Am I REALLY hearing this correctly?????
If so, Ima No.
Printable View
Am I REALLY hearing this correctly?????
If so, Ima No.
Definite no.
Lots of chatter on Musketeer Report about X starting non scholarship football to aid in Male enrollment and student retention. Evidently male enrollment is suffering and Freshman retention is becoming a problem. Appararently the talk is serious and has been discussed by the Board and Admn. The thought is increased enrollment will make up for the expense of a program. It would be Pioneer league playing Dayton, Butler, Valpo etc.
Sounds dumb
Hard pass.
How about instead, end the woke shit.
What does this even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Muskie in dayton
Too many beauties on campus? I was born 50 yrs. too late.
It's not dumb if you dig into the logic and details.. And it would not effect basketball. Is it athletics, Yes, but it is more marketing and student retention.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
No, I'm pretty sure it's dumb. Hope it never happens!
…and I thought it was just me.Quote:
Originally Posted by 94GRAD
Go over there and read it. Other schools have used it to attract and retain male students. I've seen it work, here in Indy@ Marian Univ. So well that they are funding a Med School and their male enrollment is flourishing. And they've won a Natl Championship. This has become a problem at X in the last couple of years, why the admin is toying with the idea of earmarking $1mil in marketing startup money to fund the team.
If Xavier can extort the parents of 75 average high school football players out of $50k per year, more power to them. I'd prefer they don't, though.
Where are you hearing this? Please tell me this isn't more evidence of MOR having lead in his house.
With all due respect, this thread probably should be put in the freezer for a little while.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-band '01
When you get right down to it, I think there are just four kinds of college presidents
-Those who are at football schools and love having football
-Those who are at football schools and hate football, but deal with it anyway
-Those who are at schools without football, and want football
-Those who are at schools without football, and are pretty sure that there are schools out there that have football, but don't really know what football actually is.
And those that don't have football, used to so they know what football is, and still don't give a shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Why risk the "undefeated since 73" streak?
Probably want to play in Staubach Stadium.
https://www.purcellmarian.org/home/staubachstadium/
Not sure they could fill it up.
Sadly, it's true. There are some on the Board who seriously want football, I'm told, and also believe (oddly) that this will be a recruiting tool for male students. Not a done deal though, and hopefully wiser heads will prevail.Quote:
Originally Posted by X-band '01
Attract a better looking female student, and you won’t have to worry about male retention. It was a problem twenty years ago, and judging by what I see at games, it’s still a problem today.
No to bringing back football. Maybe they'd want to consider lowering (or at least freezing) tuition.
Meaning it's a long way off, or just in the spitballing stage? Someone on that site said administrators at Parents Weekend were talking it up to folks. Do you have some inside info.? Usually you're in the know.Quote:
Originally Posted by xudash
First off…..can the mods please merge the two threads on this subject?
Second….I’d be interested to hear from those against this idea as to WHY they are so adamant about NOT bringing football back?
I’m neither for or against and hadn’t heard anything about this until I saw these threads. I’ve not read why they they are thinking about it, or what it is they hope to achieve by being football back. But I see some here that are just immediately NO! And wonder why?
As long as it doesn't take away from hoops, and let's be honest, at this level, it won't - I really don't care.
I think we all know this won't take off more than a glorified club sport at Xavier.
I REALLY hope this isn't someone on the Board saying "well, all the money is in football, we need football" - because that person is a moron if he/she thinks they can transform XU into a money generating football school.
In 1973 Xavier dissolved their football program. Since that time, Xavier has thrived and built quite the baskeball program. Xavier's basketball program is profitable and helps fund other athletic programs. If you look at the changes on campus over the last 49 years, they have all been done without a football program.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUGRAD80
I don't know the numbers or the cost, but I have always been told the cost to operate a successful football program were prohibitive. I just don't see how it would work or why anyone would want to bring football back from the dead. We have a pretty good thing going for us on Victory Parkway and I have a tough time believing football would bring in more male students and/or retain more students.
We get our basketball program back to what it was before Travis Steele ran us into the toilet, I think these enrollment issues will dry up WITHOUT a football program.
