What’s weird is if you were operating it like a business? Then you would want some data points to be able to evaluate and justify such a decision. We’ve ignored the data because we’re not operating like a business. What’s even more interesting is a lot of businesses have to pay money to have access to data that helps them make decisions - this data is free and it’s still being ignored.
The objections are somewhat wild to me as well... We've listed in countless threads the number of very prestigious institutions and athletic departments that don't have scholarship football. I use to believe that the argument that it would be career suicide for an AD to come in a banish football - I no longer think that way, not with the amount of better D1 AD jobs that exist.
The objection that it would have such a negative impact on enrollment - so suddenly Indiana State's enrollment problem is an athletic problem or better yet a solution to not making things look worse than they really are? Or is it really that bad - because my understand is you cut football you are going to be forced to add two other men's sports so we will go with low budget sports that we already have Women's team for either Swimming, Golf or Soccer. So you add two of those and suddenly you've cut the loss of enrollment in half - still a net loss but not nearly as bad as they are positioning it.
Last edited:
