Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)


Post Reply 
OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #21
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 11:59 AM)ChooChoo Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 11:43 AM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  If we wanted 12 teams I would love to see us add Wichita St and Missouri St but since 10 is the optimum number I just can't see taking the risk.

On top of that I don't see any other FBS league taking the risk on them either so hope they like FCS.

IDK, I think your first inclination may be right. I think a Missouri St / Wichita St deal would merit serious considerations if the bosses could make the CFP $ numbers work.
a.) If 10 teams gets us a $10 million share or 12 teams gets us a $10 million share then its a non-starter.
b.) If it's FB only it's a non-starter.
c.) If its's 10 for $10 million or 12 for $12 million, with all-sports in play then we have to consider the basketball value those two teams bring the conference.
In THAT scenario I say we go for it. Tapping into the mid-west, getting one of the top-mid major bb schools has to warrant more money and attention then our former or current TV contracts.

An extra unit or two in the NCAA BBall tourney would more than make up that difference.


Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

3 at large bids is more than current Sun Belt members have in basketball. 2 of those were in a conference similar to the Sun Belt. South Alabama and Louisiana are the only current Sun Belt members to have made the tournament as an at-large bid. We have had at least 4 teams since 2000 that should have made NCAA tournament and those teams all won a game in the NIT.
06-30-2016 12:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AppinVA Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,750
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Appalachian St.
Location:
Post: #22
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  An extra unit or two in the NCAA BBall tourney would more than make up that difference.


Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's the case, Wichita State doesn't want to play FBS football.

Seems I've heard that somewhere else.
06-30-2016 12:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #23
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 12:33 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that's the case, Wichita State doesn't want to play FBS football.

Seems I've heard that somewhere else.

On top of that take Wichita St out of the Valley and then check the RPI. I think some might be surprised that the SBC compares favorably with the Valley minus Wichita St.
06-30-2016 12:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Klak Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,048
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 133
I Root For: Ga Southern
Location:
Post: #24
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 12:06 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 11:59 AM)ChooChoo Wrote:  IDK, I think your first inclination may be right. I think a Missouri St / Wichita St deal would merit serious considerations if the bosses could make the CFP $ numbers work.
a.) If 10 teams gets us a $10 million share or 12 teams gets us a $10 million share then its a non-starter.
b.) If it's FB only it's a non-starter.
c.) If its's 10 for $10 million or 12 for $12 million, with all-sports in play then we have to consider the basketball value those two teams bring the conference.
In THAT scenario I say we go for it. Tapping into the mid-west, getting one of the top-mid major bb schools has to warrant more money and attention then our former or current TV contracts.

An extra unit or two in the NCAA BBall tourney would more than make up that difference.


Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

3 at large bids is more than current Sun Belt members have in basketball. 2 of those were in a conference similar to the Sun Belt. South Alabama and Louisiana are the only current Sun Belt members to have made the tournament as an at-large bid. We have had at least 4 teams since 2000 that should have made NCAA tournament and those teams all won a game in the NIT.

I'm not saying we're some great bastion of basketball success (though both of our last 2 autobids won tourney games). What I'm saying is that a primarily basketball-driven expansion better be a major slam dunk (6 units in 40 years is not), because the football money is driving the bus now.

If Missouri State football was making the FCS playoffs every other year, I'd be first in line to support you.

Contrary to what most on here said prior to GS and App moving up, the past is a pretty damn good indicator of the future. Missouri State's football past does not bode well for their football future in a tougher league, and we need all the winning teams we can get if we're going to move up in the CFP rankings.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2016 01:39 PM by Klak.)
06-30-2016 01:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FoUTASportscaster Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,155
Joined: Apr 2013
Reputation: 115
I Root For: UTA
Location:
Post: #25
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  An extra unit or two in the NCAA BBall tourney would more than make up that difference.


Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MVC isn't much better these days. The SBC was an injury and two-three OOC wins from either LA school from getting two in as well. Had WSU won their tourney, the MVC would have been a one-bid conference too.
06-30-2016 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluephi1914 Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 1,206
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 33
I Root For: ULM
Location:
Post: #26
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
If the belt was in a position to expand the only logical choices to pursue would be Wichita State and Southern Miss.
06-30-2016 02:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MO State Alum Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 51
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 1
I Root For: Missouri State
Location: Kansas City, MO
Post: #27
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

You could've gone back to the 1930s...Missouri State didn't start playing D-I until 1981.

