Rynearson was opened in 1969. Prior to that games were played at a field near that corner (end zones were east and west), and the baseball field was directly to the north. I haven’t been able to find much information about it, but I did recently see a big aerial photo of campus (I wish it were online, because it was really spectacular) that must have been taken in spring or summer 1969, because it showed the old field, plus Rynearson under construction (almost finished). What struck me about that, and other photos I’ve seen of the old field are: 1) Rynearson was a long way away from campus when it was built, 2) that old field just had small bleachers on each side, and probably couldn’t have seated more than a few hundred people. Here’s an aerial view from the 1950s: http://media.aadl.org/documents/large/ypsigleanings/2010-spring_015.jpg

Keep in mind that when Rynearson was built, the football team was doing reasonably well. In the late 1960s and early 1970s the team had a bunch of winning seasons, including a trip to the Pioneer Bowl in 1971. One early game at Rynearson actually sold out (1971, a 0-0 tie against Eastern Kentucky). I don’t think EMU could have fit a 15,000 person stadium (Rynearson’s original capacity was 15,500) into that old location, much less the 30,200 that the NCAA required in 1992.

* It might be easier to attract better players and have a better team if we had better facilities, but no one wants to pay the money (especially now, with budgets what they are) to build a better facility, especially since the current team isn’t very good. Conversely, if our team was halfway decent, I suspect people would be a lot more tolerant of spending money on the team.

* I think the next couple years will be interesting to see what happens because I’m pretty sure that EMU is not the only team in the MAC who is facing budgetary strains and who is wondering about football. But I guess I would ask this: what’s sacred about the MAC? I mean, it’s not like they are awesome in everything else but football. So what if we got out of the MAC and into a different conference?

Moving football to I-AA gets out of the MAC in all sports.

Moving football to Division II gets out the MAC in all sports.

EMU Supporter, thanks for checking! It sounds like we need to get out of the MAC in ALL 3 cases outlined above…please confirm.

If this is the case, I will need to reevaluate whether to start my project of getting signatures to drop the football team….just kidding, well, not actually, I thought about it…kind of sick to hold a winless team to one yard passing and still lose the game! And the only way to not have a super losing team budget is to go on the road and become punching bags to at least two big schools every year!

It all comes down to the relationship between academics and athletics….Not being born here, I always found it quite “unique” seeing athletics in colleges so…glued together. It never made any sense to me but I have come to accept it as part of the culture…like baseball I guess:-)

And I shamefully correct my typo near the end of my last post, where when I wrote that “few scholarly studies support the widely repeated claim that winning teams yield great benefits to the schools fielding those benefits” the last word should have been, obviously, “teams”. Virtually all the benefits of intercollegiate athletics are intangible. Everything else in American universities is measured by tangible metrics.

EMU built the Student Center instead of fixing PH a half dozen years ago, and the budgets for each project were about the same. Guess which was most overcrowded and most run down, the McKinney student union or PH?

And here’s a cut and paste from the Knight Commission’s summary of its new study of how presidents of universities with big football programs see the situation. The full 51 page report is well worth reading for anyone who claims to care about athletics and education….

“Key findings from the presidential survey…. include:
“Dilemma of reform – While presidents recognize the need for reform, there is a lack of clear consensus about the best way to effect change. Nearly three-quarters believe that athletics present unique challenges as compared to other areas of the university when trying to control costs on their own campus. A majority believe institutions must act collectively to address these escalating costs.
“Sustainability – Less than a quarter of presidents believe intercollegiate athletics are sustainable in their current form at FBS institutions nationally. Two-thirds view their own programs as sustainable; but nearly half (48%) express concern that the current economic outlook will affect the number of varsity sports their institution can support in the future.
“Salaries – When asked about salaries across FBS institutions nationally, an overwhelming majority (85%) of FBS presidents indicate they feel compensation is excessive for football and basketball coaches. Viewed as the greatest impediment to sustainability, coaches’ salaries are costs that are difficult to control.
“Growing Divide between Haves and Have-Nots – A major concern is the growing imbalance between financially strong and weak programs. Presidents of less competitive institutions feel that their programs are unfairly exploited.
“Transparency – More than 80% of presidents believe greater financial transparency is needed.
“Benefits of Athletics – College presidents perceive athletic success provides substantial benefits to the institution, such as generating higher levels of fundraising, attracting better qualified students, enhancing school spirit and raising the profile of the institution. Although research generally does not support a significant correlation between athletic success and increased donations or better student quality, FBS university presidents are swayed by personal experience that there are cross-institutional benefits of winning sports programs.”
http://www.knightcommission.org

This survey seems to largely be focused on schools whose football programs are “winning” programs, ones that arguably make money for the schools. EMU of course is not really in that category. Note that the last point in the summary above makes reference to the fact that few scholarly studies support the widely repeated claim that winning teams yield great benefits to the schools fielding those benefits. Such claims are faith-based, not evidence-based, assertions.

None of these questions are simple. What is clear is that the current economic structure of college sports is not likely to be sustainable even at the “rich” schools, much less so at schools like EMU.

When EMU starts to offer as many full ride academic scholarships (I’ve heard its around 20) as it does full ride athletic scholarships (I‘ve heard its around 90) then and only then will we begin to see EMU live up to the slogan Education First.