CSNbbs

http://cmat.tntech.edu/institute/TTUAthletics.html


It requires quicktime.

Its a really fascinating study. However, its first half is extremely flawed in its assumption. It assumes if you take the program away that you can't fill those slots with other students. For example he says that the 57 non scholarship football players couldn't have been replaced. He also assumes that football players bring non football playing friends along with them and assumed half the football team brings 1 friend (60 students). Finally he assumes that you get an extra 150 students because you have a team. So all in all he is saying that football keeps around 280 extra students and the revenue generated from them on campus. This is what offsets the costs of the football program in his view.

This argument might hold true if ETSU's enrollment had declined after the drop but it hasn't it has gone up. So ETSU gets to keep the revenue and does away with the cost of football.

I am not saying we weren't better with football but he is making a very poor argument.

He also points out the marching band and its 200 members. However this also assumes that you can't replace those students with non scholarship students.

Making a argument about money in sports is very foolish in its thinking.

I think his best points might be how few units in a school are self supporting, lessons learned directly through athletics, sense of community, media coverage for school (value of publicity being 2 million is interesting if true), and the higher graduation rate in sports. These are the arguments that people need to fucus on if we are ever to get football back.

And the administration minions strike quickly

(01-05-2011 10:17 AM)Goldfinger Wrote: [ -> ]And the administration minions strike quickly

And incorrectly as well. The numbers presented were low estimates. The actual numbers would be greater. There is no way to equal the benefits of having a football program on a state university campus. There is a reason why all the other schools in Tennessee play football. And there is no reason why ETSU should be the oddball of the state. Still no reason.

(01-05-2011 10:22 AM)bucfan81 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-05-2011 10:17 AM)Goldfinger Wrote: [ -> ]And the administration minions strike quickly

And incorrectly as well. The numbers presented were low estimates. The actual numbers would be greater. There is no way to equal the benefits of having a football program on a state university campus. There is a reason why all the other schools in Tennessee play football. And there is no reason why ETSU should be the oddball of the state. Still no reason.

Do you all not read. I said the money argument based on students was flawed by saying you can't replace those students. I said they should focus on the non student things by saying: "I think his best points might be how few units in a school are self supporting, lessons learned directly through athletics, sense of community, media coverage for school (value of publicity being 2 million is interesting if true), and the higher graduation rate in sports. These are the arguments that people need to focus on if we are ever to get football back. "

I also want it known I have no position with ETSU. I am not employeed by the school in any form or fashion. I am an alumni, a fan and I am in the ETSU Foundation. Other than that I have no connection to ETSU.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a university official or minion. I am entitled just like you are to have opinions that can be just as valid as yours.

I think you can make a very strong case for football from a non direct financial point of view, but you still have to prove to the administration the benefits outweigh the cash loss on the sport.

It has been proven that the benefits are unestimatable. The deadness of our campus in Fall is depressing. How many sports make money at ETSU? Seems like soccer and a lot of other sports should be dropped if that were the criterion. The point is it is not the criterion. Every state school in Tennessee plays football because they cannot afford not to. If the administration needs something else then we really need a new administration and a house cleaning because these people are killing the school. Fans have tolerated ETSU being the idiot of the state for too long. The absence of football is just a symbol of failed leadership. It is simple: If every state university in Tennessee can play football that so can ETSU. That is the question that all of us need to be asking loudly. Why can EVERY school in Tennesse play football and not ETSU? Have not heard an answer to that question yet.

How many times must we go through this same argument. I was simply pointing out that TTU argument that is illustrated in the excel spreadsheets is a weak one.

I will say again on football - you can't make a financial argument that has a final dollar and sense answer to it and expect to get the program back. You have to emphasize the importance of the sport outside cost of operation versus direct revenue. I think TTU does a decent job at that in his second half. Then you have to have a fan base that supports it which we obviously don't have. There isn't a big enough group that has the ability to apply a significant enough amount of pressure with the current administration, if there was then they would have done so by now.