We've been snakebit, for sure. Had things been different it could be many, many more appearances. We've lost in the finals of our conference tournament 7 times. Only one of those years were we invited as an at large - including two of the highest RPIs to ever get left out of the NCAAs.
06-30-2016 03:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MissouriStateBears Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,625
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 88
I Root For: Missouri State
Location:
Post: #28
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 01:38 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 12:06 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  An extra unit or two in the NCAA BBall tourney would more than make up that difference.


Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

3 at large bids is more than current Sun Belt members have in basketball. 2 of those were in a conference similar to the Sun Belt. South Alabama and Louisiana are the only current Sun Belt members to have made the tournament as an at-large bid. We have had at least 4 teams since 2000 that should have made NCAA tournament and those teams all won a game in the NIT.

I'm not saying we're some great bastion of basketball success (though both of our last 2 autobids won tourney games). What I'm saying is that a primarily basketball-driven expansion better be a major slam dunk (6 units in 40 years is not), because the football money is driving the bus now.

If Missouri State football was making the FCS playoffs every other year, I'd be first in line to support you.

Contrary to what most on here said prior to GS and App moving up, the past is a pretty damn good indicator of the future. Missouri State's football past does not bode well for their football future in a tougher league, and we need all the winning teams we can get if we're going to move up in the CFP rankings.

History says we will be a 7-4 to 4-7 type team. That has historically been our range in football. We would smash through our OOC which generally used to be alot of the top Southland and OVC schools, then struggle in the Gateway and MVFC. This last decade has been the worst in school history. Of course alot of football problems at FCS/I-AA is we hardly take FBS transfers. Outside of the powerhouse programs (NDSU, App, GA Southern) most of the top FCS programs take anybody that can breathe on a mirror.
06-30-2016 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
LUSportsFan Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 591
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 17
I Root For: Lamar Cardinals
Location:
Post: #29
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 03:24 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 01:38 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 12:06 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

3 at large bids is more than current Sun Belt members have in basketball. 2 of those were in a conference similar to the Sun Belt. South Alabama and Louisiana are the only current Sun Belt members to have made the tournament as an at-large bid. We have had at least 4 teams since 2000 that should have made NCAA tournament and those teams all won a game in the NIT.

I'm not saying we're some great bastion of basketball success (though both of our last 2 autobids won tourney games). What I'm saying is that a primarily basketball-driven expansion better be a major slam dunk (6 units in 40 years is not), because the football money is driving the bus now.

If Missouri State football was making the FCS playoffs every other year, I'd be first in line to support you.

Contrary to what most on here said prior to GS and App moving up, the past is a pretty damn good indicator of the future. Missouri State's football past does not bode well for their football future in a tougher league, and we need all the winning teams we can get if we're going to move up in the CFP rankings.

History says we will be a 7-4 to 4-7 type team. That has historically been our range in football. We would smash through our OOC which generally used to be alot of the top Southland and OVC schools, then struggle in the Gateway and MVFC. This last decade has been the worst in school history. Of course alot of football problems at FCS/I-AA is we hardly take FBS transfers. Outside of the powerhouse programs (NDSU, App, GA Southern) most of the top FCS programs take anybody that can breathe on a mirror.
Just out of curiosity and because it is off-season, I checked the Bears' record against Southland teams going back to 1982, the first season following the SLC's drop from D-IA to D-IAA. The record against SLC teams was 4-4 between 2000 and 2015 and 4-7 from 1982-1999. The Bears best win was probably against a 11-3 SHSU team in 2004. The Bears were 6-5 that season. The Bearkats made it to the FCS semi-final round. Dustin Long, a transfer from Texas A&M, was the Bearkats quarterback that year. Probably the Bears' worst loss against SLC competition was against a 4-7 North Texas team in 1993. The Bears were 7-4 that season.

I only included games during a team's SLC time. For example, the Bears vs UCA Bears also played in 2006. UCA played as an independent that year transitioning to D-I FCS from D-II. I didn't count that game (a game UCA won). There were also four games against Nicholls from 1982-87 and 1 against Southeastern Louisiana, but those were before their time in the SLC. (Nicholls won all 4 of theirs. SLU also won it's game.)

MSU's won/loss by team was
UCA - 2-1
NWSt 2-2
SHSU 1-1 (There should have been a 3rd game, but the 2005 game was cancelled)
SFA 0-1 (Playoffs. SFA was 12-2-1 that season losing in the FCS championship game against Georgia Southern.)
North Texas 1-2
McNeese State 2-4

I'd like to see some more OOC games matching the two conferences.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2016 05:32 PM by LUSportsFan.)
06-30-2016 05:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
runamuck Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,962
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 31
I Root For: uta
Location: DFW
Post: #30
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 05:30 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 03:24 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 01:38 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 12:06 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

3 at large bids is more than current Sun Belt members have in basketball. 2 of those were in a conference similar to the Sun Belt. South Alabama and Louisiana are the only current Sun Belt members to have made the tournament as an at-large bid. We have had at least 4 teams since 2000 that should have made NCAA tournament and those teams all won a game in the NIT.

