(05-17-2020 02:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I mean, Akron is paying a $4m annual note on a 30,000 seat football stadium and generate about $1m a year in football ticket sales. That's ridonculous management.

It's one of those ironies or paradoxes.

Q: If you were the AD or president of Akron, what would you put most of your time and attention into?
Correct Answer: Your Resume.

And the incremental costs of athletes cannot be assumed to be zero. There is a huge tutoring/mentoring component. I know people involved with that at a major school. There are mandatory study halls. There are tutors for each subject. There are note takers. There are attendance takers. There are general tutors for things like time management. There are coordinators who interface with the coaches. Its a lot. There is the training table. In some universities, they are a large component of certain academic programs. Those academic programs might not exist if they weren't doing football.

(05-17-2020 02:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I mean, Akron is paying a $4m annual note on a 30,000 seat football stadium and generate about $1m a year in football ticket sales. That's ridonculous management.

It's one of those ironies or paradoxes.

Q: If you were the AD or president of Akron, what would you put most of your time and attention into?
Correct Answer: Your Resume.

And the incremental costs of athletes cannot be assumed to be zero. There is a huge tutoring/mentoring component. I know people involved with that at a major school. There are mandatory study halls. There are tutors for each subject. There are note takers. There are attendance takers. There are general tutors for things like time management. There are coordinators who interface with the coaches. Its a lot. There is the training table. In some universities, they are a large component of certain academic programs. Those academic programs might not exist if they weren't doing football.

Bullet,

That partly explains why the category of expenses "not by team or gender" is double or more at schools with football than those without.

(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 11:14 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 12:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:18 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Also, as noted, there are in fact FCS and D1Sub schools in Ohio with smaller than average subsidies.

That's how averages work. Akron being at the average FBS subsidy, and then dropping down to FCS or Non-FB does not guarantee that it can drop down to the average FCS subsidy.

No it doesn't guarantee anything, but IIRC, you mentioned Akron's position in Ohio among other FBS as a possible reason they might require more of a subsidy at FCS/D1Sub level than the average such schools do.

No, I didn't.

Post 99, sentence 3.

Which is not say anything along the lines you say, since I was talking about the possibility of a selection bias involved in the difference in the average FBC subsidy and the average FCS / Non-FB subsidy.

In Ohio, I'd guess there is one break-even to surplus FBS school, one break-even to surplus FCS school and one break-even to surplus NFS school, and since these are net, not gross, numbers, the impact of OSU on the In-Ohio FBS average is much lower than the impact of the Flyers on the FCS average as a mathematical consequence that the Buckeyes are an outlier among eight, while the Flyers are an "outlier" among 2.

Obviously a surplus Athletic Department doesn't deliver the surplus it COULD to the University, like a profit-seeking division would do, it rather seeks out "beneficial costs" to soak up most of the surplus and hands over a modest share of the surplus to the University in order to retain program independence of the University pursue strings.

(05-17-2020 07:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I mean, Akron is paying a $4m annual note on a 30,000 seat football stadium and generate about $1m a year in football ticket sales. That's ridonculous management.

It's one of those ironies or paradoxes.

Q: If you were the AD or president of Akron, what would you put most of your time and attention into?
Correct Answer: Your Resume.

And the incremental costs of athletes cannot be assumed to be zero. There is a huge tutoring/mentoring component. I know people involved with that at a major school. There are mandatory study halls. There are tutors for each subject. There are note takers. There are attendance takers. There are general tutors for things like time management. There are coordinators who interface with the coaches. Its a lot. There is the training table. In some universities, they are a large component of certain academic programs. Those academic programs might not exist if they weren't doing football.

Bullet,

That partly explains why the category of expenses "not by team or gender" is double or more at schools with football than those without.

There are athletic programs that force the need and those that don’t. Maybe the bigger or more demanding question is, why have this replication or specialized version of learning if only athletic or specific athletic programs have priority or sole access to it?

Either the student athletes don’t meet the entry and/or academic requirements to be at some schools, or the schools let athletics take too much from the student experience.

