FB: North Coast Athletic Conference

[wally_wabash]

Would anybody at EMU care if the team DID win more than they do?

What we're really trying to answer when we ask "would people care if the team did X" is: Would people be willing to accept the inherent costs associated with turning a team that has won 2 or fewer games in 17 of its 41 seasons into one that could win 4-5 games most of the time, given what it would mean for other parts of the college?  I suspect that the answer there is no

But they're good with spending money on all of the other sports that require full university subsidy?  It's just the football that has to go?  That's the part that I'm having trouble with.  It feels like they're picking on football here. 

[jknezek]

Would anybody at EMU care if the team DID win more than they do?

What we're really trying to answer when we ask "would people care if the team did X" is: Would people be willing to accept the inherent costs associated with turning a team that has won 2 or fewer games in 17 of its 41 seasons into one that could win 4-5 games most of the time, given what it would mean for other parts of the college?  I suspect that the answer there is no

But they're good with spending money on all of the other sports that require full university subsidy?  It's just the football that has to go?  That's the part that I'm having trouble with.  It feels like they're picking on football here.

When cutting costs don't you cut the biggest loser first? Football is expensive. 85 scholarships is expensive. Guess how many non football men's athletic scholarships EMU gives? 57.1 is their MAX based on the sports they offer. So football is more than  half of all men's athletic scholarship expenses. The 16 varsity head coaches at EMU were paid $1.88MM in 2015 in base pay. Coach C made over 21% of that total. 21% to 6% of the total head coaches. Anyone want to guess which staff cost the most?

Picking on football? Maybe. But football gets all the glory when it is making money. How often have you heard that the largess of football pays for everyone else? Well shouldn't football take the brunt when it is the biggest sucking hole in the budget? Football at the FBS level has massive expenses. Generally those are offset by massive revenue, but if it isn't, then it is the appropriate target for remediation for a whole host of very obvious reasons.

And no, I wouldn't think it mattered as much if it was just about the money. For example Rutgers, which is bleeding athletic dollars mainly due to huge football expenses. But people show for the games, and there is community involvement and campus involvement. So at least you can point to the ancillaries at Rutgers. You can't do that at EMU because there are none and haven't been for a really long time. No support, plus massive losses, plus big budget cuts across the university, provides an easy, and logical, target.

Modified to include the following links where I got my data:

the link with the salary numbers
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2016/01/eastern_michigan_university_pa_2.html

The sports offered came from EMU athletic website and the scholarships allowed came from here:
http://www.scholarshipstats.com/ncaalimits.html

[Bombers798891]

Would anybody at EMU care if the team DID win more than they do?

What we're really trying to answer when we ask "would people care if the team did X" is: Would people be willing to accept the inherent costs associated with turning a team that has won 2 or fewer games in 17 of its 41 seasons into one that could win 4-5 games most of the time, given what it would mean for other parts of the college?  I suspect that the answer there is no

But they're good with spending money on all of the other sports that require full university subsidy?  It's just the football that has to go?  That's the part that I'm having trouble with.  It feels like they're picking on football here.

You're a smart guy, Wally, so this honestly baffles me. You're asking why a school staring down a major athletic deficit is thinking of cutting its (by far) most expensive sport, one that has experienced no recent success, and little success ever? You're surprised that when looking to save money, the team that is a combination of probably being the worst* and the most expensive to operate is the one people are focusing on? Are you seriously not seeing why that is?

*I don't know if any other programs have a lifetime winning percentage of .299. If so, correct me. But a quick glance at the W-L records of teams last year indicates none were as bad as football.

[formerd3db]

Some random thoughts and stories here....