I'm not saying we're some great bastion of basketball success (though both of our last 2 autobids won tourney games). What I'm saying is that a primarily basketball-driven expansion better be a major slam dunk (6 units in 40 years is not), because the football money is driving the bus now.

If Missouri State football was making the FCS playoffs every other year, I'd be first in line to support you.

Contrary to what most on here said prior to GS and App moving up, the past is a pretty damn good indicator of the future. Missouri State's football past does not bode well for their football future in a tougher league, and we need all the winning teams we can get if we're going to move up in the CFP rankings.

History says we will be a 7-4 to 4-7 type team. That has historically been our range in football. We would smash through our OOC which generally used to be alot of the top Southland and OVC schools, then struggle in the Gateway and MVFC. This last decade has been the worst in school history. Of course alot of football problems at FCS/I-AA is we hardly take FBS transfers. Outside of the powerhouse programs (NDSU, App, GA Southern) most of the top FCS programs take anybody that can breathe on a mirror.
Just out of curiosity and because it is off-season, I checked the Bears' record against Southland teams going back to 1982, the first season following the SLC's drop from D-IA to D-IAA. The record against SLC teams was 4-4 between 2000 and 2015 and 4-7 from 1982-1999. The Bears best win was probably against a 11-3 SHSU team in 2004. The Bears were 6-5 that season. The Bearkats made it to the FCS semi-final round. Dustin Long, a transfer from Texas A&M, was the Bearkats quarterback that year. Probably the Bears' worst loss against SLC competition was against a 4-7 North Texas team in 1993. The Bears were 7-4 that season.

I only included games during a team's SLC time. For example, the Bears vs UCA Bears also played in 2006. UCA played as an independent that year transitioning to D-I FCS from D-II. I didn't count that game (a game UCA won). There were also four games against Nicholls from 1982-87 and 1 against Southeastern Louisiana, but those were before their time in the SLC. (Nicholls won all 4 of theirs. SLU also won it's game.)

MSU's won/loss by team was
UCA - 2-1
NWSt 2-2
SHSU 1-1 (There should have been a 3rd game, but the 2005 game was cancelled)
SFA 0-1 (Playoffs. SFA was 12-2-1 that season losing in the FCS championship game against Georgia Southern.)
North Texas 1-2
McNeese State 2-4

I'd like to see some more OOC games matching the two conferences.

I have always thought mostate would be a good add because they are a really good school, have some good facilities and draw well in basketball and baseball and I think they would draw well in football with a higher level of teams coming in to play. they are also a good fit geographically if we were to split into east west divisions. I actually thought they and nmsu should be added for all sports but trading wsu for nmsu would work too.
07-02-2016 07:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SubGod22 Offline
Average Joe

Posts: 1,887
Joined: Nov 2009
I Root For: Wichita
Location: Outside the Dub
Post: #31
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:14 PM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  An extra unit or two in the NCAA BBall tourney would more than make up that difference.


Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.
07-13-2016 10:40 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #32
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.

I am on record as preferring a 12 team alignment for football over a 10 team setup but I think Wichita would have to show that they won't be here for a couple of years and move on before I would be totally on board with bringing you in. Another thing to consider is any addition of Wichita St would mean adding another football school. Should UTA add football maybe we could add Wichita and be done or perhaps if UTA doesn't pull the trigger we look at a Missouri St but bottom line is adding one new FBS school probably means adding two new FBS schools.

If I were your President and I were really serious about FBS I would be making UTA my best buddy very soon.
07-13-2016 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SubGod22 Offline
Average Joe

Posts: 1,887
Joined: Nov 2009
I Root For: Wichita
Location: Outside the Dub
Post: #33
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 12:29 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.

I am on record as preferring a 12 team alignment for football over a 10 team setup but I think Wichita would have to show that they won't be here for a couple of years and move on before I would be totally on board with bringing you in. Another thing to consider is any addition of Wichita St would mean adding another football school. Should UTA add football maybe we could add Wichita and be done or perhaps if UTA doesn't pull the trigger we look at a Missouri St but bottom line is adding one new FBS school probably means adding two new FBS schools.

If I were your President and I were really serious about FBS I would be making UTA my best buddy very soon.

I'm sure if there were concerns over us leaving quickly we'd either never be added or there would be some sort of financial considerations added to us. A set amount of fees that decreases X amount over X amount of years before it gets down to a normal exit fee that anyone would pay. If we have to play FCS for any length of time, more than just 2 or 3 years, I'm sure the MVFC will have a similar sort of deal if they'd even be willing to add us anyway.

