(03-13-2023 11:41 AM)TDenverFan Wrote:  Where would they even play? It doesn't really seem like their campus has room for a 30k seat FBS stadium, and something like the Edwards Jones Dome is way too big.

If FCS, Herrmann Stadium (capacity 6,000).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c...tadium.jpg

Can anybody think of any uh, important differences between UTSA, Charlotte...and what kind of school St.Louis is?

(03-13-2023 04:14 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Can anybody think of any uh, important differences between UTSA, Charlotte...and what kind of school St.Louis is?

If only UM-St. Louis were FBS, they could be the next B1G member!*

**but don't worry, we have Lindenwood waiting in the wings per David.

(03-13-2023 04:14 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Can anybody think of any uh, important differences between UTSA, Charlotte...and what kind of school St.Louis is?

Sure. St. Louis has a med and law school and the others don't.

(03-13-2023 07:48 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 04:14 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Can anybody think of any uh, important differences between UTSA, Charlotte...and what kind of school St.Louis is?

Sure. St. Louis has a med and law school and the others don't.

Nice :)

(03-13-2023 07:48 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 04:14 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Can anybody think of any uh, important differences between UTSA, Charlotte...and what kind of school St.Louis is?

Sure. St. Louis has a med and law school and the others don't.

And a $ 1.5 billion endowment….and the others don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-13-2023 02:10 PM)whittx Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 11:02 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:48 AM)cottager Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 10:25 AM)nodak651 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 08:41 AM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  NFL failed twice in St. Louis. Wonder if they'll go back.a third time. Rumors are that the NHL hasn't learned its lesson and will eventually add Atlanta as an expansion teams again in hopes that the league will lose more money.

NHL starting teams in the south was overall a success. Where NHL teams were added in the south, the game has grown at the grass roots level and and there are some pretty large hockey communities that you wouldn't expect. Without southern expansion, the NHL would be much more regionalized, like college hockey. That wouldn't be good for the league at all. Arizona has already produced a generational talent in Austin Mathews, who wouldn't have played hockey if not for the Coyotes.

Youth hockey has grown enough in these areas, that California, Georgia, NC, Tennessee, and Texas account for more than 10% of D1 hockey players. Florida and Texas each produce more D1 talent than Ohio.

Florida and Texas started producing big time talent in the mid 90s with Luis Mendoza and Dwayne Robertson and it’s only grown since then.

A+ reference

Not to mention the Gretzky trade and the growth of in-line hockey got the game into the inner cities of So Cal. allowing for Russ Tyler types to get into the game.

I’m probably the only one that got that, and I LOLed.
Well played.

(03-13-2023 08:38 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 07:48 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(03-13-2023 04:14 PM)MattBrownEP Wrote:  Can anybody think of any uh, important differences between UTSA, Charlotte...and what kind of school St.Louis is?

Sure. St. Louis has a med and law school and the others don't.

And a $ 1.5 billion endowment….and the others don’t.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How much of that endowment is available for a football program? Or the women's sports that will need to be added to continue to comply with Title IX? Anyway, this point is moot since St Louis is not going to start a football team.

Mentioning endowment is dumb. A massive part of endowment is already earmarked for what the money gets spent on.

The biggest endowments aren't the best teams at sports. The Ivy League dominates the top endowment list, but doesn't dominate the CFP. The big schools that do spend on athletics ALSO have large endowments, but often the endowment is listed AS A SYSTEM, not an individual school.

It makes more sense for pool the money as a system because the whole point of an endowment is a really big sum of money generating interest.

(03-14-2023 12:22 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  Mentioning endowment is dumb. A massive part of endowment is already earmarked for what the money gets spent on.

The biggest endowments aren't the best teams at sports. The Ivy League dominates the top endowment list, but doesn't dominate the CFP. The big schools that do spend on athletics ALSO have large endowments, but often the endowment is listed AS A SYSTEM, not an individual school.

It makes more sense for pool the money as a system because the whole point of an endowment is a really big sum of money generating interest.

