Poll: No More FBS Games?

[hawkssb04]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

 

[WILDCAT]

Let me add my :twocents: on the subject.

Apparently, Weber needs these FBS games, so so be it, however, lets try to trim it down to 1 fbs game, and against a winnable regional foe, like a Wyoming or a Utah State. Stay away from the BCS conference teams even though they give the biggest paychecks, they also have the bigger more physical players and your chances of losing a starter in one of those games is really high. If we can get just one fbs game, then we can use the other away game and play someone like UNI, or North and South Dakota States and so on.

However, I kinda like to see how we measure up to some of the FBS teams out there, And its a good feeling when we as Weber State fans can look back 2 years ago and say Weber was the better team in thier game vs Colorado State.

 

[Wildcat 100]

Let me add my :twocents: on the subject.

Apparently, Weber needs these FBS games, so so be it, however, lets try to trim it down to 1 fbs game, and against a winnable regional foe, like a Wyoming or a Utah State. Stay away from the BCS conference teams even though they give the biggest paychecks, they also have the bigger more physical players and your chances of losing a starter in one of those games is really high. If we can get just one fbs game, then we can use the other away game and play someone like UNI, or North and South Dakota States and so on.

However, I kinda like to see how we measure up to some of the FBS teams out there, And its a good feeling when we as Weber State fans can look back 2 years ago and say Weber was the better team in thier game vs Colorado State.

i agree, hard to swallow that loss to them, as was the wyoming game with 7 INT's....but this year should be different. just saying we can be 2-0 after our first 2 games, and that is NOT going out on a limb.....

 

[ajwildcat]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

Are you seriously going to quote THE WORST SCHOOL PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME AT WSU? That jack A$$ hated sports, and was basically leading the push to drop football at WSU. Screw Paul Thompson :finger:

 

[n.ogdencat]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

Personally, I thought Pres. Thompson was an excellent president. Academics, which is the sole and only reason why a university exists, were the strongest they have ever been and have slipped quite a bit in the last 7 years, mostly because the university grew so fast (nothing against Pres. Milner). Regardless, my question isn't about how good or bad, or how much he liked sports (idiotic to bring that up, university's don't exist because of sports, college sports exist because of acadmic institutions), but WHAT are these other variables. If Marketing is only one piece of the pie, then what are the other pieces of the pie? That quote doesn't back you up. As a journalist, historian, and writer, you need to apply quotes that actually back up your statements. You provided a quote that stated that there are other issues at play, but something that didn't actually state what any of those other issues are.

 

[ajwildcat]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

Personally, I thought Pres. Thompson was an excellent president. Academics, which is the sole and only reason why a university exists, were the strongest they have ever been and have slipped quite a bit in the last 7 years, mostly because the university grew so fast (nothing against Pres. Milner). Regardless, my question isn't about how good or bad, or how much he liked sports (idiotic to bring that up, university's don't exist because of sports, college sports exist because of acadmic institutions), but WHAT are these other variables. If Marketing is only one piece of the pie, then what are the other pieces of the pie? That quote doesn't back you up. As a journalist, historian, and writer, you need to apply quotes that actually back up your statements. You provided a quote that stated that there are other issues at play, but something that didn't actually state what any of those other issues are.

Your right, I guess we are all on here to discuss academics. hno: The ONLY reason I give a damn about ANY university is because of their athletics.

 

[weberwildcat]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

Personally, I thought Pres. Thompson was an excellent president. Academics, which is the sole and only reason why a university exists, were the strongest they have ever been and have slipped quite a bit in the last 7 years, mostly because the university grew so fast (nothing against Pres. Milner). Regardless, my question isn't about how good or bad, or how much he liked sports (idiotic to bring that up, university's don't exist because of sports, college sports exist because of acadmic institutions), but WHAT are these other variables. If Marketing is only one piece of the pie, then what are the other pieces of the pie? That quote doesn't back you up. As a journalist, historian, and writer, you need to apply quotes that actually back up your statements. You provided a quote that stated that there are other issues at play, but something that didn't actually state what any of those other issues are.

Your right, I guess we are all on here to discuss academics. hno: The ONLY reason I give a damn about ANY university is because of their athletics.

i concur. and telling us a university is a school first well that isnt shocking news. just not worth discussing. we like to assume our degrees are from a decent school so that our degrees are not cheapened. as well most of us are not still current students. but claims of academics taking a hit lately true or false (probably false) this isnt the right medium for that, son.

talk to me about football! :mrgreen:

i did like the quote saying "The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well" from thompson, i 100% agree that we need to step it up. if we need more funds for marketing lets figure somethign else out (not a 3rd fbs game). of course marketing isnt the only thing that matters but forum members have been asking about marketing on here for years as they see potential.

 

[n.ogdencat]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

Personally, I thought Pres. Thompson was an excellent president. Academics, which is the sole and only reason why a university exists, were the strongest they have ever been and have slipped quite a bit in the last 7 years, mostly because the university grew so fast (nothing against Pres. Milner). Regardless, my question isn't about how good or bad, or how much he liked sports (idiotic to bring that up, university's don't exist because of sports, college sports exist because of acadmic institutions), but WHAT are these other variables. If Marketing is only one piece of the pie, then what are the other pieces of the pie? That quote doesn't back you up. As a journalist, historian, and writer, you need to apply quotes that actually back up your statements. You provided a quote that stated that there are other issues at play, but something that didn't actually state what any of those other issues are.

Your right, I guess we are all on here to discuss academics. hno: The ONLY reason I give a damn about ANY university is because of their athletics.