Our president is very serious. He wants FBS but has said we will play at the highest level we're capable of. I don't think he's afraid to play in FCS for a while if we have to, but we're going to be building whatever we can structurally to be FBS ready if/when the time comes.

It will really come down to if the big money donors are on board. If they are, the ~45M estimate for stadium renovations/upgrades and practice facility are very doable. And I've seen unconfirmed reports from a fan of Southern Illinois that our previous president had told him that there was at least 30M in donations just waiting if he'd push football's return and shoot for the FBS level. Former president Beggs was an SIU guy before he came to Wichita, but Beggs never had any desire to grow Wichita or leave the MVC and shot down all talk of football quickly. President Bardo doesn't suffer from the same small thinking.

As far as Arlington goes, I've heard rumors but haven't followed much. I take it no official decision one way or the other has been made by them? I'd think they'd be able to pull it off but I don't know a ton about them as a whole. I just want a chance to see 30k Shocker fans spend a lovely fall afternoon together watching Shocker football once more.
07-13-2016 12:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #34
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:27 PM)WolfBird Wrote:  Go look up the last time Mo State made an NCAA men's appearance.

Shocked me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.


Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.
07-13-2016 01:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Georgia_Power_Company Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,481
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 122
I Root For: GA Southern
Location: Statesboro GA
Post: #35
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 01:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.


Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.

No CUSA is pretty much equal in some areas and worse in others. Assuredly overall worse than the Sun Belt...sorry ODU.
07-13-2016 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #36
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
We're obviously talking about basketball here. That's that sport with the orange ball and the two hoops.

edit:

And as best as I can tell from reading this board is your best advantage over us is not having as many members. So congrats? Didn't know that was a competition.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 01:12 PM by mturn017.)
07-13-2016 01:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SubGod22 Offline
Average Joe

Posts: 1,887
Joined: Nov 2009
I Root For: Wichita
Location: Outside the Dub
Post: #37
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 01:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  
(06-29-2016 12:32 PM)Klak Wrote:  Yep. And the big thing with units is the capability to get at-large bids and win games once you get there.

Mo State got an at-large and won 2 games in 98-99. That's awesome and adds 3 extra units of value. Unfortunately, that's their only tourney appearance since 91-92.

I went back to the 74-75 season and Mo State has had 3 at-large bids and 3 tourney wins. I don't feel like 6 extra units in 41 years is enough to balance out the hit we'd take in football.

If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.


Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.

There are some good programs, but as a whole, the past few years the trend hasn't been great. I know I've run the numbers (RPI) back when football got brought up again in Wichita and CUSA was the worst possible FBS option based on those. Maybe there are things going on I'm not privy to, but I'm a numbers guy and the Belt appears to be trending up and CUSA, if I'm remembering correctly, has not. Most Shocker fans were surprised by the numbers I found, but for basketball, both the MAC and Belt were better options and the MAC is the most unlikely option of the three.

IF we had a CUSA invite I'd have to look at the numbers again, but the Belt looks much better from what I found previously in basketball. Even though we're talking about football, basketball is still the priority at Wichita and is a big reason we're considering football's return. To potentially give us a better basketball home. I'm not sure if CUSA fits that right now. I'd have to go back and look, but I believe that while there are a few schools that are pretty respectable in CUSA, the bottom of the conference is atrocious and drags down the numbers. That's our big beef with the MVC right now. There are a couple of schools doing everything they can do be as good as they can, there are some schools trying and failing/struggling and there are a handful of schools that almost seem to have given up and don't even make a real effort to succeed anymore.

How bad the bottom is, is just as important as how good the top is. Especially if you want to talk about at-large bids.
07-13-2016 01:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Online
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,740
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #38
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 01:16 PM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 01:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.


Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.

There are some good programs, but as a whole, the past few years the trend hasn't been great. I know I've run the numbers (RPI) back when football got brought up again in Wichita and CUSA was the worst possible FBS option based on those. Maybe there are things going on I'm not privy to, but I'm a numbers guy and the Belt appears to be trending up and CUSA, if I'm remembering correctly, has not. Most Shocker fans were surprised by the numbers I found, but for basketball, both the MAC and Belt were better options and the MAC is the most unlikely option of the three.