So my argument is to quit complaining until you have a new administration which is coming with Dr. Stanton stepping down after the 100 yr anniversary. Then work with that administration. But if the new administration doesn't want football you are back at step one - get a big group of supporters who have the money to make a difference. Otherwise be a fan and enjoy what we have.

No the question we must stay on is why ETSU is the ONLY school in Tennessee that cannot afford football. Your arguments make sense if APSU, TTU, et al had dropped football with ETSU and we were whining trying to re-instate the program with no real support. We HAVE to get the question answered as to why ETSU is the only university in this situation. Why?

ETSU shouldn't have dropped football. But since they did we only have so many options. To go back and complain about the decision now is fruitless.

So what we need to do from here is what I said above.

By focusing on why ETSU is the only one who is without football now you miss the path forward.

Still have not answered the question. It is important. The path forward to very important and something we will closely watch but the we still must have the question answered. We all know there is no good answer to it but it is central to the debate. We have let them get away with it for too long. There is no more/less support at ETSU than at the other similar schools.

Your question has been answered as much as it's going to be. They believe whether you like it or not that football from a pure dollar and sense point of view lost 1 million + each year and chose to cut it. They feel like the extra benefits of football are not worth consideration in the decision. Waiting for a difference answer is awful close to the definition of insanity.

(01-05-2011 10:07 AM)KingsportBucsFan31 Wrote: [ -> ]This argument might hold true if ETSU's enrollment had declined after the drop but it hasn't it has gone up. So ETSU gets to keep the revenue and does away with the cost of football.

He also points out the marching band and its 200 members. However this also assumes that you can't replace those students with non scholarship students.

I think his point is that the enrollment could have increased by the current amount PLUS an additional 280 students plus whatever marching band interest. His argument is that growth and these additional students aren't mutually exclusive (either or) but additive (and).

While the study may have many flaws, this premise of mutual exclusivity is not one of them.

I attended the presentation that Dr. Latimore delivered at the Carnegie Hotel in Johnson City several years ago. I remember Dick Sheridan former Furman & N.C. State coach speaking and Mamabear was in attendance.
Dr. Latimore simply reviews and states that that mid-major, D-1AA schools however you wish to refer to them do not lose money on D1-AA football.
Dr. Latimore, if I remember correctly was an English professor who did double duty as the AD at TTU. Why would he falsify the numbers? What motivation he could have? Why would schools lead by their presidents/chancellor’s such as TTU, APSU, UT-Martin and UTC continue to field football teams if doing so hurt their academic mission? This is what Stanton /Mullins allege about ETSU football.
Their reality is after football was dropped at ETSU in 2003 the student actively fees have been raised several times. None of the “saved” from football went into academics. The history or math departments at ETSU have not received an increase a funding because there was no longer a football program at ETSU. Where did it go? As far as I can tell it went into non-revenue sports. The woman’s basketball team now carries 15 scholarships. There is men’s soccer etc.
My point is the Stanton/Andrews/Mullins point of view truly does not withstand much scrutiny.

I am just referring to the link that started this thread. I don't know anything about the other presentation you mentioned. The TTU presentation shows the loss. He shows the cost of the football program at a little more than 2 million dollars. The revenue from ticket sales is 770,00. So you have a loss on the program of about 1.3 million dollars.

He then tries to make the argument that the tuition/room and board from the Non Scholarship players and their friends and people who come because of the football program and band more than makes up the financial cost of the program. My point is that you can get other kids to come to the school instead of those kids and they don't require the football program so you don't have that cost of the football program.

Now if you want to add in what having a program does for you from a marketing perspective and all the other indirect revenues then you have a different story but that's a different argument. If you can without a doubt show that the 2 million (or ETSU equivalent) cost of football is equal to 2 million in advertising dollars or 2 million in national exposure then you have your argument. I think it probably is but that's not what I was talking about when I responded.