You attacked a university president, whose main job is to protect, improve, and provide the absolute best academic atmosphere for his students. Athletics have very little to do with his job. I agree with you though. Athletics are huge to a university's perception, reputation, and finances. Pres. Thompson was a excellent academic president, but, you are right, athletics weren't at the top of his list of concerns. The AD's could be blamed for a lot of the blunders in the 90s too though.

 

[ajwildcat]

I don't mean to make it look as if I'm deflecting all the blame away from the athletics department and its marketing efforts. I'm simply trying to make it understood that marketing is only one variable regarding funding of the football program. I don't deny the university could do a better job at promoting its sporting events and they should always strive to improve, but they aren't the sole reason WSU football isn't the sellout show we all wish to see.

Here is a quote from an interview I conducted with former Weber State president Paul H. Thompson, who took a lot of heat in the early 90's for his role in "The trial of WSU football," when the program almost got the ax (topic of my masters history thesis). I think that situation translates into the same issues we are all bickering about today.

"Obviously we could have done more. The most successful football programs are those which are marketed well, and I firmly believe almost 18 years later, it was not the sole reason fans did not attend football games. However, it definitely played a major role in the lack of community involvement, but it was just one piece of a very big pie of obstacles the school's sports teams have always faced." -- Former Weber State President Paul H. Thompson.

Personally, I thought Pres. Thompson was an excellent president. Academics, which is the sole and only reason why a university exists, were the strongest they have ever been and have slipped quite a bit in the last 7 years, mostly because the university grew so fast (nothing against Pres. Milner). Regardless, my question isn't about how good or bad, or how much he liked sports (idiotic to bring that up, university's don't exist because of sports, college sports exist because of acadmic institutions), but WHAT are these other variables. If Marketing is only one piece of the pie, then what are the other pieces of the pie? That quote doesn't back you up. As a journalist, historian, and writer, you need to apply quotes that actually back up your statements. You provided a quote that stated that there are other issues at play, but something that didn't actually state what any of those other issues are.

Your right, I guess we are all on here to discuss academics. hno: The ONLY reason I give a damn about ANY university is because of their athletics.

You attacked a university president, whose main job is to protect, improve, and provide the absolute best academic atmosphere for his students. Athletics have very little to do with his job. I agree with you though. Athletics are huge to a university's perception, reputation, and finances. Pres. Thompson was a excellent academic president, but, you are right, athletics weren't at the top of his list of concerns. The AD's could be blamed for a lot of the blunders in the 90s too though.

It WAS however, the school president that had a personal agenda to get rid of football at WSU. On a side note, who do you think chased Ron Abegglen out of town? It was Paul Thompson himself. So like I said, SCREW Thompson.

 

[PrezPThompson]

Silence earthlings! You are all shit talking bitches. If I was in my prime I would hunt down every forum member that says negative things about me or talks positively about WSU sports and I would then lay the smack down on your candy asses.

It is true I tried to do away with Weber football as I was trying to align my goals for the university with that of the Frontier League which I was planning for us to join by 2005 had I been able to defunktify the football program.

I even had Idaho State on board. Out of respect for me to this day they are still recruiting NAIA level players. Sacramento State was also involved in our secret meetings.

I admit yes I hate sports. I think all others should not enjoy them since I do not like them.

I was hoping to leave Ann a great legacy like Larry King did for Piers Morgan when ole Larry died.

Step 1 was when I hired Lawerence Agraria Farmer. Step 2 was eliminating the football program. I still do not know where I went wrong. Step 3 was going to be the alienation of the donors and alumni.

My biggest regret was hiring Abegglan. He just refused to lose...I should have re-hired Farmer.


Best Regards,


PrezPThompson

 

[WILDCAT]

There are things Weber State can do to make a Weber State football game an exciting event, and they are on the right path, the new giant purple helmet is a good start, now buy some purple smoke that comes out of the helmet while the players are running out of it, BRING BACK THE CANNON, get the band involved a little more, bring in some great halftime shows, heck, they could build backs to the bleachers. (I know people who dont like coming to the games because they dont like bleachers).

 

[Wildcatpast]

My vote: play 2 games against the biggest baddest FBS teams we can get every season. Of course, the money is needed, but it is also great for recruiting, player development/experience and program recognition and pride. I guarantee that every player, although a bit nervous, wants to prove their mettle against the 'big boys' and relishes getting the chance to play in those big stadiums. And, if you win...or even come close...that's a great thing. Of course, the actual wins over top FBS programs are rare [e.g., James Madison beating VTech last year], but there are a whole bunch of 'near misses' that are almost as good [Cal Poly had Wisconsin dead to rights, but kicker missed 3 XPs; Northern Iowa had Iowa but had 2 short FGs blocked at end of game, etc.]. Heck, get rid of the bad turnovers and having to settle for 3 FGs in the redzone and last year's BC game could have been way different - how great would that have been. I don't think the statistics prove out that more players get hurt in the FBS games then in the FCS games. And, losing the two FBS games does not mean you won't make the playoffs - we lost both in '08 and '09 and made it. Also, substituting one or two FCS teams for FBS teams does not guarantee victories in those games [unless you play lousy teams, and who wants to do that] - and, it's probably true that losing one or two of those FCS 'replacement' games is far more damaging to a playoff invitation than losing two FBS games. Do think it makes a lot of sense to try to play west FBS teams, though - bring on Utah, BYU, Boise, UNLV, Washington, etc.!!!

 

[SDHornet]

We are financially stable enough to only have to schedule 1 FBS game. Recently it has been against a high paying Pac-12 school. We open 2011 at Oregon State.