IF we had a CUSA invite I'd have to look at the numbers again, but the Belt looks much better from what I found previously in basketball. Even though we're talking about football, basketball is still the priority at Wichita and is a big reason we're considering football's return. To potentially give us a better basketball home. I'm not sure if CUSA fits that right now. I'd have to go back and look, but I believe that while there are a few schools that are pretty respectable in CUSA, the bottom of the conference is atrocious and drags down the numbers. That's our big beef with the MVC right now. There are a couple of schools doing everything they can do be as good as they can, there are some schools trying and failing/struggling and there are a handful of schools that almost seem to have given up and don't even make a real effort to succeed anymore.

How bad the bottom is, is just as important as how good the top is. Especially if you want to talk about at-large bids.

I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

You're absolutely right that our bottom is dreadful, hopefully we can address it as a conference and set some scheduling guidelines so it's not such an anchor on the better teams in the conference. I know it was brought up in the conference meetings this year but I don't know how much emphasis it got or if there will be traction. A lot of schools are football first or football only in CUSA and don't care about BB but the top 5-6 have good basketball traditions, the next 4-5 have had some good teams or seem to be making steps in the right direction. The bottom 4 or so? We'll be lucky if they're in the top 300 in rpi. Many ODU fans lament the basketball situation in CUSA, some would rather just drop to FCS and try to get in the A-10 with our former CAA rivals and everyone wants to get in the AAC. Still nobody would argue we'd be better off in the Sun Belt. At least we can play WKU, UAB, UTEP, etc. in CUSA with fans that care about the sport. I don't see much of that in the Sun Belt.
07-13-2016 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
airtroop Offline
Sun Belt Nationalist
*

Posts: 2,256
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 48
I Root For: South Alabama
Location: Mobile, AL
Post: #39
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 01:06 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 01:03 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  
(07-13-2016 10:40 AM)SubGod22 Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:20 AM)WolfBird Wrote:  
(06-30-2016 11:09 AM)FoUTASportscaster Wrote:  If it was a package deal with Wichita State, which is what I was referring to, then yes, it absolutely is. Unless you think 11 teams is beneficial.


I don't think a package deal with Wichita State would ever happen.

They're not lowering their basketball to the Sun Belt in exchange for a home for an FBS start up in football. We aren't going to add a football only member either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm late to the party on this board, but I do think Wichita would consider the Belt in order to get to FBS. The Belt appears to be trending up in basketball and if you take Wichita out of the RPI numbers for the Valley, it takes a hit and isn't really any stronger as a whole than the Belt. We absolutely have to get to FBS if we ever hope on getting an AAC or MWC invite and everybody knows that's essentially what our ultimate objective is. Would it ever happen? Who knows. But odds are better if we're playing FBS level football.

CUSA is the one that I'd really question Wichita leaving for if it were an option as it's been pretty bad in basketball as the last round of movement hurt basketball there.

I don't remember what the undergrad numbers were posted, but we have a total enrollment of around 15k and one of the reasons our president wants to bring football back is to help grow that number. He has a target somewhere between 20k and 25k ultimately. Enrollment was around 18k back when we last had football so there's reason to believe we can grow.

As far as some of the expenditures go, that report was comparing Wichita without football to conferences and schools with it. The report talks about a starting point of 6M but Bardo has talked about getting to a 15M yearly budget for football. If we bring it back, we're going to fund it properly and do what we can. I'd expect the overall athletic budget to end up between 40M-50M in short time.

I'm not saying if we'd be worthy or not but I do think our addition in basketball could help offset our football while it grows. But that's for others to decide if it's worth it or not. But I do think we would absolutely consider a Belt invite if one came. On top of the improving basketball strength of the conference, the Belt would give us more visible access to areas we recruit for students and athletes alike. Texas. And basketball recruits the southeast pretty hard.


Wait what? I'm not saying we're not bad as a whole but we're still better than the Sun Belt.

No CUSA is pretty much equal in some areas and worse in others. Assuredly overall worse than the Sun Belt...sorry ODU.

There is no excuse for a 14 team conference to be a perennial one-bid league.
07-13-2016 03:05 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
rokamortis Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,981
Joined: May 2013
Reputation: 160
I Root For: Coastal
Location:
Post: #40
RE: OT: Wichita State Football Feasibility Report
(07-13-2016 02:09 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I'd like to see those numbers if you can share. We collectively **** the bed last season as a conference ooc and it made for a dreadful conference rpi. Hopefully last year was an anomoly. The two years before that we weren't great either but had a better RPI than the Belt.

Haven't you only had the current configuration for 2 years? Probably not wise to include schools that are no longer part of the conference in justifying current strength. 4 years ago CUSA was a top 10 RPI conference but 3 of the top 4 schools are now in the AAC.
(This post was last modified: 07-13-2016 03:17 PM by rokamortis.)
07-13-2016 03:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.