Staying Close to the Vest - Ex Coach Groce-related News and Views

[LZIp]

36 minutes ago, VAZip said:

I not sure anyone is attacking football but you have to look at the numbers and football is the lions share.  Looks like chart doesn’t include facilities cost to maintain the sport. Maybe no one cares about the other sports, but honestly, do you think anyone would care if UA didn’t have a football team.

 

From quick back of the napkin math based on google search results, the 6 home football games drew more total attendance than all of the home basketball games this past season , so I would think a lot of people would care.

Edited 1 hour ago by LZIp

[VAZip]

14 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

To be fair Infocision is a sunk cost. Eliminating the sport doesn't make the debt financing for it go away. It's not like we could sell it to a third party to eliminate the financial burden.

 

Edit: For me it's more the revenue share/NIL that has me discouraged about the football program. Forget competing against the P4. I'm not sure how we can compete financially against Miami (OH), Toledo, WMU, etc. They have a lot more money to throw at football compared to us.

And if you can’t compete and attract increased enrollment..what good is it? All these costs come back to the students attending the university and it’s out of control. At least one gubernatorial candidate has mentioned school consolidation to control cost….anybody ready for the Akron Kent Zips

[kreed5120]

7 minutes ago, VAZip said:

And if you can’t compete and attract increased enrollment..what good is it? All these costs come back to the students attending the university and it’s out of control. At least one gubernatorial candidate has mentioned school consolidation to control cost….anybody ready for the Akron Kent Zips

That's fine, I already previously stated I'm open to the idea. I would want a more informed opinion before feeling strongly one way or the other.

 

It's more that if you want to present the numbers you should only factor in the expenses that would be saved by eliminating the sport. If an expense would still remain then it wouldn't be a savings. You would also need to factor in revenue lost and the delta of additional travel costs of moving all our sports to another conference.

[UAZipster0305]

36 minutes ago, kreed5120 said:

To be fair Infocision is a sunk cost. Eliminating the sport doesn't make the debt financing for it go away. It's not like we could sell it to a third party to eliminate the financial burden.

 

Edit: For me it's more the revenue share/NIL that has me discouraged about the football program. Forget competing against the P4. I'm not sure how we can compete financially against Miami (OH), Toledo, WMU, etc. They have a lot more money to throw at football compared to us.

And this is exactly the sunk cost fallacy. We've already invested so much, so let's continue risking and losing more in the future. Even with the stadium, continuation of the football program is difficult to justify right now, and as you said, competing even amongst our peers is looking increasingly bleak. It's time for administration to seriously consider making the very difficult decision, even if it compromises us staying in the MAC. Besides, I think if one MAC school abandons football, a handful of others could follow.

[Illini Zip]

2 hours ago, ZipsBBjunkie said:

Assume more quotes will be coming timed with the intro today. Nothing from Rique? 

John Fanta called Akron a monster. Did you hear that Zippy? You are to be feared.

[kreed5120]

7 minutes ago, UAZipster0305 said:

And this is exactly the sunk cost fallacy. We've already invested so much, so let's continue risking and losing more in the future. Even with the stadium, continuation of the football program is difficult to justify right now, and as you said, competing even amongst our peers is looking increasingly bleak. It's time for administration to seriously consider making the very difficult decision, even if it compromises us staying in the MAC. Besides, I think if one MAC school abandons football, a handful of others could follow.

It's not a sunk cost fallacy because I'm not saying we have to keep the sport because of the stadium. I'm pointing out eliminating the sport doesn't eliminate the annual expense for the stadium. 

 

All I'm asking for is an analysis that would detail the expenses saved from the elimination of the sport vs the revenue lost. That's called making an informed decision.

Edited 1 hour ago by kreed5120