UNT students vote to help fund new stadium

It is the opinion of this blog that the resurrection of Shocker football will be difficult without the help of the student body. This is a sensitive issue for good reason as the cost of tution is one that continues to rise. However, I would like to look at one University that is making its dream of a new football stadium come true by finding a unique way to finance it together. The students of North Texas have answered the call of the alumni by voting to fund 50% of the new stadium with a student fee increase. The other 50% will be the responsability of the alumni, fans, and corporate sponsors. The stadium is not being funded on the backs of one single group, but by the whole UNT family.

If the students at Wichita State voted to do the exact same thing, here is how it would break down. WSU generated 283,646 credit hours during the 2006-2007 scholastic year without including summer school. For the sake of simplicity in this example, let's assume the exact number was 300,000. The additional $10 fee per credit hour would raise roughly 3 million dollars a year to help fund football and any additional sports needed to help satisfy Title IX. It may not be enough, but it is a very strong start and would keep WSU out of the proverbial black hole it so desperately never wants to see again. For more information, check out the following link. http://www.meangreensports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=1800&ATCLID=1606591

Title IX and Shocker Football...Part I

One of the greatest perceived roadblocks to the return of Wichita State football is Title IX. Lately, there has been a lot of misinformation in regards to this issue so hopefully this blog can be used to better inform Shocker nation. First off, Title IX has nothing to do with the NCAA. It is a federally mandated law that was enacted in 1972. Where the NCAA comes in to the discussion for our purposes is the limits placed on scholarships for a particular sport. With that said, an in depth look at this subject is something that elicits tears of boredom to all but the most die hard of collegiate sports fans and the retired lawyer. For this blog I will try and present the information that pertains to the return of Wichita State football in the clearest fashion possible. However, before I get to the crux of the central issue, it is important to understand how Title IX basically functions. Below is a list of guidelines on how to comply with this law.

1)Meet interests and abilities of the under-represented sex.

Sounds pretty straight forward, yes? Well, read on. In order to determine how this will be met, one must look at the "3 prong test" that the Carter administration implemented in 1979 and last updated in 2005. This is the most crucial part of Title IX in regards to WSU fielding a football team again. In part two of this write up I will address this issue farther. Only one of the below must be met to satisfy part one....

Prong One:
"Provide participation opportunities for women and men that are substantially proportionate to their respective rates of enrollment as full-time undergraduate students."

Prong Two:
"Demonstrate a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex."

Prong Three:
"Fully and effectively accommodate the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex."

2)Female and male student-athletes must receive athletics scholarship dollars proportional to their unduplicated participation.

For the purposes of Title IX, unduplicated participation is basically referring to the student athletes who play at least one sport (a student can't be counted twice). Note that it says "participation." For instance, a typical NCAA female rowing team will have roughly 80 participants in a sport that has a cap of 20 scholarships. Much like Baseball, the scholarship equivalency of 20 students is spread among those that are participants if they are deemed worthy of a partial scholarship.

3)Equal treatment of female and male student-athletes in the areas known as the "laundry" list.

This aspect of Title IX is fairly straight forward. If the male athletes get new towels, shoes etc. so should the women. It is pretty tough to argue with this as it makes sense from so many angles. In addition, this can also be expanded into areas such as locker rooms, travel and accommodations. The men's basketball team can't stay in a 5 star hotel while the women's team is forced to go 4 deep in a flee bag motel.

Title IX and Shocker Football Part...2

As discussed earlier, Title IX is kind of a mess. Lets look at it like this. Lets say that you have 1000 students attending institution A. 60% of those students are female while 40% are male. If you elect to abide by prong 1 then 60% of your unduplicated participating athletes should be female while 40% should be male. In order to be in compliance with part two of Title IX your scholarship proportions should be in line with your participating unduplicated student athletes. For school A, that would mean that 60% of their athletic scholarships would go to females while 40% would go to males.

What about prong 2? This is where the loopholes begin. Lets say that school A really wants to be in compliance with Prong 1 but just can't afford to yet as they have recently added football. Under this prong, as long as school A is making progress towards being compliant by adding women's scholarships and participation opportunities they are good to go regardless of the percentages. Obviously there is an end game to this as eventually School A must reach its goal or it will fail to be compliant.

