Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Talk about all other Rhody teams, from Baseball to Indoor Track.
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by TruePoint »

Rhodysk wrote:URI moving up to Div. 1 (fcs) I don't think is realistic but there should be no excuesses for trying to make the program/stadium/offices good enough for Div1-aa/CAA standards. 6,500+ attendence for a home game after coming after 2 blowout loses is really good. Could you even imagine if they were good? Would 10,000 achievable? Not to out date myself but the very few years they were good not only were both stands full but the "hill" was packed. Yes I know times have changed and people have more options now to not go to games, but winning makes things exciting. Like I said before they said we would never get the Ryan Center built or fill it up. Winning and support cures all! I think the fans have done more than enough of the support part. Where is administration part?
Just to clarify, FBS is what was formerly called D1-A; FCS is what was formerly called D1-AA. URI currently plays in FCS. This seems to confuse people a lot, so just wanted to make sure we are all talking about the same thing.

I wholeheartedly agree that there is no use wasting time talking about URI playing FBS - cannot and will not and should not happen. And I also wholeheartedly agree that there is no excuse for URI not having a highly competitive program at the FCS level - one that can compete for CAA championships. It is an embarrassment for the school and the athletic department, and the administration needs to figure out a way to commit the resources, which honestly should not be a drastic endeavor for a flagship state university.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
Rhodysk
ARD
Posts: 541
Joined: 9 years ago
x 286

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by Rhodysk »

Thanks truepoint I was getting ahead of myself.
0 x
BFC
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1970
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by BFC »

TruePoint wrote:I think hubris clouded the decision making processes at UMass and UConn. Just because they concluded that FCS football wasn't a worthwhile investment for them doesn't mean they were right (at least in UMass's case; for UConn at least we can say the jury is still out). It is the appropriate level for us to play at considering the size of our school, the talent pool in our recruiting region and the level of interest in college football in our area. If we made a modest investment to get a quality team on the field then there would be a level of interest sufficient enough to sustain a competitive program.
UMass had a successful 1-AA football program on the field and therefore had data on the effects of that program on revenue, attendance, donations, admissions, etc. URI does not have a successful program on the field and it seems to me alot of assumptions get stated as facts.

Truthfully, if there really was a movement to fund football competitively and upgrade the facilities, I would probably be for it (although I would still have my doubts about the benefits of this level of football). But as far as I can tell, there's no movement, no political will, no push from power players, no talk of it anywhere really. We're just waiting for a miracle.
0 x
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by TruePoint »

FCS football probably wasn't a cash cow for UMass, but do you think their bottom line is better off now than it was before they made the jump? There is a difference between running a football program at a deficit and actively lighting stacks of $100 bills on fire. Similarly, I think that running a program on the cheap the way URI has done it isn't profitable either, so if you're going to lose money in the deal why not at least try to squeeze something (like a decent football team that the university community can support) out of it? I would bet that a one-time investment to upgrade the program's infrastructure would help the program inch closer to the black on a yearly basis because a more competitive team playing in a more inviting stadium will increase attendance and support.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6501

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

ramster wrote:I love URI Basketball and I am thrilled that Dan Hurley is moving this team back to the levels of the Jim Harrick days but I have a deep fear that URI without Football at all would be worse overall for the Basketball Team. Most think that money makes the Basketball Team great. You can't pay the players so the scholarships are set. You can only pay the Coaches. I think life at URI without Saturday afternoon Football Games would be very dull. I was at the last home game and had a wonderful time. Win or lose does not make or break my Saturday afternoon experience with friends and family at the football games. Those who want football gone dont go to the games would be my guess - probably never did.

I would not go FBS at this point. That ship has sailed - UCONN and UMASS got the last two ships in the harbour. It's too late for URI now for FBS - but URI could have beaten UCONN and UMASS to the idea - but URI didn't.
I would still keep in FCS versus going NEC or no Football at all.
How would losing the football team hurt basketball? I'm actually curious about this, because I don't see where the two are linked.

How could you have had a wonderful time on Saturday? The team got killed and it was so bad fans were walking out starting in the third quarter. You say that people who want football gone don't go to games. I have season tickets. I'd prefer that the program is fixed, but I'm tired of seeing my favorite school get killed and I don't see any money or political will to do what's necessary to fix the program. I say anyone that says they had a good time on Saturday was either an Albany fan or not a real fan of the football team. You don't have fun when your favorite team gets killed.

