Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

West Coast Football

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Wildcat Khan View Post

    I'll agree there with you. That is a very good way and I would say Alabama, Clemson, tOSU, and maybe Oklahoma are the blue bloods of FBS.

    D2 wise, I think it may be changing in recent years.
    Alabama has had winless seasons. I am sure the other "blue bloods" have as well.

    Things go in cycles.

    Comment


    • #92
      I heard Grand Canyon University is adding football and University of Texas-Rio Grande might add football and Utah Valley is considering it. They are all in the WAC, which wants to have an FCS football conference and they are considering FBS down the road. I've also heard that they might make it a rule that you have to have football to play in the conference, but can't confirm that.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Runnin' Cat View Post

        Alabama has had winless seasons. I am sure the other "blue bloods" have as well.

        Things go in cycles.
        How long ago was that winless season? Was it this millennia?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Wildcat Khan View Post

          How long ago was that winless season? Was it this millennia?
          What college football program has won the most national titles? Which program is third?

          The point is that the last ten years are just that. Wasnt long ago that Texas and USC were powerhouses and blue bloods.

          Things are more than the last twenty years.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Runnin' Cat View Post

            What college football program has won the most national titles? Which program is third?

            The point is that the last ten years are just that. Wasnt long ago that Texas and USC were powerhouses and blue bloods.

            Things are more than the last twenty years.
            So does that make UCLA still a blue blood in basketball? Also if you go that way, what about the Bear Bryant days at Alabama then? USC kinda got hit by sanctions though and lost their head coach too, so that effected the power of their program. Regardless, UW football is not a blue blood of FBS. They are too inconsistent to be one and don't have national name recognition. USC would probably be closest to being a blue blood in the Pac-12 being ranked high to start the season year after year whether they finished well or not.

            Also if you want to go based on national titles alone, that would make USF the Blue Blood of the WCC for theirs back with KC Jones and Bill Russel.
            Last edited by Wildcat Khan; 01-12-2021, 10:05 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by tsull View Post

              I just went to SMSU's (SW Minnesota, guessing that's your alma mater, no other SMSU's out there, right?) website.It looks good and it appears they are trying to attract local students, thankfully that world class leaders stuff is not on there. Impressed with the athletic facilities. I like my alma mater's website; my favorite might be Arkansas Tech's, they really have good wording and mission statements.
              Yup! Only SMSU in the country. There may have been some overlap with Missouri State before their name change, though I wonder if we didn't change ours in response to them changing theirs. I have two degrees from there, and then briefly took some classes through Minnesota State.

              This is what I was referring too - they may have changed it or I may have misremembered it. Still, I don't think our mission statement means anything.

              https://www.smsu.edu/about/mission.html

              A few years back, our website promoted our 99% job placement statistic - which frustrated me. That number may or may not be true, but the way they got to it was pretty sketchy. I remember there being some pushback from students/alumni on using it. Thankfully they dropped it. I think we hired a marketing company to handle our stuff for us which has been amazing. We just don't have the resources to do it ourselves.

              SMSU is in a tough spot geographically. SWMN is sparsely populated, and we compete directly with South Dakota State for students. The solution has always been to recruit through the Twin Cities area, but convincing a high schooler from Minneapolis to move to the middle-of-nowhere isn't easy. We also don't carry a great reputation, which isn't warranted - we're the "cheap" school, the "easy" school, or we're not a "real" school.

              I don't know why previous admins had so much trouble managing the school. I think it's because they didn't want to admit there was a problem, and they wanted to be a school for "intellectuals" - not farmers and teachers. Whatever the case is, they blamed everyone on the outside and nobody on the inside. It left us without a real identity, and we became a school for drifters with a dwindling enrollment. They wanted the "get-rich-quick" scheme - the one easy solution to bring students in - which doesn't exist.

              They never considered that facility upkeep is important, it left our infrastructure really outdated. They never considered reaching out to local communities outside of the immediate one they were in. They never considered asking for help. The best they came up with was to rent out the unused space we had to outside organizations... which... sure, I guess.