(01-05-2011 04:15 PM)KingsportBucsFan31 Wrote: [ -> ]I am just referring to the link that started this thread. I don't know anything about the other presentation you mentioned. The TTU presentation shows the loss. He shows the cost of the football program at a little more than 2 million dollars. The revenue from ticket sales is 770,00. So you have a loss on the program of about 1.3 million dollars.

He then tries to make the argument that the tuition/room and board from the Non Scholarship players and their friends and people who come because of the football program and band more than makes up the financial cost of the program. My point is that you can get other kids to come to the school instead of those kids and they don't require the football program so you don't have that cost of the football program.

Now if you want to add in what having a program does for you from a marketing perspective and all the other indirect revenues then you have a different story but that's a different argument. If you can without a doubt show that the 2 million (or ETSU equivalent) cost of football is equal to 2 million in advertising dollars or 2 million in national exposure then you have your argument. I think it probably is but that's not what I was talking about when I responded.

You are also leaving out the fact that Tenn Tech scheduled two FBS(1A) schools and made a lot of money from those games. I would guess about 400K per game which is about $0.8 million. So this plus tickets equals about 1.5 million dollars. Then there is the alumni/fan giving which I do not know but it is not zero and should be at least 100K or so. Then you have the student fee. I do not know their student fee but you have to know it more than makes up the 2 million dollars they need for 1AA football. That means they did not lose a cent on football and is the reason they keep it.

(01-05-2011 04:15 PM)KingsportBucsFan31 Wrote: [ -> ]My point is that you can get other kids to come to the school instead of those kids and they don't require the football program ...

I think your point is well taken, but off base. Why not have both the other kids and the additional football/band students? For your point to have validity, ETSU would have to subject to an enrollment cap. It isn't.

Central to Larrimore's model is an unlimited ability to accommodate additional students. At this particular time ETSU has that ability and apparently that desire.

As I have stated, other factors of his model may be up for debate. I am neither pro nor anti Larrimore, but to distort the model he has built on the premise of mutual exclusivity of outcomes is just that...a distortion.

The 770 in revenue does include the money that they make in slaughter games so the athletic fee would have to be 1.3 million.

As far as giving goes etsu has raised more money since football was cancel if I remember my articles right. Alot of that has to do with pharmacy giving.

As far as the unlimited ability to accolades students that is an argument I have trouble buying. You have max dorm and classroom space as well as a number of other features. So let's say you are full up and have the choice to cancel football and recruit students to fill their spots or construct new dorms, classrooms, and hire faculty then football just got even more expensive.

Good grief. The University is building student housing left and right. They are poised to accept virtually any amount of growth. Good grief Charlie Brown!

(01-06-2011 05:09 AM)KingsportBucsFan31 Wrote: [ -> ]As far as giving goes etsu has raised more money since football was cancel if I remember my articles right. Alot of that has to do with pharmacy giving.

A lot of that is also what they call "in kind" giving. Once upon a time that used to be broken out into a separate category, but once that item became pretty significant (Niswonger, and later MSHA), they no longer tell us what is what. It's very possible that it has not increased, in terms of "real" money. In fact, I'm pretty sure it went down for the first 3 years after football, but I'm not going to take the time to look it up...

Please don't jump to the conclusion that I don't think we should have football. I just don't think his argument when it comes to dollars and dollars out is a good one.

Let me try to explain my way of looking at this:

At some point ETSU will run out of classroom and dorm space because of sheer physical capacity. Let's say for the sake of argument the number is 20,000 students - I pulled that number out of a hat because it doesn't matter what the number is.

The proper business decision would be to get as many full tuition students into the enrollment number. So for every scholarship football player or scholarship student you reduce overall profit. Football is even harder on profit because of the costs in running the program on top of losing the tuition for half the team. If I add a scholarship business student I have way less of a loss of revenue than if I break the 2 million dollar cost of football across each of the 120 football students.

If I am running the school at our level as a business it would always make sense to not have football - unless like I have said many times you classify football as advertising instead of monetary program.

That is why I think people need to stop trying to make the monetary argument for football. The people who do look foolish by trying to say the program is financial viable. It really isn't.