Jonathan Looney wrote:
> Good question. You are correct that Charleston and UNC Greensboro do not
> have football teams. Davidson plays Division III football I believe,

So maybe that is an option, as several other folks have suggested.
Division III would certainly be less expensive than Division I-AA,
though it wouldn't save as much as dropping football outright.

> When VMI left, Elon (with football) was
> brought into the league, which maintained the 9-team football conference
> with 8 conference games for each team to play.
> ... I can only assume that the conference feels it is in
> its best interest to keep nine football teams.

I don't see what the big deal is about 8 conference games per year.
Don't a lot of conferences play only 7 or fewer?  I think (someone
correct me if I am wrong) the SEC used to play 7, and only went to 8
conference games when they went to two divisions.  But I guess that is
up to the conference to decide, and up to us (or at least the Chancellor
and AD) to decide whether we want to stay in the conference.  I am still
not convinced it is worth it if we have to keep the football program as
it is now.

> ETSU's strong tradition in
> basketball and men's golf (I'm not that familiar with their other sports)
> was not enough to allow the conference to set a dangerous precedent that
> any of the 9 football schools could drop the program and remain a
> conference member.

I think we have a stronger tradition in basketball and several other
sports ... maybe we could convince them to let us stay.  (Have we even
asked?)  If not, I don't have a problem changing to the Atlantic Sun or
any other conference, even one in Division II or III.  The role of
athletics at the D-II or D-III level is probably more in keeping with
UTC's mission anyway.  Face it, we are never going to be UTK, Alabama,
or Georgia when it comes to sports.  Nor should we be.

I think a very modest (and lower cost) sports program, not including
football, would be much more appropriate for UTC.  Isn't the value of
athletics, for the athletes, supposed to be in participating?  What
difference does it make to the athletes whether they are competing in
the SoCon, Atlantic Sun, or any other conference?  In any case they can
learn the virtues of teamwork, leadership, sportsmanship, and everything
else they are supposed to get out of participation in athletics.  Heck,
students can get all of that from intramural athletics.  The ones who
want to learn those things specifically from playing football can choose
another school, or create a club team as the rugby enthusiasts have.
Division I (A or AA) football is not the be-all and end-all of athletics.

It seems to me that the main people who would "suffer" from UTC dropping
football and/or dropping to a lower division would not be the athletes,
but the fans/boosters ... who are relatively few in most sports other
than basketball (and maybe softball) and who certainly aren't paying the
freight in terms of ticket sales.  I think the athletes will make out
fine regardless of which division or conference we play in.  Sure, we
might not be able to recruit as many athletes from outside the immediate
area to come play for us ... but what is wrong with "playing with the
students who chose to go to school here anyway"?  (In other words, true
student-athletes who are here primarily to get an education rather than
play ball.)  That is the way college athletics originally got started,
before "recruiting" became part of the equation.  To a large extent,
that is still the way it is at Division III schools.  I actually like
that model a lot better for a school with the size and mission of UTC.

> The things I've read say that Division I-AA football is a money loser
> EVERYWHERE, even at schools that compete for national championships.

Yep.  It is positively the worst division to play in.  You spend almost
as much as I-A teams do, but have nowhere near the revenue potential.
That is why I think dropping to a lower division is one viable option
that should be considered.  I-AA sports are a terrible proposition from
a financial point of view.

> If
> that's correct, is the sentiment to drop football simply because it's not
> "self-sufficient", or because the team has not won in 20 years?

I think the main reason is that we simply cannot afford football
anymore.  The state is dropping support for athletics, the students have
emphatically said "no" to new fees, and something has to give.  The fact
that the program is a perennial on-field loser is just the final straw
... the real problem is the cost that we just can't cover any more.  Not
when academics are already being short-changed.  Something has to give
and, to me, the logical place to start is the most expensive, least
successful, most gender-equity-destroying sport ... and that is football.

Anyway, it is the end of the semester, I just turned my grades in, and I
am outta here.  With most faculty and students going their separate ways
for the summer (and the hard-working staff laboring on), I will probably
not post to the list again on this topic any time soon (unless some "new
news" comes out, for example if THEC enacts an athletics fee for the
campus over the overwhelming mandate of the students not to do so).  I
do welcome further comments off-list; I will be checking campus e-mail
over the summer.

A good summer to all!

Joe