Have I lost everyone yet? If not, here is how prong 3 works. Lets say that School A still has a gender ratio of 60% female to 40% male. Trying to balance out those numbers would be tough even at a Big Ten university. So what to do? Under prong 3 School A must ensure that the interest and abilities of the underrepresented sex be accommodated. In order to find out this information, School A will then conduct a survey with the underrepresented sex. However, when Title IX refers to the underrepresented sex it is referring to the sex that is the most underrepresented athletically nation wide which has always been female. In school A's case, this would be the 60% female population.
The department of education has put together a PDF on how this survey should take place. Interestingly, this survey places the burden on the female student population to indicate what athletic opportunities are not currently being met. There are a variety of exceptions to this as the sport must be of interest in the geographic location (no women's hockey). The most notable of Prong 3 is that the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education has made it very clear that Prong 3 is equally valid and offers the same compliance as the first two prongs. For further reading here is the PDF. http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/title9guidanceadditional.pdf

CONCLUSIONS
It is clear that WSU is not required to award scholarships in an even straight forward fashion between men and women. It goes much deeper than that. In part 3 I will examine where Wichita State is in regards to Title IX and list some schools that achieve compliance through prong 3 of this act.

We shouldn't play football because it will hurt basketball?

One of the prevailing arguments commonly heard about why football should not be brought back is that it will hurt men's basketball. To help displace this notion consider the following. From 1964-1986 Wichita State qualified for 5 NCAA tournaments and played some of its best basketball in the history of the University. In comparison, from 1986-2008 (the same 22 year time period), the Shox have played in only 3 NCAA tournaments and fans were forced to endure a decade of terrible basketball. Furthermore, only one of those appearances came after 1988. Clearly, not having football hasn't helped the basketball team. I'm not saying I'm just saying....

Below is a list of Valley teams that field an FCS Football squad along with a list of their corresponding NCAA basketball success.

NCAA APPEARANCES SINCE 1986

Indiana State: 2
Wichita State: 3
Northern Iowa: 4
Illinois State: 4
Missouri State: 6
Southern Illinois: 9

Panel to discuss Shocker Football on KGSO

Shocker fans that are interested in the history and future of shocker football should tune into KGSO this Saturday (10/11) at 9:00 Am. A roundtable discussion will be taking place on the air about the return of shocker football. In addition, several players from the 1970 team will be there to publically discuss the tragic plane accident and their opinions on the future of football at WSU. The show is set to run from 9:00-11:00 and will be very fluid as a variety of guest will be on the radio. Behind the scenes, this time will be used as an inital meeting for all parties interested in bringing back shocker football. Fans, alumni and students that want to take part in this movement are welcome to attend the meeting.

My thoughts about 1970

For Shocker nation, the number stands at 28. To an outsider, that plane crash in Colorado not only took the lives of 31, but it also brought about the end of the football program. To a man, the team of 1970 will tell you that is not true. Those who watched the Arkansas game 22 days later will tell you it is not true. Wichita State football was suspended in 1986 due to the poor leadership of President Armstrong and Athletic Director Lew Perkins. It had nothing to do with that fateful day in 1970.

The central theme in the efforts of Brad Justice and his team at bringbackshockerfootball.com is that football should be reinstated and the team of 1970 should not be forgotten. We believe that football should be brought back in SPITE of what happened 38 years ago, not because of it. The goal of this movement is not to trivialize or commercialize the accident, and we implore you to remember that as we move forward.

When the football Shockers return, imagine them gathered in the locker room and preparing to take the field. On their way out, each player touches a bronze sculpture in the shape and design of a 1970's era shocker football helmet. However, this tradition is not for luck. It is to remind each player that football is only a small part of life. It is for the friends, the life experiences and the future that one plays for. It serves as a reminder to enjoy every minute they get to play football at Cessna Stadium. The legacy of the 1970 team is not tragedy, it is perseverance, fortitude and the lasting definition of what being a teamate truly means.

Tuition fees at area schools

After writing about the schools that are in various stages of adding football, I thought I would take a look to see how Wichita State compares with area schools in regards to student fees. After doing some research it has become obvious that student fees do not tell the whole story as some institutions charge more per credit hour in order to have lower fees. The best way to compare is to take the overall tuition with fees and divide by 14 hours to see what they are really charging per hour. I have added all numbers for comparison.

