slufan13 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I feel like I've read this thread before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizziken Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 IF we are going to bring back football at least start at the club level first... SLU Football is one of those ideas that SOUNDS cool, but then you realize the monumental amount of work, $$$, and detail it would take to actually pull off; so your head just explodes and your wife or girlfriend has to clean up the giblets with crappy napkins from a Chinese restaurant that tear really easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usf87 Posted December 19, 2013 Author Share Posted December 19, 2013 The only difference is that Fr. Biondi is on his way out. A new president will be announced in mid 2014 who is hopefully open to the idea of bringing back football, unlike Biondi. Yes, hopefully. If the new president approves of at least creating a committee to research the possibility of bringing the sport back, then I'm all for it. If the committee says "no" then so be it. We'll drop the subject and nothing more will be said about SLU football. In the meantime, this is a tremendous opportunity for the proponents of SLU football to grab a hold of and pin their hopes on. Yes, it's a lot of "Ifs" but what do we have to lose? Is that too much to ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 IF we are going to bring back football at least start at the club level first... I agree completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 ... (Personal opinion; I'd be glad to hear how, for example Fordham, has advanced the school's image through its football program.) ... Fordham Football is bigger than Fordham Basketball, easily outdraws Fordham Basketball. Fordham Football is the biggest spectator sport at the school. At Fordham, Homecoming includes a Homecoming Football game. Fordham Football plays on campus at Jack Coffey Field (next to Rose Hill Gym), which in its current setup has bleachers holding 7,500 on only the West side of the field. The team played before several overflow SRO home crowds this season. This year the team was 10-0, which included a road win over FBS Temple, and ranked as high as 5th in the FCS until the star QB, Mike Nebrich (a FBS UConn transfer) was injured. Fordham finished 12-2, won its first round NCAA Playoff game before losing in Round 2. The team finished ranked 9th and 10th in 2 polls. The past Fordham QB, John Skelton, was drafted by the Football Cardinals and is in his 4th year in the NFL, now with the Tennessee Titans. Re if Football has helped Fordham's image, one would think that defeating Yale at the Yale Bowl helps with Fordham alumni relations. The school is the 4th highest ranked Catholic University per the US News & World Report College Rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 The only difference is that Fr. Biondi is on his way out. A new president will be announced in mid 2014 who is hopefully open to the idea of bringing back football, unlike Biondi. Yes, hopefully. If the new president approves of at least creating a committee to research the possibility of bringing the sport back, then I'm all for it. If the committee says "no" then so be it. We'll drop the subject and nothing more will be said about SLU football. In the meantime, this is a tremendous opportunity for the proponents of SLU football to grab a hold of and pin their hopes on. Yes, it's a lot of "Ifs" but what do we have to lose? Is that too much to ask? No, not at all. A very rational approach. I'm of the opinion that such a committee's research will show that starting up a football program will not pass, SLU football pun intended, any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, but if a volunteer committee is willing to take on the task and the research doesn't cost an arm and a leg, there's certainly no harm in looking at the possibility. BTW, where is kwyjibo when we need him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billslasttermdropout Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 I say ol' boy, how about a lil' bit of pigskin to tickle your fancy? No, you say? Then perhaps you might be up for some crew in the duck pond? Surely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastsidejoe Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I wrote a gotdamn A paper on the subject a couple years ago. i doubt that you ever wrote a goddamn A paper on any subject, just sayin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 The only difference is that Fr. Biondi is on his way out. A new president will be announced in mid 2014 who is hopefully open to the idea of bringing back football, unlike Biondi. Yes, hopefully. If the new president approves of at least creating a committee to research the possibility of bringing the sport back, then I'm all for it. If the committee says "no" then so be it. We'll drop the subject and nothing more will be said about SLU football. In the meantime, this is a tremendous opportunity for the proponents of SLU football to grab a hold of and pin their hopes on. Yes, it's a lot of "Ifs" but what do we have to lose? Is that too much to ask? Not as long as he runs the search committee. Also we had club football before: it was hard to get a hundred people to come out on a nice Saturday afternoon. Someday the Rams will be gone and take their thugs out of town and the city will demand Saint Louis University supply a D 1 team Or more likely SIUE will play their home games there as the State of Illinois is broke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I was there for the club football days. First year a lot of excitement good student crowds. Second year nothing,maybe a few girlfriends. Hey we don't draw that well for a very good basketball program what makes anybody think we would support mediocre football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldie Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I was there for the club football days. First year a lot of excitement good student crowds. Second year nothing,maybe a few girlfriends. Hey we don't draw that well for a very good basketball program what makes anybody think we would support mediocre football. Remember when we played Georgetown. 