Here's the deal with non-scholarship football.
The Atlantic Sun has six private universities and six public.
The way the non-scholarship football works is that it is generally, from a business standpoint, you have a private college that has a disproportionate female-to-male ratio of students and charges a lot of money for tuition.
So, you get players who want to play football but aren't good enough for an athletic scholarship.
So in a case like Davidson, which charges $41,000 a year, if they have 100 players they now have, roughly, $4 million coming into their university they wouldn't otherwise have.
I don't know what ETSU tuition is but I know it's not $41,000. Let's say it's an eighth of that.
Now you're only raising $500,000 a year for a football program.
The two A-Sun schools that have it are Jacksonville and Campbell- both private.
Point is- I could see the private schools doing it and the public ones passing, or, depending on the bylaws, the public schools voting the project down.
I noticed that Austin Peay had gone to non-schlorarship ball and kind of used it as a bridge to bring back regular football and it worked. In that sense I would be in favor of it at ETSU from the standpoint of my limited knowledge. But I would only want it if it was done to bring back football the right way. The goal should be to bring back scholarship football just like all of our peer schools in Tennessee.
Non scholarship football is crap, but I suppose it's better than nothing. I'm hopeful that if we brought it back in that form, that eventually it would take us to scholarship football. But I'm just not sure that would happen, especially with our bozos at the helm.
Heres another thought. If they bring back football in non-scholarship form, are they still planning on building a new stadium? Because with non-scholarship football and the attendance that it draws, we could probably still just play in the dome.
I would think you could get away with playing at Roosevelt Memorial Stadium.
I'm not saying they should. I am saying that I have seen Jacksonville's facilities, and they do not have locker rooms or anything.
In fact, I will post a picture of their stadium and lack of facilities if someone here can tell me how to upload pictures.
I have a question that I am not really sure about. Is nonscholarship football equivalent to Division lll? I have always thought that it was but am not sure now. Fan1 is right about the Dome. If there are going to be tiny crowds then they could very well play in there.
In a perfect world, we get scholarship I-AA or I-A football. I would hope that if non-scholarship football is started that it is just a means to an end. Honestly, I don't know if this gets us closer to or farther from scholarship football
D3 is a division where no athletic scholarships are granted in any sport. Division I non-scholarship plays in a sub-division of the Playoff Championship Series or whatever it's called now. They can actually make the play-offs if I remember correctly. Off the top of my head there's the Patriot League and the Pioneer League. I'm not sure if the MAAC exists any longer. I'm not sure if there are others. If you look at the geographic distribution of those schools in the Pioneer, it's laughable.
The school's like Davidson, Butler, Georgetown (I still choke when I think about a school with the profile that they have with non-scholarship football) use it to their advantage. So good for them but we have 14,000 freaking students! We are located in an area that can support a Division I scholarship if the President would just wake UP!
Didn't Austin Peay say how non-scholarship football had diminished their overall reputation and still cost a bundle to produce... and you get basically nothing but kids who are willing to pay to play. You get no NCAA incentives, no guarentee games, no crowd and very little alumni support.
You don't see any 14,000 student schools talking about non-scholarship football, those school's are phasing in football in various ways but it's a PHASE IN. If I'm hearing correctly, Campbell is actually looking at also phasing in scholarships and looking at the Big South. Bottom line... it's small thinking by small school's with small minds. It's not good enough. We can do better.
I just read Brian Smith’s April 1, 2008 article (ETSU Is Assessing Its Athletics Future).
Why am I not surprised that Jason Mumpower says he only received 10 negative responses to the Senate resolution.
And these came from ETSU facility members!
Thanks for the info Bowdown, as I did not know the details about non-scholly football and that it was different from Division 3. I know now that we should pursue the total package and get back to scholarship football like Austin Peay, Tenn Tech, Tenn State.....
By the way, stanton saying he'd like to be like Davidson was interesting when Memphis was on a direct path to the National Championship, more small thinking IMHO. Memphis is our actual PEER academically and in the scope of our mission but stanton still would like to have the "run" that Davidson is making versus the foundation that Memphis has laid to reach the NC without killing football to do it.
Go Memphis.
That may be the post of the year, Bow.
Didn't Austin Peay say how non-scholarship football had diminished their overall reputation...
How could their reputation have sunk any lower? 
If I'm hearing correctly, Campbell is actually looking at also phasing in scholarships and looking at the Big South.
What is your source? Anyone from the CU athletic dept?
Bowdown,
don't think for a second that D3's and non-scholly's don't get money to come to school to play a sport, it's just called something else. "Academic scholarships," need based financial aid programs, minority scholarships, or whatever, division three and non-scholarship football programs find ways to get money for their athletes.