As many of you have said, we've discussed this many times in recent years (just ask Mr. Ypsi )  For sure, there are problems re: Eastern Michigan football.  Heck, even my Hope College has had better attendance at some games than Eastern Michigan and, unfortunately, that has occurred even when my Hope has been a not too good team in recent years.  I recall one of my former Hope teammates telling me 2-3 years ago at one of our Hope games when we were on the sidelines that one of his sons was being recruited by Eastern Michigan (and a couple of other MAC schools).  When they attended the EMU game at his recruiting visit, there were about 1,000 fans in the stadium at the game.  My former teammate said his son turned to him and said, "Dad, Hope College has more attendance at games than this."  He turned down his full ride and ended up playing at Hope, having a stellar career (of course, it didn't hurt that almost his entire family were Hope graduates- ranging from his grandfather, father, uncle and his brothers all playing football at Hope as well as that his family could afford the tuition at Hope. )

Anyway, all have contributed great commentary and opinions here.  I doubt Eastern will drop football nor do I believe they should.  Some programs will, unfortunately always have a history of struggling.  For years, people wanted to either kick Northwestern out  of the Big Ten and/or were calling for them to drop the program; same for Kansas State, Tulane, Michigan Tech, and  even our own Olivet College which has had a rich tradition dating back to 1881 but an overall pretty poor all-time record, until more recent years of course.  But all of these programs made a commitment to keep their programs regardless-some obviously having much better success than others, regardless of what level (i.e. NCAA division). None went the cheap way out like the Swarthemore debacle of some now 16 years ago (difficult to believe it has been that long).  Yes, it costs $ but somethings are simply worth keeping regardless. 

Just a couple more somewhat less important but relevant stories regarding this in general.  I remember back about 2003, Michigan Tech announced they were dropping football.  This set off a madhouse response and their supporters raised over $3 million dollars in 3 months to save the program.  They went on to tie for the GLIAC title with Grand Valley soon after, and played later played in Michigan stadium (when U of Mich was at an away game of course) in front of about 51,000 spectators (an NCAA Div. II record, which I believe, if I am not mistaken, still stands).  Then there was the times back in the late 1980's when everyone in the MAC wanted to kick Eastern Michigan out of the MAC-lead most vehemently by Central Michigan.  EMU came back and kicked everyone's arses including Central (I still laugh much at that with great amusement) and they won the California Bowl that year.  And, of course, the great year Tulane went 12-0 with Tommy Bowden (they were going to drop football or drop to DIII more recently, but decided to stay on).  Anyway, I love to see these type of stories where the underdog, those who are bashed without apology by some, come back to kick everyone's arse and shove right back in their faces!

All that said, that is just my opinion and I realize those are discussing and unevenly comparing many varied and different situations. Yet, on the other hand, it is not as there is a general underlying theme. Regardless, I have long held the opinion that the entire MAC should really be FCS programs, not FBS.  Even though some of those schools play some major non-conference FBS schools and beat them on occasion, in reality, their programs are no where near FBS (not that I don't mind when they do beat the bigger-time powers on occasion because I always love that).  FCS might be Eastern's best option in that regard, but not sure they will do that.  Certainly the other MAC schools will not.  But if you look at all those other MAC attendance figures as well, they barely meet (sometimes not) the NCAA mandates.  And speaking of attendance, even a very large number of DII schools, even in the top DII conferences such as the GLIAC (with the exception of Grand Valley, who often meets FBS attendance #s criteria for some of their games) have less attendance than many of the DIII programs, including some of the lower tier DIIIs.  And looking at the FCS attendances, except for the bigger schools more successful schools of recent (i.e. those that have won the championships in the last  101-12 years), attendance at that level is very often not much more than some of the top DIII and DII schools.  Bottom line is, in that regard, nothing compares to the biggest FBS schools and now Big  5. But, it is all relative so to speak-it is all what you make it with regards to your own interest, passions, etc.  i.e. playing at our DIII in front of a loud crowd of 2,000 or 4,000 to 5,000 at times like many of us have for some major rivalry and/or championship game is just as important and exhilerating as to those playing some huge filled stadium if you know what I mean (not that I wouldn't have minded being involved in the latter even for one time)

Anyway, I do wish CC all the best at Eastern and hope that he will get the program back to a competitive level in his tenure there.  I'm sure we all agree it "ain't going to happen in 2 more years", it is going to take longer, but...I believe it can be done.  A very interesting and great discussion, guys.  I always enjoy reading/hearing your opinions on this and similar topics (especially in the off-season-besides, what else do we have to do at this time of the year?!!!! )         

[Mr. Ypsi]

Would anybody at EMU care if the team DID win more than they do?