(05-17-2020 09:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 08:30 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 03:55 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  I don't think Akron being FBS is negative publicity. Most people probably just think they're Division 2, which isn't negative - people still go to actual Division 2 football schools knowing their school's football program is Division 2

The chatter within academe is different and incongruent from what’s outside. I would think a lot of people would give Akron a mulligan for D2 or D3, especially now with COVID. Faculty and administrators wouldn’t give it such a pass. Especially from within.

The school has already made cuts, and I’m sure some faculty and staff bolted out of there as soon as they could when they saw the writing on the wall. It won’t get better for some time, but, hopefully Akron can sever and rebuild responsibly.

Division II is mostly small regional schools. The choices for a school Akron's size are really Division I (FBS, FCS or no football) and Division III. A lot of the FCS schools really should be Division II.

If they go to FCS they can also cut two more sports to get down to the D1 minimum of 14. The men's scholarship savings are a factor here too.

With that facility they could have a very competitive FCS program and set up Youngstown St as a rival. I don't think many alums would be too concerned. They forced their way up to FBS and the MAC bit on the argument they would be a strong add for NE Ohio FB.

Demographics however shifted toward the southern part of the state with Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati producing the best college football. Many of the NE Ohio HS schools moved lower from D1 to D2 and D2 to D3 no longer the factor they once were.

(05-16-2020 09:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16820863' dateline='1589635459']

Quote:The whole facade of FBS is that if you are Akron you are "in the same league" as Ohio State, so if Ohio State is doing something, you should too. At the FCS level, there's no pressure to keep up with Ohio State.

Detail: There's a gradation effect at work. KEnt STate *can't* keep up with Ohio State. But they *can* try to keep up with Cincinnati, who can try to keep up with Purdue, who can try to keep up with Michigan State, who can try to keep up with Ohio State.

Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

A better analogy:

Tennessee->Memphis
Ohio State->Michigan St.

As to Cincinnati the hope is they and a few others from the AAC get a call up to a P5 to weaken the AAC and put it on more equal footing with the MAC. They are a clear level up from the MAC but we have to compete with them for that access bowl.

If not the existence and continued development of the AAC within the G5 should lead to a second access bowl or something to make it more fair.

(05-18-2020 07:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16820863' dateline='1589635459']

Quote:The whole facade of FBS is that if you are Akron you are "in the same league" as Ohio State, so if Ohio State is doing something, you should too. At the FCS level, there's no pressure to keep up with Ohio State.

Detail: There's a gradation effect at work. KEnt STate *can't* keep up with Ohio State. But they *can* try to keep up with Cincinnati, who can try to keep up with Purdue, who can try to keep up with Michigan State, who can try to keep up with Ohio State.

Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

But the point is, it matters for the arms race, because everything trickles down.

If Ohio State hires a full time Kona Ice truck for the football practice facility in 2020 (ridiculous example), that doesn't effect Kent State today. But by 2022 Michigan State will have one, by 2026 Purdue will have one, by 2030 Cincinnati will have one, so by 2045 Kent STate feels like they have to have one.

(I'm fairly confident that's how MAC schools ended up putting their football teams in hotels before home games, etc. )

But if you're FCS, you've given up. If Missouri STate gets a full-time Kona Ice truck for their athletic complex, Illinois State and Northern Iowa aren't under much pressure to "keep up with the Jones's"

(05-18-2020 07:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16820863' dateline='1589635459']

Quote:The whole facade of FBS is that if you are Akron you are "in the same league" as Ohio State, so if Ohio State is doing something, you should too. At the FCS level, there's no pressure to keep up with Ohio State.

Detail: There's a gradation effect at work. KEnt STate *can't* keep up with Ohio State. But they *can* try to keep up with Cincinnati, who can try to keep up with Purdue, who can try to keep up with Michigan State, who can try to keep up with Ohio State.

Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

But the point is, it matters for the arms race, because everything trickles down.

If Ohio State hires a full time Kona Ice truck for the football practice facility in 2020 (ridiculous example), that doesn't effect Kent State today. But by 2022 Michigan State will have one, by 2026 Purdue will have one, by 2030 Cincinnati will have one, so by 2045 Kent STate feels like they have to have one.

