So far, the majority of responses (both on-list and private) to my
original message have expressed agreement that it is time to eliminate
football at UTC.  I'll respond to a couple of posts that were not in
agreement.

By the way, thanks to everyone who responded, whether or not you agree
with me.  This is a subject that needs to be discussed on our campus ...
and now rather than later!

Jonathan Looney wrote:
> Well, I'll play devil's advocate and disagree. If we dropped football, we
> would (just like ETSU) be booted out of the Southern Conference, which
> would have a negative impact on ALL OTHER sports and the student athletes
> that participate in those other sports.

Not necessarily on either count.  We might or might not get evicted from
the SoCon, and that might or might not have a negative effect on other
sports.  Conferences realign, and teams change conferences, all the
time.  In general that is a good thing, as the direction of different
programs changes over time and conferences evolve to reflect the
emphases of their members at any given time.

> The only other conference that
> would take ETSU is the Atlantic Sun conference, which is where UTC would
> have to try to join as well.

Again, I'm not sure where you are getting your information.  Why would
no other conference consider us?  The quality of our basketball teams,
not to mention softball and other sports, would make us a much better
"catch" than ETSU.  Any of several conferences might want us.  For that
matter, why should we have to join a conference?  There are some
successful independent teams out there.  When I was an undergrad at
Southern Mississippi we were I-A independents and went to bowl games in
football just about every year.  We were pretty decent at basketball and
baseball, too, and never seemed to have much difficulty filling out a
schedule in any sport.  (For that matter, Conference USA -- where USM is
now -- wouldn't be too bad of a fit.)

> Ask coaches Wes Moore and John Shulman how much fun it would be to
> recruit student-athletes to a team in a conference that can't earn a bid to
> the NCAA tournament. Wouldn't it have been great for the Lady Mocs to have
> gone 29-3, and have to hope for an at-large bid from the NCAA tournament
> committee?  There is already grumbling among some ETSU basketball players
> that they will leave if the A-Sun loses their automatic NCAA bid.

If UTC leaves the Southern Conference it is more likely that the SoCon
will lose *its* automatic bids, especially for women's basketball.
Without UTC, the SoCon would clearly not *deserve* an automatic bid to
the Women's Big Dance ... our ladies are the only nationally competitive
team in the conference.  Hence my guess that the conference would not
necessarily evict us if we scrapped football.

And if Wes Moore and John Shulman aren't all that fired up about
recruiting for UTC outside the SoCon, well ... there are other coaches
out there who would be happy for the chance to work here, with or
without football.

> What does this have to do with the mission of our university? Not much I
> guess ...

Precisely my point and the point of most faculty who see money spent on
an unpopular (check out the empty stands) and losing football team as
money that could go toward our academic mission.

> but since I am a UTC graduate and an employee, I take pride in our
> athletic teams, and I didn't want it to appear that everyone that works
> here is in favor of dropping football.  I actually went to football and
> basketball games when I was a student, and I still do.

I'm glad someone does :) but you are in a small minority, I fear.

I would like to take pride in our athletics teams, too, but football
just isn't cutting it.  I could take a lot more pride in a baseball
team, which would make use of Engel Stadium, cost a small fraction of
what football does, and would cause nowhere near the gender equity
problems (as there is about a 50-scholarship difference between baseball
and football).  Due to Title IX, UTC will never get a baseball team or
any new men's sport so long as football at the I-AA level exists.

Claire McCullough wrote:
> Before we all jump on the "let's cut football" bandwagon, don't we need to
> make sure that we examine all the possible (perhaps unintended) consequences
> of doing so?

A worthwhile point.  However, to turn the tables: before we make the
decision to *continue* with football in the context of chronic athletics
deficits and an overwhelming student vote (78.5% against) to not
increase athletics fees, shouldn't we examine all the actual, present
negative consequences to the rest of the institution?  To me, given the
student response, the "default" position should be no football and those
who want to continue it should have to convince the rest of us why it is
a good idea.

> What would this do to groups like the drill teams and the cheerleaders?  And
> most important to me personally (as an enthusiastic bandsman through most of
> my college career, and currently a band-Mom), without football, where would
> our most excellent marching band most excellently march?

There are plenty of non-football marching competitions, as we found out
when our boys were marching in the high school (and one the UTC) bands.
  There are typically only 5 or 6 home football games per year, anyway,
so that is all the band has to lose.  We would still have dance teams
(maybe as many as three according to Stuart Benkert's posts) to dance at
basketball games.  Basketball has cheerleaders, too.  We might lose out
on a few things, but if the alternative is academics (which is our core
mission) losing out, I have to say let's roll the dice on the band,
dance teams and cheerleaders.

> I realize this is a very small and statistically insignificant sample size,
> but I have two children entering high school next year--my daughter would
> never consider coming to a university without football and my son would
> never consider coming to a university without a marching band.

I'm sure we would lose some students.  But then again, how many students
are going to come here because of UTC's football team?!  It's not
exactly awe-inspiring.  Students who care enough about football to make
it a crucial component of their college decision-making process are
going to choose Knoxville, Tuscaloosa, or Athens anyway.  The rest (the
vast majority, I believe) will come here with or without football.

> Since the Faculty Senate executive committee is in the process of
> establishing a committee to examine costs, benefits, and consequences of
> such a move, why don't we wait until all the data is in before making a
> decision?

I'm sure we will, but I saw the article on the students rejecting the
athletics fee by an overwhelming margin and thought there would never be
a better time to make my case.

James Avery wrote:
> The response I always get is that the alumni will quit giving to the University and we will suffer greatly.

It's not exactly like we are covered up with alumni giving now.  And
frankly, those who only give because of football are probably doing the
majority of their giving directly to the football program, so losing
them would be roughly a wash.  As far as I am concerned, if anyone is so
offended that they would stop giving to the university if we dropped
football, we can probably live without them.  Or is Mr. Lupton going to
pull what is left of his $25 million pledge?  I just can't see such a
generous benefactor as him being that shallow.  I think better of him
and our other donors than to suspect them of being fair-weather (or
football weather) friends.

> well I don't believe that we can suffer anymore than we have for the last decade.

For real.  Football should have been gone 10 years ago, before we got
into the Finley Stadium debacle.  Some "grand projects" should never be
built.

I'm sure the lively debate will continue.  Thanks to all who have
responded, pro or con.

Joe