              I'm satisfied with our new administration thus far. The infrastructure is being updated, students are being listened too, programs are being added, marketing has become a priority, sports has support... The new president has a resume to back up his claims of increasing enrollment too, which is huge. They are going aggressive during COVID while other schools are going passive. It remains to be seen what effect these changes will have in the long run, but I'm super excited at the new direction we are taking. Some of the ideas are really, really simple too - which is what I like.

              That's probably more than you ever cared to know about SMSU - but hopefully it provides some insight as to why I'm overly passionate about the conversation we've been having.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by tsull View Post

                Ha, so true. I'm a WSU Cougar fan so I love this comment. UW is hanging on to a co-national title won in 1991. They've had their moments, but are not a blue blood.

                Going back to D2 football on the west coast, too many schools look at it as an evil, or something that must be banned from campus ... because if you ban football, your student body will naturally get smarter, you'll become mini-Harvard, you'll cure cancer, and all will be right with the world.

                In reality, you eliminate a community event -- Arcata, California recently lost their largest community event, by far -- you reduce the low-income/minority enrollment at your school (many admins and profs would never admit this, but they like doing this), and take away 100's of opportunities for students. Cost-benefit analysis? Only 10% of FBS schools are making money, so it's not a money-making proposal. Montana and their 25,000-per game attendance loses money in FCS. Almost every hoop program in America loses money. West Coast schools don't look at it as a student benefit, but a student problem. I'll tell you what a student problem is: The adding of 6-figure administrators, who have no connection with students, and crank up the cost of tuition to pay their salaries.
                They want to be known for their high-class academics and not a low-brow sport like football. It's intellectual gatekeeping. If poetry writing got the same amount of attention as football did, admins would be cool with it. They want Backwater State to be mentioned in the same breath as Stanford... the school with a fairly successful FBS football program. Bizarre logic. Even MIT has football.

                This is just my opinion, but football is a very important social pillar at these top-rated schools. Only one school in the top 10 doesn't sponsor it (Caltech). I don't know the intricacies of Ivy League football, but there is a reason why they have it - and they don't even compete nationally. They don't need the marketing or student population it provides, and I doubt it makes them a lot of money - but they have it.

                My personal choice for the best school in the country is SD Mines - a "Backwater State" on the surface whose graduates at one point out-earned Harvard grads on starting salary. They sponsor football. A few years back I heard someone affiliated with the team pleased as punch about how they might not win the most games, but they were the best in the conference academically. Those kids are smart, and they like football, and they probably would have gone somewhere else if it weren't for the opportunity to play. Something these west coast schools need to consider.







                Comment


                • #98
                  When Boise State really had it rolling in football, just after the Fiesta Bowl victory, enrollment skyrocketed, huge buildings went up. Whether one wants to argue that in society football shouldn't be so influential on college education, I get that argument. But there's no dismissing it or denying what happened to BSU often happens across America.

                  At this time I heard speak was the then-new president of BYU-Idaho, the former Dean of the Harvard Business School, quite an accomplishment to get a guy like him to Rexburg, Idaho. Him being Mormon obviously was the reason.

                  During his talk on the BSU campus he said the last thing college presidents want to deal with is college athletics. Some cheers from the crowd ... I was surprised. Again, this is BSU where the only reason for the huge enrollment spike and new buildings was football. Then he said because he was tired of it, he cut the entire athletics program. Huge cheers from the faculty ... no lie. Much of this cheering BSU faculty would not be hired before football success because there weren't enough students.

                  Some how BYU-Idaho didn't become Harvard or cure cancer, but remained the weird church school in Southeast Idaho. Their enrollment increased when they became a 4-year school and took the kids BYU in Utah didn't want.
                  Last edited by tsull; 01-13-2021, 01:39 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by tsull View Post
                    When Boise State really had it rolling in football, just after the Fiesta Bowl victory, enrollment skyrocketed, huge buildings went up. Whether one wants to argue that in society football shouldn't be so influential on college education, I get that argument. But there's no dismissing it or denying what happened to BSU often happens across America.

                    At this time I heard speak was the then-new president of BYU-Idaho, the former Dean of the Harvard Business School, quite an accomplishment to get a guy like him to Rexburg, Idaho. Him being Mormon obviously was the reason.

