(07-06-2014 08:53 PM)Hallcity Wrote: I think people are looking at this with too narrow a focus. The idea of intercollegiate athletics is that athletic success helps public universities get more money from state governments and helps both public and private universities get more contributions from alumni. In other words, athletic conferences are an adjunct to the fundraising efforts. More money helps a school achieve greater academic success. A conference with great public exposure helps by giving more prominence to athletic achievements, leading to more money and greater academic success.
True, athletics are often looked at as part of fundraising efforts. However, there are a few of studies on this and most conclude that athletics don't make much of a difference because most of the fundraising increases that correspond with athletic success is money raised on the athletic side which doesn't flow back into the university anyway. It certainly makes no difference in getting more money from the states in the case of the vast majority of public schools. I think there is definitely a correlation between athletic success and undergrad applications, and this has even been demonstrated at top schools like Northwestern. But evidence of whether that leads to increased rankings through decreased admission rates is pretty frail (actually I don't think such evidence exists at all), and it generally does not lead to a more accomplished applicant pool according to the studies that I remember (in other words, the pool is larger, but it doesn't result in a more accomplished student body). However, I will admit that these studies are often flawed. There just aren't that many examples to do statistical comparisons of any real power.
I don't think that can be denied that there is generally a boost to university brand recognition from the media exposure. However, whether you could take an athletic department budget and plow that into a national advertising campaign and achieve similar or superior results is up for debate (e.g. the University of Phoenix spent $60 million on TV ads in 2011, so what would happen if Rutgers took their $34 million athletic subsidization and put it into a national advertising campaign? Of course, no one else subsidizes at that level, so the question is mainly moot).
What can't be measured are hypotheticals, like the fallout of not having major athletics on alumni attachment and loyalty. I don't think there is any doubt that would be severely impacted, particularly at larger state schools that traditionally have much lower alumni giving rates than at smaller privates.
There are definitely examples that can't be argued with. Notre Dame would not be more than a small, regional Catholic college instead of the top-ranked, national-level university that it is today without the last 75 years of its football program. Wake Forest would likely be no better known than Elon without having major athletics. But would larger, top schools like Cal, Stanford, or Northwestern be impacted in their standing if they didn't have athletics? Almost assuredly not...not any more than the University of Chicago, Washington Univ St Louis, or any Ivy has been impacted by dropping major sports (which is to say, zero). What about a medium-sized private like Miami? Athletics there, at this point, probably doesn't impact academics at all. Maybe it helped to grow awareness of that school in the 80s, but most of the academic improvement that has happened there over the past decade or so has nothing to do with athletics. At Pitt? probably no impact to be honest. I think you have to look at a case by case basis, and I think a lot of it has to do with the starting point of a university (eg where it is coming from).
In Louisville's case, the brand recognition from major athletics could be having an impact, at least speeding its growth, because of where the university has started from 10-20 years ago. There's a lot of room and potential for growth at Louisville, including brand awareness, that doesn't necessarily exist at other schools. But would it make a difference if UL was in the B12 vs ACC? No, the size of the stage is relatively the same with any major conference affiliation. No one conference affiliation is going to impact the construction of a medical center research facility, the hiring of additional faculty, or the construction of a dorm over any other. Those are things that can truly impact a school academically, but such things come entirely from internal leadership, projects, and efforts.
/
Conferences have nothing to do with academics?