5000 fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOldie Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I was there for the club football days. First year a lot of excitement good student crowds. Second year nothing,maybe a few girlfriends. Hey we don't draw that well for a very good basketball program what makes anybody think we would support mediocre football. Remember when we played Georgetown. 5000 fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 These games were played at Musial field. I don't remember any stands. Like I said first year excitement ,second year nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Pine Jim Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 I think we had some stands on the west side of Musial field. Yep, first year, pretty exciting. Interesting mix of players, varied backgrounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 1) The option of club football is a joke. 2) We will never, ever get the kind of financial support necessary to start a D-1 football program. We struggle with what we've had for the last 50+ years, suddenly we are going to get the commitment and funding to play competitive D-1 football? No way. 3) If we did football, forget the foo-foo Title IX formulas, essentially Title IX will then require that the 75 football scholarships be "neutralized", and SLU would have to take 75 scholarships from other men' s sports. That is what it comes to. Title IX is sports socialism, a law that goes against the free market. 4) To get 75 competitive football players we'd have to dramatically dummy up our curriculum, like Missouri U's famous "Biology for non Science Majors". Add lots of phony dumb jock classes. Not going to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 3) If we did football, forget the foo-foo Title IX formulas, essentially Title IX will then require that the 75 football scholarships be "neutralized", and SLU would have to take 75 scholarships from other men' s sports. That is what it comes to. Title IX is sports socialism, a law that goes against the free market. In fairness, the real issue is that the NCAA is a monopoly, which obviates any argument for a "free market" in college sports. Title IX is merely a weak excuse for the left to say that it's stood up to the market power of said monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 No, not at all. A very rational approach. I'm of the opinion that such a committee's research will show that starting up a football program will not pass, SLU football pun intended, any reasonable cost/benefit analysis, but if a volunteer committee is willing to take on the task and the research doesn't cost an arm and a leg, there's certainly no harm in looking at the possibility. BTW, where is kwyjibo when we need him? I saw the thread and thought you and others did a nice job of mentioning that football is not an option for the obvious cost reason. Lots of revenue is generated in some places but the costs (when not hidden or disbursed throughout the university) are way too high. It is possible if you put together the wrong sort of committee you could get a mixed view of the benefits (but properly accounted for you cannot get the benefits anywhere near the costs--particularly for a program starting out). The biggest thing missing from this discussion is that expanding football at the college level is through and a lot of programs are going to regret their playing football fairly soon as the costs are going to go up from liability for injuries (if they are student athletes then universities have a moral and legal obligation to protect them). There are a bunch of lawsuits in court now and the NCAA will try to limit the damage but it is pretty inevitable that insurance and liability costs will go up significantly. The solution is for colleges to sponsor or "form" teams without "student-athletes" (athletes playing in the name of the college but not necessarily as students--this is actually done in soccer in a few countries). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billslasttermdropout Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 That reminds me of the days when Saint Louis University had a pro drag racer in Larry C., the hairstylist at Marchetti W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurk Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 4) To get 75 competitive football players we'd have to dramatically dummy up our curriculum, like Missouri U's famous "Biology for non Science Majors". Add lots of phony dumb jock classes. Not going to happen. SLU does (did?) have "biology for non-science majors". My english education major sister-in-law took it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxkesq Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 Be very careful. Football can backfire in many ways. Because of football, my other school (Temple) fled the A-10 to get into the Big East. Then that