My guess is that for whatever reason the previous president never really even considered it and the current president is thinking “Why the hell aren’t we doing this?”Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Printable View
My guess is that for whatever reason the previous president never really even considered it and the current president is thinking “Why the hell aren’t we doing this?”Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
You can bet on these games, so that's one thing going for it.
Dash:Quote:
Originally Posted by xudash
Thanks! It has been hard but the good Lord has truly blessed me with a wonderful family and excellent medical care. Lymphedema and taste bud issues remain but I am alive to post. In the scheme of things, basketball and football are not that important but remain fun to talk about.
Thank you, 82! Bottom of my original post in this thread referenced my cancer journey. Over the decades, I have posted about Xavier football as I grew up on it. An uncle, Joe King, played football at X in the 1920's and he is a member of the Legion of Honor. My father played as a freshman before going off to the WWII. I was very involved with the club team after its inception. Tomorrow marks the 58th anniversary of the afternoon when I was struck by a car and left in a coma for eleven days. I was only 10 years old, If my football team had had practice that day then I wouldn't have been where the accident occurred. The brain contusion ended my football career and changed my life. As much as I miss Xavier football, I know there are way many more important things in life. As I previously stated, I am blessed. Go Muskies!!Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
So we have parimutual windows at the stadium?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Could be but shouldn't the rugby team be called "The Norwood Laterals"???Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel Cooley XU'81
Just saw x received a 50 million dollar gift. Wonder what that is earmarked for
Football.
XU did? Or St X High School? St X had a $50M gift in February (Thanks Mr. Fath) but I hadn't seen the XU news on a gift that size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Just saw on linked in and double checked.. yep 50 million to Xavier university from mr and ms fathQuote:
Originally Posted by xeus
I told them to use it to build a new dorm. Too many kids having to go three to a room.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
They are giving out 50 million dollar donations like its candy!Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Notre Dame and Mercy Ships also. They give away $50mm like me dropping farts on the subway
I applaud X for the creativity. But anyone that says this won't effect Basketball is fooling themselves because they so badly want football. Even if it starts as a retention piece, someone somewhere will want to begin throwing money at it instead of basketball. "Why is our football team so bad, we need better equipment, coaches, players, lockerrooms, facilities!" The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Ladies and gentlemen this is the entrance to our "road to hell".
Now that’s a bit of a stretch isn’t it? Certainly hasn’t hurt Villanova, has it? I’ve not heard of anyone there complaining about having funds taken from BB to support their football team. You might as well be complaining that funds used for all the other sports at X are draining funds from the men’s BB team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie
$50 million to St X, and XU.
How about paulxu?
It's not a stretch. Look no further than Indiana State for a case study. They have competing alumni over funding for football or basketball. I get that people want football at X. But comparing to other sports at X is not a fair comparison. The cost to run a football program at any level far exceeds what X spends on other sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUGRAD80
Do you have any idea how much X spends on all the other sports? Or how much money they are talking about for football?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie
Cmon Muskie, you can't be this dense. ISU is a state school with D1 football. It hasn't affected Butler, or UD, or Nova, or the other schools. $1.2 mil expenses out, $3.5 mil in from tuition. It's a net plus. There is NO intention to go D1 now or ever. The model stated makes it self sustaining, and if it starts to fail, I'll be first in line to say end it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie
Xavier football will be D1 or it will not exist. It cannot play anything but DI football if it wants to play DI basketball. It would be in the same division as Indiana State. It would simply be non-scholarship and play a bunch of other non-scholarships.Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG
Indiana State is a public institution with scholarship football. That's not at all the same thing as a private school with non-scholarship football that plays in the PFL. A general PFL football budget is $1 million a year. That's for EVERYTHING! Salaries, travel, game day expenses, equipment, EVERYTHING. There are non-revenue country club sports that spend more than that. If a school in the PFL were to suddenly spend $5 million on football, the league may actually vote them out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie
I believe every single PFL program is supplemented by the institution. It's not any sort of extra expense to the athletic department. It's literally "OK Mr. AD, your total expenses are $1 million this year?? Here's a check for $1 million! Glad to hand this over to you!! We took it out of the $4 million we made from the tuition all the players collectively paid!!" It's a straight up D3 model.