Wichita State

• Fees: $427
• Tuition hour: $138.15
• Tuition hours with fees: $168.65

Kansas University

• Fees: $846.70
• Tuition hour: $229.25
• Tuition hours with fees: $289.72

Kansas State

• Fees: $337
• Tuition hour: $198.47
• Tuition hours with fees: $222.54

Missouri State:

• Fees: $338
• Tuition hour: $186
• Tuition hour with fees: $210.14

University of Northern Iowa

• Fees: $426
• Tuition hour: $197
• Tuition hour with fees: $227.42

Southern Illionois:

• Fees: $1419.05
• Tuition hour: $232.50
• Tuition hour with fees: $333.86

Oklahoma State:

• Fees: $1374.80
• Tuition hour: $131.35
• Tuition hour with fees: $ 229.55

Oklahoma

• Fees: $1815
• Tuition hour: $117.90
• Tuition hour with fees: $247.54

Nebraska

• Fees: $565.60
• Tuition hour: $179.75
• Tuition hour with fees: $220.15

Missouri

• Fees: $519.57
• Tuition hour: $245.60
• Tuition hour with fees: $282.71

Out of this group Wichita State has the lowest cost of attendance at $168.60 per credit hour with fees adjusted in. Just for fun, lets say that the Wichita State students voted to add a $150 fee per semester to fund the return of football. If only the full time students payed this fee, it would raise around 4.3 million a year for football. Even with this fee, guess who would have the lowest tuition per hour? Thats right, it would still be Wichita State at $179.36. Football cannot and will not come back to Wichita State without the students help. It would cost students about $10 per hour to bring back shocker football. Considering everything that comes along with having this sport on campus, I would say that is a bargain. However, it is up to the alumni to fan the fire that is Shocker football.

DI SCHOOLS THAT ARE ADDING FOOTBALL PART ONE: Football is coming to campus

Monday, September 29, 2008

There are currently 6 Division I schools that are publicly looking at adding Football to their collegiate sport offerings. On top of that, there are 4 schools that have officially added Football and are preparing for their inaugural seasons. Since we are on the midst of a pledge drive at bringbackshockerfootball.com, I thought it would be interesting to see how much initial up front money these schools are seeking. Below are the list of schools, their official pledge drives and associated student fees.

Lamar: Cardinals Athletics led by Billy Tubbs, will embark on a 5 million dollar campaign to help with the start up cost of football. The students have passed a fee increase in the amount of $8.75 an hour which will garner about 2 million dollars annually. This increase will raise the total cost of attending Lamar by 131.25 or about 4% for a total of $3173.25. This is assuming a student class load of 15 hours. They plan on using the student fees to help offset the debt service of about 11 million dollars in facility improvements.
Lamar student fees with football: $875
Football begins: 2010
Feasibility Study: Coming Soon!

Georgia State: GSU believes that the estimated start up cost will be about 7.8 million for football. This is being secured by student fees and alumni fundraising. GSU's student fees will be raised $85 per semester for a total of $600 which is within $10 of Georgia and Georgia Tech's student fees. Overall it will raise GSU students fees and tuition by about 3% and will garner about 5 million dollars annually.
GSU Student fees with Football: $600
Football begins: 2010
Feasibility Study: http://www.nmnathletics.com/pdf2/53118.pdf?ATCLID=695518&SPSID=53686&SPID=5679&DB_OEM_ID=12700

Old Dominion: ODU's first football game in 69 years will be held in the fall of 2009. Before Football was officially added, ODU alumni were asked to raise 8 million dollars to help with start up cost and the establishment of a football endowment. The alumni succeeded and the students followed by passing a $7 per semester fee increase to help fund the program. This fee will generate about 2 million each year. ODU's on campus football stadium was built in 1936 and was last used for college football in 1940. The stadium is currently undergoinf 24.8 million dollars in upgrades.
ODU Student fees with football: $99
Football begins: 2009
Feasibility Study: Coming soon!

South Alabama: As part of a 75 million dollar campus wide campaign, the university of South Alabama is seeking 1.5 million for new athletic facilities which includes football offices. USA students voted to increase their student fees by $150 which will raise 3.5 million dollars a year. This will raise their overall cost of tuition by 6%.
USA Fees with football: $258
Football begins: 2009
Feasibility Study: Coming soon!