                    During his talk on the BSU campus he said the last thing college presidents want to deal with is college athletics. Some cheers from the crowd ... I was surprised. Again, this is BSU where the only reason for the huge enrollment spike and new buildings was football. Then he said because he was tired of it, he cut the entire athletics program. Huge cheers from the faculty ... no lie. Much of this cheering BSU faculty would not be hired before football success because there weren't enough students.

                    Some how BYU-Idaho didn't become Harvard or cure cancer, but remained the weird church school in Southeast Idaho. Their enrollment increased when they became a 4-year school and took the kids BYU in Utah didn't want.
                    Moving to 4-year would do that, but somehow WSU-Tri Cities can't grow likely due to Pullman despite also having grad programs. I know you've been for splitting that off to have a true University in the metro area too and a possible GNAC member, but that of course would take work to build up the brand as not just a 'branch campus'. If they ever did though, the instant Rivalry with CWU would be nice.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wildcat Khan View Post

                      Moving to 4-year would do that, but somehow WSU-Tri Cities can't grow likely due to Pullman despite also having grad programs. I know you've been for splitting that off to have a true University in the metro area too and a possible GNAC member, but that of course would take work to build up the brand as not just a 'branch campus'. If they ever did though, the instant Rivalry with CWU would be nice.
                      WSU-TC having sports programs isn't going to happen. No more than WSU-Vancouver ever will.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by IronOre View Post

                        WSU-TC having sports programs isn't going to happen. No more than WSU-Vancouver ever will.
                        Having lived in Pullman for awhile, I know some people who work at WSU. They all say they can't figure out why WSU-Tri-Cities doesn't take off; only game in town in a fairly large populated area. They said it's the most underperforming of the branch campuses. Seems odd, Vancouver has kind of taken off and the one in Everett is small but not doing badly.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tsull View Post

                          Having lived in Pullman for awhile, I know some people who work at WSU. They all say they can't figure out why WSU-Tri-Cities doesn't take off; only game in town in a fairly large populated area. They said it's the most underperforming of the branch campuses. Seems odd, Vancouver has kind of taken off and the one in Everett is small but not doing badly.
                          I have some dealings with the engineering program at WSU-TC. It's grown over the years. I think a lot of the students in the area go to more prestigious schools or to Pullman so they have a hard time competing.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by IronOre View Post

                            WSU-TC having sports programs isn't going to happen. No more than WSU-Vancouver ever will.
                            At the current size for sure. It is only about 1200 students.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tsull View Post

                              Having lived in Pullman for awhile, I know some people who work at WSU. They all say they can't figure out why WSU-Tri-Cities doesn't take off; only game in town in a fairly large populated area. They said it's the most underperforming of the branch campuses. Seems odd, Vancouver has kind of taken off and the one in Everett is small but not doing badly.
                              I know, I think no longer having it a branch campus and actual University on its own would change local perception of it. The now 4 year college of CBC does far better for sure in getting local students. I think a lot may be though due to lack of marketing and being right by the Hanford site it is also a bit of a drive from most of the city.

                              Comment


                              • I found this discussion on another forum that I read semi-regularly, though I'm not a member of it. It's short, and most of it is your average forum dribble - but some of the responses are in stark contrast to what we believe, so I thought it would be interesting to share.

                                https://www.city-data.com/forum/coll...due-covid.html

                                Yes - college is about education. Sports is one way for some to secure the opportunity for that education where there may not be any other opportunity. I also believe higher ed should carry the torch for all aspects of society, and not just the liberal arts - since we've used sports to advance society economically, socially, scientifically, etc. It's no different than getting a music scholarship, IMO.

                                I would agree with the sentiment that colleges should only allow students to play who are an academic fit. Many colleges are good at this while others are not.

                                To flip the script on it though - I think college sports helps level the playing field academically in some ways too. It gives some universities a leg up financially, while also securing some bright students for schools that wouldn't otherwise get them - and everyone benefits. Football players are smart too.

                                Do changes need to be made to the system? Absolutely. That doesn't mean college sports aren't a vital part of the experience. As mentioned in this thread a bunch already, college sports are often for the community's benefit as well. It's about looking outside just yourself.


                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X