Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Exit 4, post: 3555530, member: 2268"] Circling back to ECU...a snippet from Matt Brown's column this morning: [MEDIA=twitter]1262730116788035585[/MEDIA] [I]I did not realize this, but with UConn off to the Big East, ECU now sponsors more sports (20) than any of the other AAC full-time members. At the same time, ECU spends less money on coaching salaries, travel expenses, and athletic-expenses per athlete than most of the other schools in the league. ECU is regularly near the bottom of the Learfield Cup Standings within the AAC, so there might be an argument that spreading spending out across so many other sports limits limits their competitive potential in some way? In addition to plenty other recommendations, from focusing on regional scheduling to save money on travel, to restructuring their booster club and fundraising efforts, the report also called for reduction in sports:[/I] He also details how football tickets sales revenue is way down and been a downward trend for 6 years and cites the steady losing record for the decline. Sounds familiar. My own thoughts; more than ever, college football needs some upstart surprises over the next two years. Something a little broader than merely UCF challenging the bowl committee. The sport needs a handful of new schools to break into the top 25 to help keep hope alive and fan interest elevated. [/QUOTE]