ECACs

[Frank Rossi]

I don't believe freebies have been allowed for ECAC Bowls for quite some time.  Otherwise, I agree with you fully, Dave.

[Tags]

Who is this Frank Rossi guy anyway?

[Dave 'd-mac' McHugh]

Freebies allowed? Not following you.

If you mean free tickets to students... I would think it doesn't matter. If a school pays $3,000 for the tickets... they can do what they want with them afterward. If that means giving tickets to the students for the game, they are welcome to do that - it's their tickets; they paid for them.

[Pat Coleman]

Freebies allowed? Not following you.

If you mean free tickets to students... I would think it doesn't matter. If a school pays $3,000 for the tickets... they can do what they want with them afterward. If that means giving tickets to the students for the game, they are welcome to do that - it's their tickets; they paid for them.

Bingo. Exactly. Of course, getting 300 people to come to Connecticut from lots of places in the ECAC is another story.

[gordonmann]

The conditions look to me like another sign that these changes are really about the ECAC strengthening its base in New England.

Giving the schools free transportation is nice, but a lot of good programs probably had some sort of travel contingency built into their budget for a possible game in Week 11 anyway. They would've needed a bus for any type of road game, whether it was four hours or 20 minutes away. So it's a nice gesture that's less meaningful for the schools who are now more likely to incur hotel costs.

The 300 ticket guarantee, if that's something new, might be a little harder to swallow since the ECAC is asking teams to guarantee a gate when the ECAC isn't giving the schools the date or time for the game. Most sporting events that require someone to purchase a ticket without knowing exactly when the game will be played involve situations where the demand for seats outpaces the supply of them. That's not going to be the case in any of these games.

But the mandatory gate is a little less of a concern if the game is within easy driving distance of the participating schools' students and their parents. A lot of the New England schools who participate in these games have pretty regional student bodies and New Britain is reasonably accessible for people who might be driving home that weekend for Thanksgiving anyway. That's far less likely for ECAC south or Western New York members whose student body comes from their local areas.

[lewdogg11]

I'm trying to use 'new math' here with some estimating properties.  If at RPI, there are 100 kids on the football team, and tuition is roughly $60,000 annually, it would be reasonable to say the Institution is making $6,000,000/year on just football players.  Let's say going to an ECAC game costs $10,000.  $6,000,000 - $10,000 = 5,990,000. 

Now I know budgets don't necessarily work this way, but I have to laugh in the face of any college leaders who say they 'can't afford it'.  Everyone can afford it, it's whether or not they want to support their student/athletes.  For the cost of the ECAC game, they can just cancel the weekly leadership brunch/mixer that weekend.

[AUPepBand]

Who is this Frank Rossi guy anyway?

Who is this Tags guy anyway? And what the heck does that quote at the end of his post mean? +K

[Div3Fan]

I'm trying to us 'new math' here with some estimating properties.  If at RPI, there are 100 kids on the football team, and tuition is roughly $60,000 annually, it would be reasonable to say the Institution is making $6,000,000/year on just football players.  Let's say going to an ECAC game costs $10,000.  $6,000,000 - $10,000 = 5,990,000. 

Now I know budgets don't necessarily work this way, but I have to laugh in the face of any college leaders who say they 'can't afford it'.  Everyone can afford it, it's whether or not they want to support their student/athletes.  For the cost of the ECAC game, they can just cancel the weekly leadership brunch/mixer that weekend.

But what about administrators? It would be unfair to them and their ballooning salaries if some football players got to go to a post-season game. 

[lewdogg11]

For the record, RPI has never ducked out on ECAC games so this wasn't directed there, just strictly an example.

[Frank Rossi]

Who is this Frank Rossi guy anyway?

You worst nightmare, Tags... But you knew that already, Sir.   

[Frank Rossi]

Freebies allowed? Not following you.

If you mean free tickets to students... I would think it doesn't matter. If a school pays $3,000 for the tickets... they can do what they want with them afterward. If that means giving tickets to the students for the game, they are welcome to do that - it's their tickets; they paid for them.

They won't be doing that, and my statement was that the ECAC did not permit schools to give away any tickets when they were being held at home sites -- I believe that extended to students.