(I'm fairly confident that's how MAC schools ended up putting their football teams in hotels before home games, etc. )

But if you're FCS, you've given up. If Missouri STate gets a full-time Kona Ice truck for their athletic complex, Illinois State and Northern Iowa aren't under much pressure to "keep up with the Jones's"

If that is the point you are trying to make, some MAC schools are further ahead in facilities than others.

That does drive a keeping up with the Jones mentality within the MAC but rarely do they compare to the outside. At least anymore. 30-40 years ago they tried to matchup with the AAC by building larger basketball arenas which is why some of them are north of 8,000 seats.

(05-17-2020 11:25 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 11:14 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 09:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 12:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  That's how averages work. Akron being at the average FBS subsidy, and then dropping down to FCS or Non-FB does not guarantee that it can drop down to the average FCS subsidy.

No it doesn't guarantee anything, but IIRC, you mentioned Akron's position in Ohio among other FBS as a possible reason they might require more of a subsidy at FCS/D1Sub level than the average such schools do.

No, I didn't.

Post 99, sentence 3.

Which is not say anything along the lines you say, since I was talking about the possibility of a selection bias involved in the difference in the average FBC subsidy and the average FCS / Non-FB subsidy.

No, you were talking about the possible selection bias in the previous section. If you meant that to carry over to the statement about other FBS schools, then you weren't much clear about that and what I said was a very fair inference from what you said there. You have a habit, btw, of making very definitive "yes" and "no" statements about what you said/meant, when your original language is often obtuse. You could work on making what is clear to you in your head translate on to the written page of this forum.

In any event, my statements were a fair inference from what you say you meant, because if Akron is surrounded by higher-profile FBS programs, that implies that they might sink further into obscurity as an FCS/D1sub, and thus might struggle to achieve the marketing benefits of athletics at that level, which would translate into lower tangible revenues like ticket sales, etc. (wheras say an FCS like North Dakota State, not having any FBS powers in proximity, might have an easier time building a high profile program with the resulting benefits) thus requiring a higher subsidy than the average FCS/D1Sub. So it was good that I compared them to some similar FCS/D1sub programs that are currently in that same boat.

But anyway, thanks for clarifying.

(05-18-2020 07:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16820863' dateline='1589635459']

Quote:The whole facade of FBS is that if you are Akron you are "in the same league" as Ohio State, so if Ohio State is doing something, you should too. At the FCS level, there's no pressure to keep up with Ohio State.

Detail: There's a gradation effect at work. KEnt STate *can't* keep up with Ohio State. But they *can* try to keep up with Cincinnati, who can try to keep up with Purdue, who can try to keep up with Michigan State, who can try to keep up with Ohio State.

Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

But the point is, it matters for the arms race, because everything trickles down.

If Ohio State hires a full time Kona Ice truck for the football practice facility in 2020 (ridiculous example), that doesn't effect Kent State today. But by 2022 Michigan State will have one, by 2026 Purdue will have one, by 2030 Cincinnati will have one, so by 2045 Kent STate feels like they have to have one.

(I'm fairly confident that's how MAC schools ended up putting their football teams in hotels before home games, etc. )

But if you're FCS, you've given up. If Missouri STate gets a full-time Kona Ice truck for their athletic complex, Illinois State and Northern Iowa aren't under much pressure to "keep up with the Jones's"

I agree, but Ironically, that's why i didn't pay much mind to your original "gradations" comment. Because its truth tends to be categorical - schools allegedly within the same category, like FBS, feel the pressure to keep up with the Leaders, such that when Ohio State sneezes, Michigan State follows closely, then Akron thereafter. But, there is then a categorical break, such that as you say here, schools in FCS do not feel the same pressure to do what Michigan is doing. They have "given up" trying to keep up with Ohio State, or they never tried to to begin with, they just try to keep up with each other within the FCS level.

This implies significant possible savings to dropping down to FCS, because you aren't spending on ridiculous things like staying in hotels the night of home games (note - maybe FCS teams do do this? LOL, but its just an example) just because Nick Saban does it with his Alabama team, or hiring five different "offensive analysts" for your staff just because LSU is doing it, you're not trying to stock a "training table" (when did that become a thing?) that looks like the buffet at a Trump kid's wedding, etc.