Correct. It would TECHNICALLY be D1, but PRACTICALLY be D3.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Not sure I buy the it costs the school nothing, they make more off tuition argument.
There have to be other factors or unintended consequences to consider, right? I am not positive what those are but one might be, insurance. Does there need to be some sort of new insurance the school takes out to protect themselves now that they have added the dangerous sport of football?
Also most of these students probably wont be paying full tuition right? I would think a large % of the general student body gets some sort of scholarship. So it isnt as much in tuition as some have suggested.
If it is such an easy no brainer revenue generator, which is what is being suggested. Why isnt every small school without football doing it?
Seems to be some twitter talk, and talk on other boards, if X bringing back football in some small capacity. Anybody hearing anything on this? Also, seems to be some talk X is looking at starting a med school 🤔
First I've heard of it. Someone should start a thread about it.
Getting back to why Xavier didn't decide to do this a long time ago, I think it's because people just didn't understand how it would/could work, so they just decided that it wouldn't. The new president seems to think differently. She came from a private school that had football, so she knows how it can work, and that a lot of the reasons people come up with as to how it won't work just aren't valid reasons. That's my guess as to why it's happening now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
My answer is that I have no clue. Maybe they feel it isn't part of their culture. Maybe they don't fully understand how it can be beneficial. Maybe the benefits it can provide don't match the immediate needs or wishes of the school.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z
Now I have some questions...
-Why do all of the small private schools who do have football continue to have it?? If it's not ultimately a financial benefit for the school, then why would so many of them continue to do it?
-Why have so many schools decided to add it??
-Why have so many schools that have added it decided to not immediately cut it if it turned out to not work out for them?
-To better state the question above, why haven't there been any noticeable outcries from schools that recently added football about how doing so depleted resources for the rest of the athletics department and campus that are no longer available because of football??
Sounds good to me. I always wanted to go to med school and with four years eligibility left, I think this might work.
Ha! How is this info getting out!! I guess we are in the quiet "spread it around a little" info phase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jehoya
Reps!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
Good questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
I am not aware of the schools who are similar to Xavier that have recently added it. Which schools have added it in the last 5 or so years? I would love to see how its going for them. Maybe X is really on to something and it is straight profit and added experience to the school. That would be great!
The closest match that I can think of is Mt St Joesph’s, right here in the west side of Cincinnati. It’s got 1800 undergrads, it’s a private Catholic university, tuition averages 18K after student aid, and while it plays D3 ball, it’s very competitive at its level on a national basis. Their annual football budget is around 450K. It started the program in 2007, so it’s in its 15th year. I have no idea how they draw, but it hasn’t seem to be detrimental to the rest of their mens and womens programs. They are a non-athletic scholarship program too.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z
Thomas More also started football around the same time. Their mens and womens BB programs are both ranked in the top 5 preseason in NAIA this year and have been extremely competitive nationally at their level for several years. Their football budget is around 700k, but they also give out athletic scholarships. In fact, they left D3 and moved back to NAIA so they could give scholarships and play more schools in the area, thus cutting down on travel expenses.