To be fair, ODU1986 may have mentioned the endowment simply as one example (of many) of how different Saint Louis U. is compared to UT-San Antonio and UNC-Charlotte. Now if SLU had sponsored FCS football for many years and wanted to elevate to FBS, the AAC might make a bit of sense given SLU has shared a league in the past with North Texas, Tulsa, Wichita and Memphis.

But the point is moot.

I did mention the endowment to illustrate the difference in the schools. I do agree though, that a school typically won’t use endowments to fund athletic programs. But it does reveal a school’s ability to raise funds in general.

But again it doesn’t really matter because St. Louis isn’t going to be starting a football program any time soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's my bad. The endowment thing is a pet peeve of mine and I didn't take the context of it at all.


But yes, Saint Louis isn't adding FBS and SLU is damned lucky they dropped football in 1949.

The schools with similar profiles (but various degrees of basketball success) as Saint Louis that still HAVE football -- your Villanova, Dayton, Butler, San Diego, Drake, etc -- they're probably all secretly jealous of the schools who dropped it before sports became a big business.


Dropping football just crushes your applications and fundraising to athletics AND the university as a whole. Especially at a small private school where you have a smaller athletic department and football players are like a quarter of your athletics alumni.

(03-14-2023 01:38 PM)ODU1986 Wrote:  I did mention the endowment to illustrate the difference in the schools. I do agree though, that a school typically won’t use endowments to fund athletic programs. But it does reveal a school’s ability to raise funds in general.

But again it doesn’t really matter because St. Louis isn’t going to be starting a football program any time soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Correct.

(03-14-2023 02:10 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  That's my bad. The endowment thing is a pet peeve of mine and I didn't take the context of it at all.


But yes, Saint Louis isn't adding FBS and SLU is damned lucky they dropped football in 1949.

The schools with similar profiles (but various degrees of basketball success) as Saint Louis that still HAVE football -- your Villanova, Dayton, Butler, San Diego, Drake, etc -- they're probably all secretly jealous of the schools who dropped it before sports became a big business.


Dropping football just crushes your applications and fundraising to athletics AND the university as a whole. Especially at a small private school where you have a smaller athletic department and football players are like a quarter of your athletics alumni.

Good points.

Endowment is a measure of a school's ability to raise money. The money itself isn't going to athletics, but it shows the strength of a school's donor base.

(03-13-2023 08:37 AM)ballantyneapp Wrote:  

(03-12-2023 08:09 PM)Poster Wrote:  I can’t believe that anybody would suggest that there seriously need to be more teams in FBS.

we need to cull the herd by about 30 schools. Which i believe legally can't happen.

Be careful what you ask for.

I think it would take a massive investment by the Billikens to field an FBS team and a massive PR campaign to convert disillusioned former Rams fans to follow a collegiate version of the Greatest Show on Turf.

There’s also the question of what league would they play in. Energizing the metro era for MAC or AAC football is going to be a tough sell. Anything short of Big 12 is probably going to get a ho hum reaction.

St Louis’s best option athletically IMHO, in to invest enough in basketball to make some NCAA tournament runs that the Big East can’t ignore.

(03-14-2023 02:54 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Endowment is a measure of a school's ability to raise money. The money itself isn't going to athletics, but it shows the strength of a school's donor base.

I don't disagree with your overall point, but it's also worth noting that endowments are also built by skimming admin funds off research grants, royalties from university-held patents, and the like.

(03-14-2023 04:26 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  St Louis’s best option athletically IMHO, in to invest enough in basketball to make some NCAA tournament runs that the Big East can’t ignore.

100%

And they're doing a great job of managing the perception. The Big East list of expansion candidates would have Saint Louis second to only Gonzaga.

Even though Dayton, VCU, Loyola, St. Bonaventure and Davidson have just been more successful at basketball than SLU since the C7 split from football.

(03-14-2023 02:10 PM)JSchmack Wrote:  The schools with similar profiles (but various degrees of basketball success) as Saint Louis that still HAVE football -- your Villanova, Dayton, Butler, San Diego, Drake, etc -- they're probably all secretly jealous of the schools who dropped it before sports became a big business.

No, they're not.