|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 31, 2018 10:05:05 GMT -6
Unlike Halftime I bet the guy has learned from Collier and he is young and talented. We are going to give up a little on experience to get an up and comer! Now why would a young guy leave Butler for BSU? I’d say for likely a bit more money than he’s getting at Butler, as resume builder at a D-1 school and all major sports at D 1 level You know why Collier is successful, because he punched the clock on a bunch of money losing programs, reinvested in a single sport, and switched conferences when possible. Those are things you argue against. No doubt he took advantage of the basketball success in agile conference moves to build on that program. That was both logical and easier to do since Butler has been FCS pioneer league in FB since 90's, long before he came. We dropped the ball when we had hot chances to leverage success 20+ years ago. Collier has made good moves to cash in, a very big contrast. The additional revenue from basketball, reduced expenses of promoting and maintaining FB at our level means a much more healthy bottom line. When we had our chances the athletic department not only did not act with a lot of imagination to build on it, but we actually made moves to invest in FB and the MAC conference. Some of that is practical sports scheduling issues, but it revolves both around FB but also our status as similar schools with the other MAC schools with similar overall missions. Butler as a smaller private school did not have the same desire we had to mirror MAC schools which we use as a yardstick for academic and funding comparison. So, I am not sure about the closing down programs as a big factor. They still have 18 or 19 D1 sports teams, recently added Lacrosse. A lot of schools have dropped sports at the margin, these moves were not big in terms of scholarships saved or coaching expense. They don't pay most coaches all that well except of course basketball. He's prudent, but Butler's basketball revenue and national visibility is the big deal in their success.
|
|
|
Post by redbirdman on Jan 31, 2018 10:19:19 GMT -6
Halftime in response to your comment BSU will go with the rest of the league. I agree they would be better off playing FB at a lower level & think they will only move when the big guys force them out.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 31, 2018 10:24:04 GMT -6
There isn't a school in this conference that wouldn't be better off dumping football. It's going to happen and you will be in a far better position if you are the first to make the move. All of which means BSU will sit on the sidelines, pretend like they are being thoughtful, and eventually wind-up in an even worse conference. I am not so sure we drop the sport, but I agree the long run inevitably involves some big changes. And you are right it is not likely that University administration acts boldly. An advantage in acting first is possible, I don't see it as quite so clear. It is both easier said than done, and when everything hits the fan one option would have to be to the MAC changing. Either to football optional or lower level. The advantage to jump to a better basketball centered conference now may be there, I see that. OTOH, the MAC might be the best choice after a change. I think you are assuming the MAC implodes, or actually tries to long term stay FBS, forcing us out without good options. This is all going to depend on what the big conferences want. I don't think the MAC will have much choice long term if that happens. It still looks like a pipe dream to me that NIU or anyone else really can fit into a big conference. We have discussed that, with the scenario being a few teams jump up in FB, leaving the MAC much weaker in that sport. But then the remaining teams are really forced to consider their status, all in the same boat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 11:58:56 GMT -6
Yeah, dumping football is more of a political issue than anything else. I think finally there is enough understanding among students and alums the backlash wouldn't be too great. The financial hellhole football creates is part of the reason we can't keep an AD.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 12:08:41 GMT -6
You know why Collier is successful, because he punched the clock on a bunch of money losing programs, reinvested in a single sport, and switched conferences when possible. Those are things you argue against. No doubt he took advantage of the basketball success in agile conference moves to build on that program. That was both logical and easier to do since Butler has been FCS pioneer league in FB since 90's, long before he came. We dropped the ball when we had hot chances to leverage success 20+ years ago. Collier has made good moves to cash in, a very big contrast. The additional revenue from basketball, reduced expenses of promoting and maintaining FB at our level means a much more healthy bottom line. When we had our chances the athletic department not only did not act with a lot of imagination to build on it, but we actually made moves to invest in FB and the MAC conference. Some of that is practical sports scheduling issues, but it revolves both around FB but also our status as similar schools with the other MAC schools with similar overall missions. Butler as a smaller private school did not have the same desire we had to mirror MAC schools which we use as a yardstick for academic and funding comparison. So, I am not sure about the closing down programs as a big factor. They still have 18 or 19 D1 sports teams, recently added Lacrosse. A lot of schools have dropped sports at the margin, these moves were not big in terms of scholarships saved or coaching expense. They don't pay most coaches all that well except of course basketball. He's prudent, but Butler's basketball revenue and national visibility is the big deal in their success. Butler phased out scholarship football starting in 1989 which is the same year they dramatically increased the basketball budget and hired Barry Collier as coach. It was a strategic move done by a University President with some foresight and balls. I don't see the same will or guts at Ball State................. As-an-aside I heard a couple of weeks ago UIndy is discussing a similar plan.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 31, 2018 13:54:34 GMT -6