What we're really trying to answer when we ask "would people care if the team did X" is: Would people be willing to accept the inherent costs associated with turning a team that has won 2 or fewer games in 17 of its 41 seasons into one that could win 4-5 games most of the time, given what it would mean for other parts of the college?  I suspect that the answer there is no

But they're good with spending money on all of the other sports that require full university subsidy?  It's just the football that has to go?  That's the part that I'm having trouble with.  It feels like they're picking on football here.

jk and Bombers already beat me to the punch, but, Wally, this is just silly.  Football is BY FAR the greatest source of the deficit - it is HUGELY expensive (probably more so than the next 3 or 4 most expensive sports combined) and generates VERY little revenue (don't be fooled by the attendance figures - probably no more than 1,000 fans per game pay full price, and many pay nothing).  And concessions don't begin to compensate - last year they got a special permit to sell beer at a game ... and somehow LOST money on the deal!

The last time they had (legitimate) attendance anywhere near the NCAA minimum was when Charlie Batch was QB (which was also the last time they were both competitive AND exciting to watch).  Even then (I attended quite a few of his games) I'd guesstimate attendance at more like 12,000 than 15,000.  IIRC it was soon after he graduated that the scandal broke that they had been wildly overstating attendance figures (sometimes by double or even triple reality).  I'm not entirely certain that even the pathetic attendance figures they are now using are totally accurate; the last game I attended (beautiful weather against a team we had a legitimate chance to beat [though we didn't ], the announced attendance was 5,000+.  IMO over one third of them must have come disguised as empty bleachers.

When even sports-obsessed son #2, about to be an EMU grad, has quit attending games, I just don't see much hope.  IF they became competitive, it probably would help some, but A) I can't even imagine they could get to 15,000+ and B) under the circumstances, I seriously doubt even CC can make them competitive again.  There are just too many obstacles, including EMU being a majority commuter school.  Perhaps most important of all, as Dr. Acula noted, other loyalties are almost ingrained - back when I was still teaching I was struck that more EMU students wore UM or MSU t-shirts, sweatshirts, or caps than wore EMU apparel!

[ADL70]

Historical footnote:

From 1962-1967 EMU was a member of the PAC.

[jknezek]

Historical footnote:

From 1962-1967 EMU was a member of the PAC.

I believe they were also MIAA members at some point before that.

[wally_wabash]

jk and Bombers already beat me to the punch, but, Wally, this is just silly.  Football is BY FAR the greatest source of the deficit - it is HUGELY expensive (probably more so than the next 3 or 4 most expensive sports combined) and generates VERY little revenue (don't be fooled by the attendance figures - probably no more than 1,000 fans per game pay full price, and many pay nothing).  And concessions don't begin to compensate - last year they got a special permit to sell beer at a game ... and somehow LOST money on the deal!

I definitely understand that football is expensive and EMU football is bad so on the surface it makes some sense to get rid of it.  But EMU's football team is also tapping into monies that EMU can't get if they didn't have a team, no matter how bad that team might be.  No football means no MAC television money (money that is only going to increase over time), no bowl money sharing, and no guarantee game money (or much, much less guarantee game money if they drop to FCS and go the PFL route).  There's more money coming in here than just what they take at the gate on Saturday (which is virtually nothing...still primarily the fault of a totally apathetic university community, which is the real bummer of the whole story IMO). 

