ATPTourFan wrote:A few quick points.
To the extent we can blame the administration for not getting a successful referendum on the RI ballots to pay for facilities (like RIC and CCRI seem to get every other year), OK, let's blame them. But the truth is URI is having to do this without ANY state support which likely puts it in a party of one for states with D1 football at their flagship university.
Kind of agree. Where I completely agree with you is on the point that the university is woefully undersupported by its state government. My frustration over that point is well documented here. It is a complete embarrassment. Where I may have a little bit of a disagreement with you is in giving the administration(s) a pass based on that. The situation has been the same for decades now; what was the long-term plan to work around the lack of support? I don't expect the athletic department, or even the university at large, to make water out of wine, but I'm also a believer in "where there is a will, there's a way." Anyone that cares at all about URI should NEVER stop bitching about the lack of support the school gets. That is something that should be addressed, and we shouldn't shut up about it until it is. But we also shouldn't allow ourselves to use the lack of state support as an excuse. Creative and determined people get results.
ATPTourFan wrote:Second, PLEASE can we stop using the words profit, cash cow, etc in this discussion. Most of the FBS (level above us) teams LOSE significant money. Pretty certain ALL FCS programs lose money and lose a lot. The goal isn't to be solvent, but rather to limit the net expense of the program while reaping other soft rewards for the University.
I guess I am guilty of using one of those buzz words, but I did it in the context of specifically saying that football
is not and
will not be a cash cow. So we are in agreement there. You are correct that all but the truly elite, blue-blooded football programs operate in the red. My point is, in light of that fact, there is no reason to dump a ridiculous amount of money into football as UMass did, but if football is going to generate losses you might as well try to make it a loss leader and get something out of it. Spending the minimum amount of money it takes to field a team only to get your head kicked in 10 times a year makes no sense. For a marginally larger investment you can actually get a team that is somewhat competitive.
ATPTourFan wrote:6500 was a great turnout for a Sunny September Saturday. The alumni and student experience has gotten much better, but on-field performance in the first three games under the new coaching staff endeavoring upon a full rebuild has not... yet.
If the alumni and students can hang in there, I think the coach can get some results. We have to give him longer than 3 weeks to turn this program around - it has been bad for 30 years. It would be a big accomplishment to turn this into a respectable program given the current state of affairs, though. To be truly competitive the school is going to have to figure out a way to make an investment in the infrastructure.