Also, they put out a press release today -- the mandatory hotel is charging $150/night for double occupancy.  What a deal... Ouch.

LD - Ask your program, and Union's and St. Lawrence's, how much money Men's and Women's D1 Ice Hockey is costing them per year.  I think it's an eye-opening issue in terms of looking at budgets and why those other two schools have shied away from the ECAC expenses of late.

[Pat Coleman]

With all due respect to the distinguished gentleman from Hartford/Philadelphia, all schools should already have a Week 11 travel plan. It's Week 12 that's the question here.

Frank, if a school purchases the tickets, what does the ECAC care if they give them to people? The ECAC has their money and people are in the stands. That model works for the NCAA just fine -- why would the ECAC force schools to have an even higher standard?

[Frank Rossi]

With all due respect to the distinguished gentleman from Hartford/Philadelphia, all schools should already have a Week 11 travel plan. It's Week 12 that's the question here.

Frank, if a school purchases the tickets, what does the ECAC care if they give them to people? The ECAC has their money and people are in the stands. That model works for the NCAA just fine -- why would the ECAC force schools to have an even higher standard?

I'm stating that the school is not going to be just handing those tickets over in this circumstance.  Union is even stingy with freebies for the NCAA Hockey Tournament because it's an unbudgeted expense and actually has historically been income-negative.  My point here is that the schools are not going to pay $3,000 for tickets and just make them rain on the student body -- not that the ECAC will forbid it under the new formula.  If the same schools weren't buying tickets at home venues for the students, why would they now?

[gordonmann]

I'm trying to use 'new math' here with some estimating properties.  If at RPI, there are 100 kids on the football team, and tuition is roughly $60,000 annually, it would be reasonable to say the Institution is making $6,000,000/year on just football players.  Let's say going to an ECAC game costs $10,000.  $6,000,000 - $10,000 = 5,990,000. 

I think I understand your point. It's reminiscent of the quote that Mount Union fans frequently attributed to Larry Kehres. Something to the effect of, "The players are investing a lot to be here. We can at least give him a ham sandwich and a spot on the roster."

And while schools are spending a lot of that $6 million in your example on things other than football games, I get your point that an additional $10,000 cost in the school's overall budget is peanuts. For some schools I would view any complaints about added costs related to the ECAC games with cynicism. If any NESCAC school or those with similarly large endowments and fund raising vehicles said they couldn't afford to participate in ECACs, I'd call BS. Raising $10,000 for an ECAC game is something they could do in a matter of hours.

But I can tell you from getting to know administrators in some of these regional colleges with more modest endowments, adding $10,000 is hard to do, particularly once department budgets have already been set. There are a lot of schools that are very cost conscious about administrative aspects of athletics -- staffing, game day expenses, facility improvements, travel budgets -- and I presume that's because they have to be. The institution has made a decision to spend a certain amount on athletics and, within that budget, certain amounts on individual sports. And then someone decides how to spend that money on individual needs within each sport.  So the $10,000 added cost gets balanced against the need for say, assistant coaches or some football field upkeep expenses, not the institution's much, much larger budget.

If the situation were reversed -- say, the ECAC were a Philadelphia-based organization and told the New England schools that all games would be hosted at West Chester University -- I would expect the New England members who are already trying to find money for full-time assistants would have to pass. I expect the same thing will happen here.

At the end of the day, this isn't a cataclysmic event or a supreme injustice. As Johnny Utah said, it's just a football game. It's a postseason opportunity that three of four regions in Division III football already don't have. The ECAC has a right to do what it thinks is best for itself as an organization. The member schools do too. If that results in a loss of ECAC games for some teams, it's not the end of the world. But it's kind of a bummer for some of these programs to learn that midway through the season.

[Pat Coleman]

I'm stating that the school is not going to be just handing those tickets over in this circumstance.  Union is even stingy with freebies for the NCAA Hockey Tournament because it's an unbudgeted expense and actually has historically been income-negative.  My point here is that the schools are not going to pay $3,000 for tickets and just make them rain on the student body -- not that the ECAC will forbid it under the new formula.  If the same schools weren't buying tickets at home venues for the students, why would they now?

Gotcha. I'm not saying they would, but you were making it sound like they couldn't.