Also I'm confused by your statement, "I would still keep in FCS versus going NEC or no football at all." You do know the NEC is in the FCS, right? And that the NEC champion gets an automatic spot in the FCS playoff just like the CAA champion gets?
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
BFC
Cuttino Mobley
Posts: 1970
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by BFC »

TruePoint wrote:FCS football probably wasn't a cash cow for UMass, but do you think their bottom line is better off now than it was before they made the jump? There is a difference between running a football program at a deficit and actively lighting stacks of $100 bills on fire. Similarly, I think that running a program on the cheap the way URI has done it isn't profitable either, so if you're going to lose money in the deal why not at least try to squeeze something (like a decent football team that the university community can support) out of it? I would bet that a one-time investment to upgrade the program's infrastructure would help the program inch closer to the black on a yearly basis because a more competitive team playing in a more inviting stadium will increase attendance and support.
I don't think UMass made their decision based on making money on football, which is very rare for any program outside the BCS. I think they made their decision based on the indirect value of a football program (better applicants, alumni relations, brand recognition, etc.) I don't know if they've seen a boost in those areas and like you, I doubt they'll ever see a boost to warrant the investment but that doesn't mean they were wrong in deciding the returns at the FCS level were too small in relation to the cost.
0 x
User avatar
ATPTourFan
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12094
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 4789
Contact:

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by ATPTourFan »

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.

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.

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.
0 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by TruePoint »

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.
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
Ramulous
Carlton Owens
Posts: 3470
Joined: 11 years ago
x 1733

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by Ramulous »

UMass saw the potential of aligning with the football schools of the big east when the crash happened before their hope could be put into reality.

Had the big east stayed together and needed schools they would have tried to be in that mix.......Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, and West Virginia leaving really hurt their fantasy of joining up with them, UConn, Temple, and the other football playing schools of the big east.....

....I think their only hope of being profitable is to try to align with the American Ath Conference......so long as UConn is still there.....

.....and then they must hope for the expansion of the NCAA football championship from 4 teams to 16 teams with each football conference getting their champion into the tournament....8 or 9 automatic qualifiers and 7 or 8 at large teams.....
0 x
F*ck Alacki, DarthFriar, DirtyBeanFriar94, xCoachK, Boxworth, Friar Faithful, bicycleicycle, Matt_Keough, Patrick Norton, the Rosato brothers, and especially Benjamin Lord !
User avatar
TruePoint
Frank Keaney
Posts: 13851
Joined: 11 years ago
x 11427

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by TruePoint »

That is a lot of unlikely events that would have to break their way just to not have their football move be a complete failure. And even then, college football will never be as popular here as it is in the south, and there realistically is not a player pool in new england to sustain 3 major football programs (or in the northeast to sustain 6 or 7 of them).
0 x
"If you build it, they will come." --Us, circa 2011
User avatar
RhowdyRam02
Frank Keaney
Posts: 10234
Joined: 11 years ago
x 6501

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by RhowdyRam02 »

One thing I've brought up in a lot of places is we need $20-30 million to upgrade Meade Stadium to become an average CAA venue. But the stadium situation might be even more dire than just being the worst facility in the league. The East stands were condemned after the 2009 season. How much work was done to allow them to be occupied again? What is the realistic life expectancy of the East stands as they are now? How much will it cost to keep them open? And what happens if God forbid something happens in those stands during a football game? When I was there on Saturday I was sitting near one of the top entrance stair cases and there was significant give in the floors with people walking by. It certainly wasn't a safe feeling.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
User avatar
ATPTourFan
Frank Keaney
Posts: 12094
Joined: 11 years ago
Location: Wakefield, RI
x 4789
Contact:

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by ATPTourFan »

Which is why I sit in the West bench seats.
0 x
Support Coach Miller & Rhody Basketball! Give to the Athletic Director's Fund
Ramblinrose
Art Stephenson
Posts: 997
Joined: 11 years ago

Re: Football Game #3: vs Albany (Home Opener)

Unread post by Ramblinrose »

UCONN at the time had the advantage of entering a then-decent Big East. It also had major successin two hoops programs. UMASS had none of that. Students don't go to Foxboro for games. They seldom went before.
Anyone who thinks URI will move up is in a dream world. We're losing players to Bryant.
0 x
Post Reply