It's humorous to me that after dispensing with so many other traditions, anyone is still clinging to the notion that it's important for revenue and non-revenue sports to play a common set of opponents.
It's humorous to me that after dispensing with so many other traditions, anyone is still clinging to the notion that it's important for revenue and non-revenue sports to play a common set of opponents.
You apparently haven't been to many conference championships in those sports. I have...and seen many more on TV. There's a lot of excitement in playing a traditional opponent in any sport.
I attend many more Olympic sports (eg, wrestling, volleyball) than revenue sports, including where they play in separate conferences that result in more sustainable travel and scheduling.
It's very clear at this point that football will not be funding other sports at historical levels in perpetuity, and the sooner the rationalization takes place, the fewer opportunities (scholarships) will ultimately be lost.
When one gets a true accounting of athletic income and total expenditures, it is often the case that not only is academics subsidizing athletics through hidden accounts, but even those who have enough athletic money left over to help academics do so only after spending the maximum possible on their "moneymaker". Just sayin', Charlie
Can not speak for JoeDelaney but at that risk JD would likely agree there is interest in non-revenue sport competition but no particular reason besides a lingering, rapidly dissipating and romantic notion a football conference is also volleyball, track and even basketball conference. Much less all a university's sports teams must be in the same conference.
I think it's silly that casual fans, and not alumni, have the biggest voice. The ability to have a rivalry with the university in your backyard means so much more than one across the nation... It's only casual TV fans that don't understand this
It's humorous to me that after dispensing with so many other traditions, anyone is still clinging to the notion that it's important for revenue and non-revenue sports to play a common set of opponents.
It's just silly.
You apparently haven't been to many conference championships in those sports. I have...and seen many more on TV. There's a lot of excitement in playing a traditional opponent in any sport.
I attend many more Olympic sports (eg, wrestling, volleyball) than revenue sports, including where they play in separate conferences that result in more sustainable travel and scheduling.
It's very clear at this point that football will not be funding other sports at historical levels in perpetuity, and the sooner the rationalization takes place, the fewer opportunities (scholarships) will ultimately be lost.
When one gets a true accounting of athletic income and total expenditures, it is often the case that not only is academics subsidizing athletics through hidden accounts, but even those who have enough athletic money left over to help academics do so only after spending the maximum possible on their "moneymaker". Just sayin', Charlie
Can not speak for JoeDelaney but at that risk JD would likely agree there is interest in non-revenue sport competition but no particular reason besides a lingering, rapidly dissipating and romantic notion a football conference is also volleyball, track and even basketball conference. Much less all a university's sports teams must be in the same conference.
Yeah, the MPSF is a perfect example of a conference that functions well with a far more sustainable model.
I think it's silly that casual fans, and not alumni, have the biggest voice. The ability to have a rivalry with the university in your backyard means so much more than one across the nation... It's only casual TV fans that don't understand this
Well played, Joe. Charlie