It has been tried elsewhere and has been successful. In Indy around 20-25 yrs ago Marian U, was little Marian College and most of the student body was girls. They decided to start NAIA football to get males to go to the school. It worked so well that male enrollment jumped, they had money to build a stadium, built a heck of a program that has won National Championships. The school started a Med School a few years ago. It has nothing to do with tv, or becoming Alabama or OSU. It's a student acquisition, retention, and student quality of life program. Evidently male enrollment, and student retention has taken a hit in the last few years, to the point that it is a concern to the Administration. As far as the instant push back from some, I graduated X the year before we dropped football. At that time, it was D1, was bad, and was draining money. It wasn't just football, but X was being grossly mismanaged by then Pres. Mulligan. Football became the scapegoat and was blamed for all the school's ills and was dropped. That's probably why some of the older Alums view starting football as a bad idea. Having spent my whole career in business, I understand this as a marketing move, more than a sports move. Especially since I saw it work firsthand here in Indy @ Marian U.Quote:
Originally Posted by drudy23
I have no idea what will happen with this football interest.
But I enjoyed going to games in the Ed Biles era, watching Carroll Williams and Danny Abramowicz.
And Saturday afternoons watching the Muskies beat UC and Dayton on the field were good times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
Quote:
Originally Posted by UCGRAD4X
Well, what category do you think Xavier's current president falls under?? I'm guessing it's not #4 or #5.
If the stated goal is to increase male enrollment and retention, adding football would almost assuredly work.
I'm not saying Xavier should or shouldn't. I'm not saying there aren't other things that would also possibly work. I'm just saying for a private school with non-scholarship football at any level /division of the NCAA or NAIA, they will absolutely get 100+ male students paying to go to your school that would not be there if it weren't for football. Guaranteed. You may not get 100 fans to attend the games, but you would get 100 tuition paying male students.
I guess if Butler & Fordham can do it, why can’t we?
I’ll see the BOT Chairman at our Reunion next weekend. I’ll do some inquiries
Like I said, I'm on board if it doesn't take away from basketball. Better yet, give basketball some of the money.Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG
Jesus. How about, if Villanova can do it, why can't we? (obviously Villanova is doing it at a much higher level than Butler or Fordham, but holy hell please don't compare Xavier to those two other things!).Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterofreality
I mean, I get it. Sending your kid to private college makes almost no sense without a LOT of scholarship these days. Adding a sport to con 100 parents to shell out $50k a year so their mediocre high school athlete can keep playing sports sounds like a good business model. I just wish there was a better way to attract students.Quote:
Originally Posted by xubrew
It might be too long ago for it to matter today, but I do wonder if there are any of the old guard football alumni/supporters that might be interested in underwriting the expense of bringing football back?
Also regarding “non-scholarship”, I seem to remember that just a couple of years ago that X made it known that 100% of its current undergrads were receiving financial aid of some kind or the other. “Non-scholarship” only means that they aren’t receiving a “football” scholarship, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t getting another type of financial aid, or even an athletic scholarship for a different sport.
Yup! You get it!!Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
You’ll notice I purposely left out another trash program 50 miles away.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
My point was that those other “two things” suck but somehow they can make it work. We’re so much better with great high school football in the area and we’d do it so much better
Hmm, 100 kids. After paying expenses would they break even? Or maybe make a couple 100 grand? As a poster mentioned earlier I guess it has worked before, just seems like a real long shot.
You haven't seen many PFL games. Football only costs as much of you spend. A head coach will make tens of thousands, not tens of millions. The coordinators make even less, and many of the position coaches are GAs or volunteers who want to get into coaching. The equipment is recycled. Most PFL teams play 2 buy games and makes roughly $100k per game, and that's basically the bulk of their budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xavier
Without football, a lot of small private schools that play at the D3 level would probably have to close their doors. That's not an exaggeration. They need that tuition money to stay open. It doesn't cost a lot of money if you don't spend a lot of money, and private schools that play non-scholarship football do not spend much. It makes money for the institution because it draws in 100+ tuition paying students. The only schools that lose money on football are those that spend like they're trying to compete with the Big Ten and aren't bringing in anywhere near that amount of revenue to offset their expenses. If Xavier starts up football, the financial model for it will more closely resemble Whittenberg or Thomas More than it would Miami OH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTG
I honestly don't know the answer to this question: Do people go to UD, Butler, and Valpo football games? Is there big tailgate parties that happen? Do having those teams help enrollment and retention?
I get football being a draw, not sure I see this level of football being that draw though.
Edit: I guess it helps the enrollment and retention on the people on the football team, but past that?
I wonder if not sucking at basketball for 40% of a decade will help enrollment and retention?