DI SCHOOLS THAT ARE ADDING FOOTBALL PART TWO: Football is up to the alumni

UNC Charlotte: When the official fund drive starts, the alumni will have 6 months to raise 5 million dollars. The main purpose of this drive is to set a fundraising base for a future football stadium. 5000 personal seat licences will be sold at $1000 to achieve this goal. After the initial drive, there will be another campaign to raise 15 million dollars for the actual stadium. The student fee hike estimated to make football a reality is $200. Currently student fees are 888.75 and the total cost of tuition and fees is 2147.25. Funding Football will raise each full time students cost of attendance by 1.4%. Charlotte student fees with Football: $1088.75
Football begins: 2013
Feasibility study: http://charlotte49ers.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/ncch/genrel/auto_pdf/ncch-football-feasibility-narr

University of Texas Arlington: The student body at UTA has voted to increase their student fees by $2 a semester to help fund football. Currently the president has "deferred" a decision on football until 2009.
Feasibility Study: http://www.uta.edu/sportsexpansion/sports_expansion.pdf

University of Texas San Antonio: Students have recently passed a $120 semester fee to help offset the cost of football. UTSA has completed a feasibility study that shows it will take 3 million dollars to start up football. In addition they would like to partner with San Antonio on a 60 million dollar athletic facilty that a variety of UTSA Olympic sports could use. This facility would also include a practice facility and locker rooms for football. Currently the plan is with the University of Texas board of regents and has not been voted on. The Roadrunners will hold their games at the Alamo Dome.
Feasibility Study: http://www.utsa.edu/ucomm/athletics/toc.htm

Winthrop: The President expects start up cost to be around 1.7 million and they will need 16.6 million in capital projects which will include a stadium. There is no official timetable for bringing back football.

Texas A&M Corpus Christi: The islanders completed a feasibility study in January of 2007. This study estimated that start up cost would be around 2.7 million dollars and recommended a 5 million dollar fundraising campaign to begin football. A student fee has not been voted on at this time. The President has put a hold on Football for now as the athletic department was hit with a variety of NCAA infractions in 2008. The rough timetable for football to begin is 2015.
Feasibility report: http://www.goislanders.com/pdf1/59034.pdf?ATCLID=750920&SPID=6601&DB_OEM_ID=14100&SPSID=60120

Kennesaw State: The athletic department has done an internal study on Football at KSU. The study estimates that they would need one Million dollars in start up funds with an additional student fees of around $45. In addition, Kennesaw State is in the midst of a campus wide fundraising campaign that includes 15 million dollars for an on campus football stadium. The original timeline called for KSU to take the field in 2011 but has been pushed back as fundraising continues.
Feasibility Study: http://ksuowls.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/kenn/genrel/auto_pdf/feasibilitystudy

Brad Justice, a Shocker football diehard and founder of bringbackshockerfootball.com, will be on 1410 KGSO tomorrow morning at 7:05 to talk about the groups latest efforts to get Shocker football reinstated. If you miss it, check back here for a podcast of the segment.

A conversation with Jim Schaus

Picture by Matt O'Donnel

I had a phone conversation with Jim Schaus today and it is clear why Wichita State Athletics had such tremendous success during his time here. The man is sharp as a tack. According to Jim, football was not on the burner at WSU until the last two years of his tenure. It was during this time that he began to have discussions with the President about returning football and contrary to popular belief, President Beggs would like to have football back at Wichita State. The catch is that football is not just another sport. Schaus describes football as something that needs to be part of the strategic enrollment plan and has to be something the whole institution is dedicated to making work. Like they say, the devil is in the details and that is where the problem lies. During his stint as the WSU AD, it became apparent to Schaus that President Beggs was not concerned about increasing enrollment at WSU and was fine with the status quo. So if you are not worried about enrollment, why take the risk of adding football to the athletic budget? Say what? The loss of full time traditional students has been well documented at Wichita State by football boosters and it makes one wonder what President Beggs motives are. I have never really bought into the KU conspiracy theory but it does cause one to raise a few eyebrows. Although I have not spoken to President Beggs about this, one can only assume he has the best interest of the university at heart, at least we can hope.

The reason Jim took the job at Ohio has been talked about before and bears no merit in this conversation. However, having football at Ohio was a selling point as it was something he missed. To be fair, Schaus did make it clear that he felt WSU was, and is still viewed as a successful athletic department without football. So the real question remains. Does Jim Schaus believe that WSU can bring back football? The answer is yes, if and only if the entire institution gets behind it. To add football as just another sport would be a disaster for Wichita State and that is something that nobody wants to see.

It's time to come together

Currently, there are three fundraising groups that are attempting to get football at Wichita State reinstated. There is SOS (Support our Shockers), the Black and Golds, and BBSF (Bring Back Shocker Football). Each group has its own strategy to making this happen. However, in the spirit of election season, it is time that all of these groups work together in order to make this common goal come to fruition. The money is there to make this happen and can be tapped into with a concerted effort. The major roadblock seems to be Don Beggs. However, not even Don Beggs will be able to stop Football if the WSU alumni come together and demand it.