here you go Sub

@JonRothstein
Sources: Wichita State emerges as potential-only basketball only member for AAC.

Makes sense to me.

Now question is: will Mizzou St look to leave as well (Sun Belt?), and how will MVC respond??

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)otis campbell Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Using the http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/ website, I looked at Valpo U. They report:

- 1 full-time head coach
- 3 full-time assistant coaches
- 7 part-time assistant coaches

- avg men's team head coach salary of $90k (bball is probably highest, but I bet fball is above the average)
- avg men's team asst coach salary of $34k (these could be really skewed across sports ...)

Taking it at the simple averages, that's: $90k x1 + $34k x3 + $34k x3.5 (giving part timers a half-time appointment) = $311k


The total budget reported for football was $1.1M. And they reported 104 male participants (players on the roster).

104 male students that do not attend Valpo without football, lets say they average paying $10,000 each, Valpo costs around $40,000. Each year players drop from the football program a portion of those stay enrolled. That makes this just about breakeven.

With Federal grants and aid, would bet that Valpo gets a lot more than $10k per student. The football players may have friends and GF's that enroll too, that wouldn't otherwise. Alumni give more money because of FB. For private schools, non scholarship football can pay off big.

(12-15-2016 01:18 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:16 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I can't speak for all schools, but non-scholarship football at Wichita would do nothing to enhance the university, the atmosphere or enrollment. The point to bringing back football, maybe, is to better position the university for those things and more. Playing Drake would draw about 100 people to a game. Nobody is enrolling at Wichita to watch such football games.

Football may not make money, but it has to bring value or it means nothing, at least here. I could see where it may be a benefit to some smaller schools, but that's never going to happen here. We may settle for long-term FCS if we must stay in the MVC. At least people would recognize the names of most of our Valley opponents, but nothing less than that would work or be worth the time, effort and money. And if Wichita does do football, the ultimate goal will be a new conference and playing at a higher level. Non-scholarship football doesn't bring either into play.

Here you go Sub

@JonRothstein
Sources: Wichita State emerges as potential-only basketball only member for AAC.

Would Wichita St actually add fb if they are already in the AAC? Or more ammunition to get fb going?

(12-15-2016 01:33 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:18 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:16 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  I can't speak for all schools, but non-scholarship football at Wichita would do nothing to enhance the university, the atmosphere or enrollment. The point to bringing back football, maybe, is to better position the university for those things and more. Playing Drake would draw about 100 people to a game. Nobody is enrolling at Wichita to watch such football games.

Football may not make money, but it has to bring value or it means nothing, at least here. I could see where it may be a benefit to some smaller schools, but that's never going to happen here. We may settle for long-term FCS if we must stay in the MVC. At least people would recognize the names of most of our Valley opponents, but nothing less than that would work or be worth the time, effort and money. And if Wichita does do football, the ultimate goal will be a new conference and playing at a higher level. Non-scholarship football doesn't bring either into play.

Here you go Sub

@JonRothstein
Sources: Wichita State emerges as potential-only basketball only member for AAC.

Would Wichita St actually add fb if they are already in the AAC? Or more ammunition to get fb going?

It certainly couldn't hurt in giving football a boot in the rear to get going. You stand a better chance of AAC football if everything else is already there (see UConn and South Florida, the latter moving football into CUSA with the rest of its sports when CUSA was what the AAC is today).

(12-15-2016 01:31 PM)NoDak Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 01:09 PM)otis campbell Wrote:  104 male students that do not attend Valpo without football, lets say they average paying $10,000 each, Valpo costs around $40,000. Each year players drop from the football program a portion of those stay enrolled. That makes this just about breakeven.

With Federal grants and aid, would bet that Valpo gets a lot more than $10k per student. The football players may have friends and GF's that enroll too, that wouldn't otherwise. Alumni give more money because of FB. For private schools, non scholarship football can pay off big.

You have to look at it as "additional outside money coming into Valpo that wouldn't have come otherwise".

- is it fair to assume all 104 would not be at Valpo without football? Maybe, but go with it
- is it reasonable to assume that other students enrolled at Valpo because a particular football player did? Again, maybe, but go with it
- let's call it 125 ... that's roughly the 104 + 20% more
- you can't just assume that Valpo is able to service 125 additional students at zero overhead cost. But I have no idea what might be a reasonable number per student to subtract from the revenue. $1000?? More, less??

- money being paid out of pocket by the player and/or family is obviously additional outside money
- money from federal tuition assistance is obviously additional outside money
- the various scholarship programs that these players and students receive (from foundations, endowments, business partners, alumni, etc etc etc) ... these would've gone to Valpo students, regardless. So this is not additional revenue.
- obviously any portion of the costs for a particular player/student that Valpo simply waives, is not additional revenue. But guessing they don't do a whole lot of this.



SO .... you take 125 students and multiply by the net additional revenue per student:

- at $5000 per student = $625k total
- at $8000 per student = $1M total
- at $10000 per student = $1.25M total



Conclusion: it's definitely possible that Valpo nets out more additional outside revenue, even subtracting the overhead costs of servicing additional students, than the costs of the football program. But it's also quite possible that they don't.

(12-15-2016 01:57 PM)Cyniclone Wrote:  It certainly couldn't hurt in giving football a boot in the rear to get going. You stand a better chance of AAC football if everything else is already there (see UConn and South Florida, the latter moving football into CUSA with the rest of its sports when CUSA was what the AAC is today).

You also have UMass waiting in the wings, as well as current CUSA teams that would love a call-up.

Would Wichita play indy, in the meantime?? Sun Belt won't let them play football there unless they go all sports.

These are the schools that mentioned that they may add football, or did feasibility study to add one.

Fullerton State
Northridge State
Chicago State
Cleveland State
FGCU
George Mason (Club)
Grand Canyon
High Point (club)
Little Rock
Long Beach State
Maryland-Eastern Shore (club)
Coppin State (club)
Milwaukee (club)
North Florida
Cal-Irvine
Cal.-Riverside
SIU-Edwardsville (club)
Texas A&M Corpus Christie
UTA
Utah Valley
UTRGV
VCU
Wichita State
Winthrop

It is mainly students asking if they will start football. Especially at the California schools.