I wonder how Xavier being division 1 in a big time conference in their other sports helps or hurts Xavier (if either) in this comparison?Quote:
Originally Posted by XUGRAD80
You bring up some great points. I have long wondered how so many tiny schools can have football, and it seems to thrive, even places that draw maybe 900-1500 fans a game. It has to be the tuition vs expense argument. Maybe it's just a very well-kept secret. So why not X?Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Most D1 schools that have recently added football have done so because they felt the need to strengthen their foothold within D1. I believe there are only seven conferences that don't play football at any level (America East, A10, Big East, Big West, Horizon, MVC, Summit League, WCC). If you're not in one of those conferences, and you don't have football, you're going to feel like you're at a huge political disadvantage when it comes to your place within the conference. And even with that, several schools within the MVC, Summit League, and A10 field football teams. So, the schools who are adding football aren't really in the same boat that Xavier's in.Quote:
Originally Posted by D-West & PO-Z
D1 non-scholarship football is a very limited scope. Most of those schools have actually had football for a very long time. There's the Ivy League, which isn't really applicable to Xavier either, and there's the PFL. Believe it or not, I think most of those schools have had football for over 100 years. So...it's not that they just added it. I think the better question to ask is why are they choosing to play non-scholarship football in the PFL?? The PFL is actually relatively new, and not all the teams have been in it for that long.
The answer is it helps with male enrollment, and it therefore makes money for the institution.
Here is something else that is undeniably true. You're not going to lose more than a million dollars on football if you're only spending a million dollars on it in the first place. I think nearly every small private school, who charges private school tuition, would happily spend a million dollars a year on ANYTHING that they felt would virtually guarantee them 100 tuition paying students a year. If it were a rec center, they'd do it. If it were an eSports club, they'd do it. If it were a foodcourt, they'd do it.
Football will guarantee them 100 students that would not otherwise be there. Are there other ways to attract students?? Sure. But football is definitely on the list.
And aside from all that, it doesn't COST the athletic department ANYTHING. That's why Butler, and Dayton, and Davidson (who's been to the playoffs) never even consider leaving the PFL. That's why when San Diego looked like they were going to implement scholarships and go to the Big Sky, they decided not to. The WCC is a better basketball conference, and the overall cost to football for the athletic dept. was zero.
This is great stuff. Thanks for the insight Brew!Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
They are sure as heck spending more than a million dollars on the new practice gym and other capital improvements to Cintas.
This just isn't true. Sure, it doesn't cost as much as scholarship football but it isn't free. Even if we say the university will take the increased tuition payments and pay for the $1.5mil football budget...Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
The athletic director will spend time worrying about football instead of the existing sports. We will need additional athletic trainers and athletic training space. We will need more support staff in every area -- compliance, academic support, sports information, strength and conditioning -- and bigger spaces to accommodate the 100 additional student athletes.
And the biggest issue: if we add 100 male student athletes, we'd need to add about 130 female student athletes to stay in Title IX compliance (since the university is currently about 57% female). So we'd go from supporting about 330 student athletes to a whopping 550. This is a terrible idea.
Do the Title IX requirements come into play if it's non-scholarship football?
I don’t think so….Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
“Under Title IX, an educational institution must provide male and female athletes with equal access to financial aid. This means that funds allocated to athletic scholarships must be proportionate to the participation of male and female athletes.”
Yes. There are three aspects to Title IX compliance:Quote:
Originally Posted by paulxu
An institution must meet all of the following requirements in order to be in compliance with Title IX:
(1) For participation requirements, institutions officials must meet one of the following three tests. An institution may:
• Provide participation opportunities for women and men that are substantially proportionate to their respective rates of enrollment of full-time undergraduate students;
• Demonstrate a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex;
• Fully and effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex; and,
(2) Female and male student-athletes must receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their participation; and,
(3) Equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the eleven provisions as mentioned above.
https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2014/1/2...tions.aspx#how
So it is true that non-scholarship football doesn't affect the scholarship piece. But if you lose the proportional opportunities aspect, it's really hard to demonstrate the other two participation options while adding a men's sport.
If it was a terrible idea it would have been shot down from the start. The staff, coaches, equipment and insurance are all part of the football budget, and there are examples all over the Midwest that this is doable. Even being very conservative, say the 100 athletes pay $28k a year, and the budget is $1.5Mil. That's still a $1.3mil cushion. Believe me, Butler is one of the most tightwad schools in America, and they have had football since forever. That alone is proof that this will work.Quote:
Originally Posted by XU '11