No doubt he took advantage of the basketball success in agile conference moves to build on that program. That was both logical and easier to do since Butler has been FCS pioneer league in FB since 90's, long before he came. Butler phased out scholarship football starting in 1989 which is the same year they dramatically increased the basketball budget and hired Barry Collier as coach. It was a strategic move done by a University President and with some foresight and balls. I don't see the same will or guts at Ball State................. As-an-aside I heard a couple of weeks ago UIndy is discussing a similar plan. They made a strategic move that has paid dividends for them. Easier for the smaller school, especially a private school than us. It's a much different case for us today. (There are people still around remember a time BSU, St Joe, Wabash, and Butler were all on the same level, played each other.) Our growth and becoming a research university meant changes that also brought bigger investment in everything, including sports, led to us joining the MAC where we compare for purposes other than sports. A lot more inertia to overcome at this point to do what Butler did 30 years ago, but also a potentially greater financial crisis.
|
|
|
Post by thebsukid on Jan 31, 2018 16:51:59 GMT -6
I'd get out of D-1 Football for sure...possibly play at a lower level but focus on basketball, volleyball, and baseball where we can truly compete
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Jan 31, 2018 17:09:36 GMT -6
Club football is what led to creation of college sports.
Must be some way to preserve it.
I have long worried that what we do now is unsustainable.
But some lower level? Still a great game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 17:18:05 GMT -6
I would like someone to give a compelling argument for keeping it.
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Jan 31, 2018 17:32:16 GMT -6
The compelling argument is "I want other people to continue to pay the huge costs associated with providing me my pastime."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 18:03:28 GMT -6
Yeah that one, and "if you can blow $90 million on a geothermal boondoggle what's $7 million a year on football".
|
|
|
Post by DickHunsaker on Jan 31, 2018 18:17:26 GMT -6
Yeah that one, and "if you can blow $90 million on a geothermal boondoggle what's $7 million a year on football". Ball State paid very little money on the geothermal project. $75 million was provided by the State of Indiana and $5 million was provided by the Federal Government. The project was one of a kind and helped to bring Ball State to the forefront of clean energy research. Universities from all over the country and the world have been studying the system to implement similar systems on their campuses
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 18:33:16 GMT -6
Yeah that one, and "if you can blow $90 million on a geothermal boondoggle what's $7 million a year on football". Ball State paid very little money on the geothermal project. $75 million was provided by the State of Indiana and $5 million was provided by the Federal Government. The project was one of a kind and helped to bring Ball State to the forefront of clean energy research. Universities from all over the country and the world have been studying the system to implement similar systems on their campuses Where did you get that garbage. No other university has installed anything even similar, and none ever will. You know why it is one of a kind, because no group other than the combination of Jo Ann Gora and Hollis Hughes is stupid enough to do it. It's hilarious they are trying re-brand it as a research facility, I guess that's what you do when it completely fails in every other original criteria and intent. The total cost of this continuing money pit was $110 million not including maintenance, they could have put in a whole new traditional physical plant for $20 million. It's money flushed right down the toilet.
|
|
|
Post by DickHunsaker on Jan 31, 2018 19:10:58 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2018 19:16:39 GMT -6
None of those you just listed are campus wide systems like Ball State and none are being sold as a long term cost saver like Jo Ann Gora originally claimed. I love this paragraph from the Cornell Newspaper "This effort to explore the potential of enhanced-geothermal energy will combine Cornell’s world-leading energy and sustainability researchers with the living laboratory of Cornell’s facilities over the next two decades. Its first step will be a planned small-scale demonstration installation within about five years" Yeah maybe that's better way of handling something that has the potential to be massive boondoggle, instead of jumping in with both feet. I suppose that's why they are Cornell and we are Ball State.
|
|