Again, and for the umpteenth time, there are minimal/no marginal costs associated with awarding a scholarship (athletic or academic).
Yes,
Having heard that term umpteenth times over my lifetime, I decided to check on its authenticity:
ump·teen (mptn, m-)
adj. Informal
Relatively large but unspecified in number: umpteen reasons; umpteen guests.
Yes, it's an actual word. Good job, Doc! Keep educating us. It's never too late to learn.
Okay doctor, so awarding a scholarship doesn't cost money? What about the seat that free person takes from a paying student who instead spends his/her money at a community college because he/she can't get a seat in a class they need? What about the free food that a scholarship person gets on their meal plan, or their use of the university resources, water, cable, computers, electricity? Those things aren't free, or have you forgotten that ETSU actually SHUTDOWN a few summers back because of the budget issues in the state legislature (they got their electricity cut off because they couldn't pay the bill). Also, with that scholarship student, what about the actual classroom resources they use? The frog they dissect, the lamps they burn on powerpoints, and as far as athletes go, we won't even get started on the travel costs, especially in the conference we're in now. The Marriott, nor the Holiday Inn last time I checked doesn't give student athletes free rooms while they're on the road, hotels cost money. One of the few things I learned in Dr. Hipple's Econ classes was that nothing is free or comes at no cost. SOMEBODY is paying for it, someway, somehow, whether it be on the students' backs, through private giving, or state funding, and where does state funding come from?
Scholarships, while providing a great reward for hard work at the high school level (except at most of the high schools in the tri-cities where showing up gets you a 3.0), comes at a cost.
He's a feisty one today, that lover!
I'd like to hear BucDoctor's response, I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think non-scholarship athletes would push anybody out the door at ETSU, since they are continually bragging "our enrollment is higher than ever!"
Okay doctor, so awarding a scholarship doesn't cost money? What about the seat that free person takes from a paying student who instead spends his/her money at a community college because he/she can't get a seat in a class they need? What about the free food that a scholarship person gets on their meal plan, or their use of the university resources, water, cable, computers, electricity? Those things aren't free, or have you forgotten that ETSU actually SHUTDOWN a few summers back because of the budget issues in the state legislature (they got their electricity cut off because they couldn't pay the bill). Also, with that scholarship student, what about the actual classroom resources they use? The frog they dissect, the lamps they burn on powerpoints, and as far as athletes go, we won't even get started on the travel costs, especially in the conference we're in now. The Marriott, nor the Holiday Inn last time I checked doesn't give student athletes free rooms while they're on the road, hotels cost money. One of the few things I learned in Dr. Hipple's Econ classes was that nothing is free or comes at no cost. SOMEBODY is paying for it, someway, somehow, whether it be on the students' backs, through private giving, or state funding, and where does state funding come from?
Scholarships, while providing a great reward for hard work at the high school level (except at most of the high schools in the tri-cities where showing up gets you a 3.0), comes at a cost.
Apparently you were absent the day Hipple covered the concept of marginal costs.
The comment was about "scholarship costs". Again there is little to no marginal cost of a scholarship.
Just because there is one less student in a class, there are no professors that lose jobs. So no money is saved. Were there any professors that were laid off as a result of dropping football? No. The frog that is dissected argument does have some merrit, but it is an insignficant amount in the argument of scholarships costing something, the classroom resources used are really such a small amount that it isn't worth talking about.
Now, travel is different, and is not a "scholarship" expense it is the overhead of the decision to have or not to have a particular program (academic or co-curricular).
What any university saves as a result of cutting any co-curricular program is the overhead costs associated with the program (sponsors/coaches salaries, travel, game day expenses, etc. ). There are very little savings associated with scholarships.
But, what is better ultimately, having a student going there for free, or paying? At the athletic level, shoot yea get some non-scholarship athletes in, especially if they can play, but still, I can't think of a single university that wants to lose potential money from a student being in that seat, and while a professor may not be laid off for it, the cuts could come somewhere else. The bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch, and when you're talking about thousands of dollars towards an education that a student isn't paying for, that's alot of money, especially if it's an out of state student.
If it wasn't a big deal then most of the professors wouldn't care that students are going to Northeast for two years then coming over, and the number of students going that route is continuing to grow. Simply, why pay more money for the same education, even if you can get into that class? I'm glad that scholarships exist, both based on academic and athletic merit, but the cost of a scholarship is more than marginal, maybe it doesn't show up on ETSU's accounting sheets, but there's certainly a reason that the rate of growth at not just Redneck Tech, but Va. Highlands and other C.C.'s is much faster than ETSU's.