Maybe it doesn't make sense for EMU to sponsor football.  That's clearly something under review.  I just think the decision isn't as clear cut as the team is bad, nobody buys tickets, so let's dump it.  I think there's more to consider than what's been presented in the couple of articles that we've seen. 

[Bombers798891]

But EMU's football team is also tapping into monies that EMU can't get if they didn't have a team, no matter how bad that team might be.  No football means no MAC television money (money that is only going to increase over time), no bowl money sharing, and no guarantee game money (or much, much less guarantee game money if they drop to FCS and go the PFL route).  There's more money coming in here than just what they take at the gate on Saturday (which is virtually nothing...still primarily the fault of a totally apathetic university community, which is the real bummer of the whole story IMO). 

According to what I see, the MAC-ESPN TV deal signed in 2014 brings in about $670,000 per school per season

http://www.hustlebelt.com/2014/8/19/6045303/explaining-the-new-mac-espn-tv-deal

EMU is going to get $2.5 million from a pair of games against Missouri, one in 2016 and one in 2020. I doubt they'll get much, if anything, from Wyoming.

http://www.stlsportsminute.com/2015/mizzou/mizzou-football-pay-2-5-million-pair-games-eastern-michigan/#.VyAj5qMrLUQ

I mean, sure, it's nice money, but don't forget, this isn't all new money. The previous TV deal was worth $120,000 to the schools. And EMU had received about $650,000 from playing against Michigan State. The point is, there just aren't a lot of untapped revenue streams here. So how is cutting soccer, tennis, or swimming going to fix the situation?

[Mr. Ypsi]

A bit of background.  The latest general story link which has generated this flurry of comment centered largely on Howard Bunsis, treasurer of the faculty union and head of the committee probing the issue.  I got to know Howard fairly well when I was President of the Lecturers' union and he was in some AAUP position (I think he may have been VP then).  I haven't talked to him in nearly 10 years (I'm retired), so these impressions are rather dated, but I certainly never got the impression that he was an 'anti-jock' type (and I did know some who definitely were).  IIRC he was a workout fanatic at the campus gym and an avid tennis player.  But he WAS an advocate for the students who could not really afford even EMU (one of the cheapest colleges around).  I suspect his greatest motivation is that athletics is imposing a 'tax' of nearly $1,000 per year on students, with probably on the order of $500 of that from football alone.  Since by-and-large students have shown thru their LACK of attendance that (EMU) football is not important to them, that is a pretty serious burden to place on them.

[Mr. Ypsi]

wally, I agree that there is more to it than "the team is bad, nobody buys tickets, so let's dump it".  For example:

1. Can the team be NOT bad?  Conceivably, but I doubt it.  In 1987(?) they blitzed the MAC and won the California Bowl - their reward was to have Cal-Berkeley 'steal' their coach.  They will occasionally get very good players (even a few NFL players), but they are SO overshadowed by UM that this is rare, and how attractive can they be when no one comes to the stadium?  And why would anyone come to the stadium when they can go to AA or E. Lansing or stay home and watch 'good' football?

2. Nobody buys tickets.  It's worse than that - for years they have given away free tickets to local schools, and most of the FREE tickets never get used!  It's not just that no one wants to PAY for tickets, almost no one wants to show up even for FREE!

3. Athletics (meaning primarily football) is being subsidized out of general funds by more than $1,000 per student, per year.  By-and-large, EMU students do not come from families that can fully pay their way.  Most work jobs; many full-time.  I taught many students who had to drop out for a time to earn money for tuition/fees; a large number never came back.  The 'football tax' can be a dream killer.

4. I know the value of football to a college atmosphere - I totally experienced it at IWU.  I saw a tiny hint of that during Charlie Batch's career.  But it was only a hint, and it is gone.  I don't think that EMU is either IWU or Wabash, nor do I think it will ever be in the giant shadow of the Big House.  IMO most students at EMU will NEVER give a s**t about the football team, even if they miraculously won 4 or 5 games.