conference turned into the AAC and, because of football, all the programs found themselves with lots of games against such traditional rivals as SMU, Houston, Tulane, etc. It will only get worse when UConn & Cincinnati find a way to get to the ACC or Big 12. But the worst is - even though football did bring in some revenue from TV - this spread-out, mis-matched league has such a daunting travel schedule for all other sports that Temple just cut over a half dozen programs - Baseball, softball, both Crews, gymnastics, etc., to save money. They then had the gall to blame it on Title IX. They did this with a straight face while cutting two women's programs. Club football - OK Anything else - big problems. My answer is to fully professionalize D1 football. Its a football program "sponsored" by the Univ. of Missouri, Alabama, Michigan, etc. Players are employees, not students. They can go to the NFL if they want (and can) or they can have a 12 year career at their "school." Spread the money from the coaches (whose alaries will be cut by 2/3 probably) to the people playing. Players make money, if they want to go to classes in the spring semester, fine. D-2 remains for scholarships for real students. D-3 is for non-scholarship programs. Now please go handle N. C. AT & T! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted December 20, 2013 Share Posted December 20, 2013 SLU does (did?) have "biology for non-science majors". My english education major sister-in-law took it. At Mizzou it is an actual course almost exclusively for football and a few basketball players. I met and discussed this with a grad student who taught the course at one time. Suffice it to say it was very, very, very basic biology, though many struggled. That course and others were there for the football team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 At least the number of people wanting to see football return to SLU has grown to include: Me WestCoastBilliken USF87 At this rate, we should have a program in 500 years or so. Add me to the list.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saluki762 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 I would love to spend a September or October Saturday back on campus watching football but only if it is done right. I would not watch club football or non-scholarship football. To start a mid level FCS program you need 50 million plus the land for a stadium. Don't see that happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 You couldn't pay me to watch college football, much less low quality underfunded football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usf87 Posted December 21, 2013 Author Share Posted December 21, 2013 If football is such a financial drain on an institution why is it that so many schools have added football to their programs? Since 2000 more programs have added football than dropped it. And it's all levels, from NAIA to DIII, D2 and D1. Look at these schools: Dropped football since 2000: Massachsetts-Boston - 2000 Swarthmore - 2000 Mt. Senario (dropped all sports) - 2001 Cal State-Northridge (I-AA) - 2001 Canisius (I-AA) - 2002 St. John's (I-AA) - 2002 Fairfield (I-AA) - 2002 Massachusetts-Lowell - 2002 Morris Brown (dropped all sports) - 2002 N.J. City State - 2002 Siena (I-AA) - 2003 E. Tennessee St. (I-AA) (returning in 2015) - 2003 New Haven (returning in 2009) - 2003 St. Mary's (I-AA) - 2003 Si-Tanka (school closed) - 2004 Allen - 2005 St. Peter's (I-AA) - 2006 Paul Quinn - 2007 LaSalle (I-AA) - 2007 Added since 2000: Mount Ida - 2000 Northern Montana - 2000 Paul Quinn - 2000 East Texas Baptist - 2000 Greensboro - 2000 Mary Hardin-Baylor - 2000 Shenandoah - 2000 Averett - 2001 Louisiana College - 2001 Minnesota-Crookston - 2001 SW Assemblies of God - 2001 Virginia-Wise - 2001 Christopher Newport - 2001 Florida Atlantic (I-A) - 2001 Rockford - 2001 Utica - 2001 Edward Waters - 2001 Florida International (I-A) - 2002 Shaw - 2002 St. Augustine's - 2002 St. Paul's - 2002 Allen - 2003 Briar Cliff - 2003 Charleston - 2003 Coastal Carolina (I-AA) - 2003 Endicott - 2003 Huntingdon - 2003 SE Louisiana (I-AA) - 2003 Waldorf - 2003 Webber International - 2003 North Grenville - 2004 Ohio Dominican - 2004 N.C. Wesleyan - 2004 Seton Hill - 2004 Texas College - 2004 Becker - 2005 Central State (OH) - 2005 Brevard - 2006 Dixie St. - 2006 LaGrange - 2006 U.S. Maritime Academy - 2006 Morrisville St. - 2006 Xavier (club) - 2006 Birmingham Southern - 2007 Faulkner - 2007 Gallaudet - 2007 Marian - 2007 NC-Pembroke - 2007 St. Vincent - 2007 Vermont (club) - 2007 Campbell (I-AA) - 2008 Dordt - 2008 Lake Erie - 2008 Lincoln - 2008 St. Scholastica - 2008 Old Dominion (I-AA) - 2009 Colorado St.-Pueblo - 2008 Kentucky Christian - 2008 Grand View - 2008 Incarnate Word - 2009 New Haven - 2009 South Alabama (I-AA) - 2009 Charlotte (I-AA) - 2012 Programs Launched in 2013: Alderson Broaddus University Berry College Florida Tech Hendrix College Houston Baptist University Mercer University Oklahoma Baptist University Reinhardt University Southwestern University Stetson University University of North Carolina at Charlotte Warner University Programs Launching in 2014-2016: College of Idaho George Fox University Limestone College Missouri Baptist University Paine College Southeastern University East Tennessee State University Kennesaw State University Lyon College Finlandia University University of New Orleans Source: http://www.footballfoundation.org/News/NewsDetail/tabid/567/Article/53890/record-number-of-colleges-add-ncaa-football-teams-in-2013.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.