But, what is better ultimately, having a student going there for free, or paying? At the athletic level, shoot yea get some non-scholarship athletes in, especially if they can play, but still, I can't think of a single university that wants to lose potential money from a student being in that seat, and while a professor may not be laid off for it, the cuts could come somewhere else. If it wasn't a big deal then most of the professors wouldn't care that students are going to Northeast for two years then coming over, and the number of students going that route is continuing to grow. Simply, why pay more money for the same education, even if you can get into that class? I'm glad that scholarships exist, both based on academic and athletic merit, but the cost of a scholarship is more than marginal, maybe it doesn't show up on ETSU's accounting sheets, but there's certainly a reason that the rate of growth at not just Redneck Tech, but Va. Highlands and other C.C.'s is much faster than ETSU's.
I'm not sure I can teach a course in microeconomics on this board. Lover if you don't understand the concept of marginal analysis in business, then I could probably post until my fingers are numb and you wouldn't get it.
"The bottom line is there's no such thing as a free lunch, and when you're talking about thousands of dollars towards an education that a student isn't paying for, that's alot of money, especially if it's an out of state student."
"what is better ultimately, having a student going there for free, or paying?"
Lover if there isn't a reason for that student to come to ETSU and in the converstation we are having i.e. football, then there is no loss in revenue. The FORMER/POTENTIAL FOOTBALL PLAYER isn't enrolling at ETSU, they are going somewhere else on scholarship, no loss of revenue, end of discussion. (And by the way you are mixing the concepts of marginal revenue and marginal costs, this is marginal revenue)
"If it wasn't a big deal then most of the professors wouldn't care that students are going to Northeast for two years then coming over, and the number of students going that route is continuing to grow."
Apples and oranges, this student is going to Northeast State and BUYING the same product that ETSU sells. This concept has absolutely no relevance to the topic under discussion.
Again, I just hate it, absolutely hate it, when facts get in the way of opinion. As I have stated there is little to no marginal costs from a scholarship.
You can slice it, you can dice it, you can julliene it, but the facts are still the same.
Alright then, let's say we have a football team back, scholarship football, full blown Playoff subdivision of whatever it's called. 63 full scholarships spread over roughly 80-90 student athletes, plus the scholarships for the G.A's that it takes to run a football program, money for the student managers, the coaches' kids, etc... I'm not talking about marginal cost or marginal revenue, I'm talking that it's DAMN EXPENSIVE to go to college and when there were professors afraid that they were going to lose their job over an athlete that may or may not have graduated that's ridiculous. That being said, things should have NEVER gotten as bad as they were and still are at ETSU.
I do want to throw out this personal example, at ETSU, there are certain courses in the Communications department that the regular student has a VERY hard time getting into, yet magically scholarship athletes are not held to the same waiting list, so in those cases they've been going to Northeast. Now in that department, money is tight, just go look at the TV studio in Warf-Pickel Hall, they are using lighting grids and cameras that should be in museums, not still in use. Whether it's football, or whatever, everytime a paying student has to take their money somewhere else to get a class, ETSU loses. They lose in grants, they lose in state money, you can give all the microeconomic lessons you want, but I can promise you if you ask the money men at ETSU, they don't want ANYONE FOR ANY REASON taking their cash elsewhere. And all this being said, it's crap that in a 14000 student university this would even be an issue, but there are some REALLY MESSED UP PRIORITIES. 540,000 dollars for a concert, however much it was for that awful clock tower (yes I know it's private money but it could have been used for something else). There's just alot of waste at ETSU, and a few tweaks here and there would not only solve our athletic dilemna, but actually help foster some real growth at the university.
That's the whole point. This university is being mislead, by people who don't understand what it means to be a participant on the national college "stage." While there may be an unusual instance of a scholarship athlete keeping a paying student out of a certain class, it's easy to see that a football player who is no longer on campus, no longer spending money at the book store or cafeteria, not bringing other friends from high school to ETSU with them has a much larger negative effect on the university's bottom line.
Dr. Larimore's presentation a few years ago discussed this in detail. 63 scholarship players bring way more to the school than the cost of their scholarship. You just have to be able to get your face out of the tree to see the whole forest, which is what our leadership can't do.
That athlete isn't spending money at the bookstore or cafeteria, his/her books are paid for, they get all the ETSU grip they need through the sport they play, and their food is paid for at Main Meal (or whatever it's called now). You do have a valid point about athletes not bringing friends with them, which is EXACTLY what band kids do. We as a society like to pick on the little band geeks, especially clarinet players, so they travel in packs.
And yes, those 63 scholarships can bring alot to the table, but not when the attendance is in the tank and the administration won't do anything to upgrade the program, or change the perception of the program. The fact is the private giving wasn't coming in before football was dropped, it's just gotten from worse to awful since football was dropped.