5. So dump it.  (sorry, formerd3db )

[wally_wabash]

I don't know how you fix the attendance problem.  I really don't.  If being supportive of your school (EMU) is somehow in conflict with your childhood love of UM (it isn't) and Eddie EMU Student just doesn't ever want to go to a game, fine.  There are benefits to the university for being part of the FBS whether the students care to actively participate or not.  Like I said earlier, the real tragedy to me is that this community seems to actively fight supporting this team in the way a toddler fights eating a green vegetable. 

As far as the athletics "tax" goes- we don't think that money is going to get refunded or removed from the student's cost do we?  Instead of $1000, $500 of which pays for football (we'll take that figure at face value although there are probably alternate interpretations of the data to be made), you're going to wind up with the same $1000 "tax", but now the full $1000 pays for 20 other sports teams that the students also don't care about.  So nothing's really changed, except that there won't be any press around to write about recommendations to wipe EMU's women's golf team out- no clicks to be had there. 

[jknezek]

As far as the athletics "tax" goes- we don't think that money is going to get refunded or removed from the student's cost do we?  Instead of $1000, $500 of which pays for football (we'll take that figure at face value although there are probably alternate interpretations of the data to be made), you're going to wind up with the same $1000 "tax", but now the full $1000 pays for 20 other sports teams that the students also don't care about.  So nothing's really changed, except that there won't be any press around to write about recommendations to wipe EMU's women's golf team out- no clicks to be had there.

Actually in the current environment of EMU I think this is wrong. Budget cuts are on the board. So while I don't think $500 is going to drop off a student's bills, I do think there will be $500 less of a hole in the budget.  I don't think that $500 will be reallocated to a different team, the budget will just shrink to try and fit the incoming revenue of the university. At least that's what should happen.

As for the rest, there is no mysticism about being in FBS for football. It costs a fortune and it can generate a fortune. When it does both, or even generates a greater fortune than it costs, that's fabulous. When it costs a fortune and generates less than it costs, not for one season but over a long period of time, it is worth re-evaluating. Can you lose less somewhere else (FCS say) and still get the benefits of having a football team? Are there actually any benefits to having a football team for EMU as a university?

These are fair questions, and if you blindly defend the sport as everyone should have a team or FBS is good simply because you are in FBS, you are missing the fundamental point that the school doesn't exist for the football team. The football team exists to bring some kind of benefit to the school. Money, community, applications, excitement, positive exposure... something. Does EMU's program do any of these things? And what is that actually worth in dollars paid by everyone else.

[Bombers798891]

So nothing's really changed, except that there won't be any press around to write about recommendations to wipe EMU's women's golf team out- no clicks to be had there.

I've asked, and you've not answered. So I'll ask again. For an athletic department that is tens of millions of dollars in the red, how would cutting women's golf (or some other low-budget sport) make any kind of significant impact?

[ExTartanPlayer]

Are there actually any benefits to having a football team for EMU as a university?

These are fair questions, and if you blindly defend the sport as everyone should have a team or FBS is good simply because you are in FBS, you are missing the fundamental point that the school doesn't exist for the football team. The football team exists to bring some kind of benefit to the school. Money, community, applications, excitement, positive exposure... something. Does EMU's program do any of these things? And what is that actually worth in dollars paid by everyone else.

I think these are reasonable questions.

I really don't think this is some sort of overall anti-football crusade.  I think it's a University administration and/or community recognizing that having an FBS football program is bringing very little net benefit to the University, and that a) the cost of sustaining the program does not provide sufficient return on investment (by the metrics jknezek noted above: does EMU get any of those things as a result of having a football program?) and b) the level of investment necessary to raise the program's profile sufficiently to achieve those things is likely not realistic or practical. 

We're talking about this mostly in terms of whether sustaining the football program is doing harm to the University, but let's flip it the other way:

What would be the harm to the University by cutting the football program?