When I first glanced at the photo of Moos I thought he was flipping his audience off. Check it out. Funny.
I actually believe that since college athletics are effectively a monopoly enterprise (and society has decided that universities should have big athletics programs), then salaries and facilities spending should be regulated and constrained on a national level.
What I mean by this is that there are extremely high barriers to entry. No one can start a college football team to compete with existing ones like someone could start an ice cream shop to compete with Baskin-Robbins or Diary Queen, for example. Plus, the colleges are not private enterprise entities either.
The number of micro-breweries (and wineries, I suppose) that are rivaling Bud and Coors could be another prime example. An industry that was (and still is to a certain extent) almost as restrictive as any other industry in the nation, now has a horizon spectrum that is vastly wider than it was even 10 years ago, with mom and pop shops all across the nation.
A good observation. One would hope that Moos is doing this with the approval and understanding of the BOR and the presidential search committee. Otherwise this could backfire. I know that I would be pissed if I took a job only to find that my intended plan had been preempted by a subordinate prior to my arrival. Moos's plan of expansion needs to be made clear to the next president prior to his or her acceptance of the position. This may be moot to an extent as I suspect that the search committee has the memory of ESF in the back of their minds and is looking for someone with a similar outlook for the school.
The Stanford family started Stanford University after they lost their only son from Typhoid (I think) somewhere in the teenage years. They basically said they were adopting the CA children and wanted to make them better people. They cut against the grain and allowed women during a time when that was NOT normal. They also made it a non-denominational institution at a time when Catholic schools were VERY in vogue. The first year was a smashing hit. They almost tripled in size from the first to the second year. A man and woman took a risk to make their homestead a school, spent 5 or 6 years of research and spent their own money to make their dream come true. I'm a Coug, through and through. But the Stanford story is a great one. They risked so much because they believed in their dream. They succeeded. Completely private. The school was literally named after their lost son.
).
I happen to have a local perspective on this (and no.....it's not KSU
One of the primary reasons that Wichita State has not started football back up is that there is a belief (understanding?) that local fans will not be prone to abandon their allegiance to KSU, KU, Nebraska, Oklahoma or Texas for an FCS program or even a non-BCS program, so it would be imperative for Wichita State to advance as quickly as possible in order to keep the financial side of the equation viable. When 1. you factor in that most BCS conference universities are spending far more than $10 million per year on football, there is an economic hurdle that can not easily be crossed. On top of that, merely 2. competing at a high level with energetic fans and a flush budget does nothing to guarantee your opportunity to 3. compete in a BCS conference. We've seen threads on this board asking why Houston is not in the Big 12. Schools like BYU and Boise State would love to join BCS conferences but are not receiving invites. What I am getting at, in my prototypical long-winded fashion, is 4. that there is, without a doubt, a monopoly type situation existing in college football where the have nots are very definitely deprived the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
Ummm. You obviously haven't seen the new helmets they've unveiled over the past few weeks? You're whole point is officially moot.I happen to have a local perspective on this (and no.....it's not KSU
Wichita State University dropped football in 1986 after years of fan apathy. The Shockers played in the Missouri Valley Conference until it dissolved in 1985 and competed as an independent in 1986. Being an independent (and a small conference before that) meant that it was difficult to get teams to play at Wichita State which, as we know, is a great way to have a lot of road losses. So, after the end of the 1986 season, they announced that football was going to be dropped as an intercollegiate sport and released all their players.
Five times since Wichita State dropped football, there have been initiatives to revive the program. Every one has failed. The current university president, recognizing the valuable role that football plays has started another review of the football program. They estimate that it will take $12 million to get the program started if they use their existing 30,000 seat stadium that was built in the 60's and hasn't had meaningful improvements since then. The cost balloons dramatically if they want a stadium that fans will enjoy using.
The annual cost would be around $4 million per year at the FCS level, $7 million per year as a low level FBS team and double that to compete at the BCS level. Georgia State and UNC Charlotte are two programs that relaunched football after a hiatus and are being used as the blueprint for the current planning for the return of Shocker football. Georgia State moved to FBS after 3 years in the FCS and had their first bowl appearance as a member of the Sun Belt conference in 2015. UNCC joined Conference USA after two years in the FBS last year. Both spend around $6 million per year at this time. Neither is a candidate to jump to a BCS conference any time soon.
One of the primary reasons that Wichita State has not started football back up is that there is a belief (understanding?) that local fans will not be prone to abandon their allegiance to KSU, KU, Nebraska, Oklahoma or Texas for an FCS program or even a non-BCS program, so it would be imperative for Wichita State to advance as quickly as possible in order to keep the financial side of the equation viable. When you factor in that most BCS conference universities are spending far more than $10 million per year on football, there is an economic hurdle that can not easily be crossed. On top of that, merely competing at a high level with energetic fans and a flush budget does nothing to guarantee your opportunity to compete in a BCS conference. We've seen threads on this board asking why Houston is not in the Big 12. Schools like BYU and Boise State would love to join BCS conferences but are not receiving invites. What I am getting at, in my prototypical long-winded fashion, is that there is, without a doubt, a monopoly type situation existing in college football where the have nots are very definitely deprived the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.
That explains a lot. So it isn't that there is some sort of conspiracy among the NCAA members. It isn't a monopoly driven by any force that is holding Witchita State down. It sounds like there isn't a MARKET for it. Good point. Gotta have a market.
I'm sorry. How many of you guys that are thinking this is a monopoly or caste system, own their own business? Because basically, that's what we are talking about. Starting a college or business.
Now I'm with you. There's no doubt that there's a caste system. That's part of why teams like Alabama, Notre dame, Texas, and Michigan can play most of their games at home every year, rarely travel more than a time zone, schedule a pillow soft OOC, and still be ranked at 8-4 and get a bowl around New year's. But if WSU, Indiana, Duke, or Kansas does the same thing, we're unranked and playing at 11AM on Thursday before Christmas.
Agreed. Good links, flat. But I'll still go back to the whole process. Start a college, start a university. Stanford wasn't built in a day. BYU wasn't either. It took decades to achieve their current status. They made it to where the BCS, the conference, couldn't say "no". Cripes, Stanford was INVITED. I think the part most/all of us had was the "monopoly" part.
