Originally Posted by UD62
But it is a sport that the current administration has listed as a sport that has been selected to compete on a national scale. You are correct on Kissell. but that was then.
|
Although
Kissell is gone I'll bet Neil would confirm the meaning of Ted's strategy for UD athletics. When Ted identified M/W BB and soccer and VB as our "Tier 1" sports, so to speak, he meant that those sports would be funded and emphasized so as to be able to compete for national championships. That means expectations for those five include regular participation in the NCAAs against the top Div 1 programs in the country.
In football programs identified like that incl tOSU, ND, et al., not Drake, San Diego etc.
That does not mean that baseball, softball, football, etc., are unimportant. Indeed, we have excellent facilities for essentially all sports. But, the Tier 1 sports are fully supported as regards scholarships, for example, whereas the others mentioned are not.
Ted was the first AD in UD history to map out and implement a strategy for athletics. While he is gone, his successors have followed his blue print.
As regards football, I heard Ted say that the only models that have a "chance" to make any sense financially are the top tier Div 1 (now FBS) level and the non scholarship level (FCS non schollie, Div III). Other models are guaranteed money losers, big time,....a well known fact is that many of the FBS programs lose bundles as well.
To be able to consistently field a FB team that is close competitively to the legacy Ivies for as little as ~$1 million is no small trick. And average attendance of about 3500
in a suitably-sized facility would be a very nice atmospheric, indeed. That same crowd in an 11,000 seat facility is of an atmosphere similar to
Temple playing before 20,000 in 70,000 seat Lincoln Financial Field, for example.
I'm not at all lobbying for a new FB stadium...merely stating the obvious. (Sure would fit nicely on the Fairgrounds property though, wouldn't it?)