(05-18-2020 06:15 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 07:34 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:19 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2020 02:04 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I mean, Akron is paying a $4m annual note on a 30,000 seat football stadium and generate about $1m a year in football ticket sales. That's ridonculous management.

It's one of those ironies or paradoxes.

Q: If you were the AD or president of Akron, what would you put most of your time and attention into?
Correct Answer: Your Resume.

And the incremental costs of athletes cannot be assumed to be zero. There is a huge tutoring/mentoring component. I know people involved with that at a major school. There are mandatory study halls. There are tutors for each subject. There are note takers. There are attendance takers. There are general tutors for things like time management. There are coordinators who interface with the coaches. Its a lot. There is the training table. In some universities, they are a large component of certain academic programs. Those academic programs might not exist if they weren't doing football.

Bullet,

That partly explains why the category of expenses "not by team or gender" is double or more at schools with football than those without.

There are athletic programs that force the need and those that don’t. Maybe the bigger or more demanding question is, why have this replication or specialized version of learning if only athletic or specific athletic programs have priority or sole access to it?

Either the student athletes don’t meet the entry and/or academic requirements to be at some schools, or the schools let athletics take too much from the student experience.

Many don't. And its not just football and basketball players (although some sports do have good students). And the time demands from the sport are pretty heavy during their season.

(05-18-2020 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  [quote='quo vadis' pid='16820863' dateline='1589635459']

Quote:The whole facade of FBS is that if you are Akron you are "in the same league" as Ohio State, so if Ohio State is doing something, you should too. At the FCS level, there's no pressure to keep up with Ohio State.

Detail: There's a gradation effect at work. KEnt STate *can't* keep up with Ohio State. But they *can* try to keep up with Cincinnati, who can try to keep up with Purdue, who can try to keep up with Michigan State, who can try to keep up with Ohio State.

Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

But the point is, it matters for the arms race, because everything trickles down.

If Ohio State hires a full time Kona Ice truck for the football practice facility in 2020 (ridiculous example), that doesn't effect Kent State today. But by 2022 Michigan State will have one, by 2026 Purdue will have one, by 2030 Cincinnati will have one, so by 2045 Kent STate feels like they have to have one.

(I'm fairly confident that's how MAC schools ended up putting their football teams in hotels before home games, etc. )

But if you're FCS, you've given up. If Missouri STate gets a full-time Kona Ice truck for their athletic complex, Illinois State and Northern Iowa aren't under much pressure to "keep up with the Jones's"

I agree, but Ironically, that's why i didn't pay much mind to your original "gradations" comment. Because its truth tends to be categorical - schools allegedly within the same category, like FBS, feel the pressure to keep up with the Leaders, such that when Ohio State sneezes, Michigan State follows closely, then Akron thereafter. But, there is then a categorical break, such that as you say here, schools in FCS do not feel the same pressure to do what Michigan is doing. They have "given up" trying to keep up with Ohio State, or they never tried to to begin with, they just try to keep up with each other within the FCS level.

This implies significant possible savings to dropping down to FCS, because you aren't spending on ridiculous things like staying in hotels the night of home games (note - maybe FCS teams do do this? LOL, but its just an example) just because Nick Saban does it with his Alabama team, or hiring five different "offensive analysts" for your staff just because LSU is doing it, you're not trying to stock a "training table" (when did that become a thing?) that looks like the buffet at a Trump kid's wedding, etc.

They had training tables in the 70s if not before. Now they have sports nutritionists. And many have expanded it to all the sports, not just football.

(05-18-2020 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:41 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Detail: There's a gradation effect at work. KEnt STate *can't* keep up with Ohio State. But they *can* try to keep up with Cincinnati, who can try to keep up with Purdue, who can try to keep up with Michigan State, who can try to keep up with Ohio State.

Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

But the point is, it matters for the arms race, because everything trickles down.

If Ohio State hires a full time Kona Ice truck for the football practice facility in 2020 (ridiculous example), that doesn't effect Kent State today. But by 2022 Michigan State will have one, by 2026 Purdue will have one, by 2030 Cincinnati will have one, so by 2045 Kent STate feels like they have to have one.

(I'm fairly confident that's how MAC schools ended up putting their football teams in hotels before home games, etc. )

But if you're FCS, you've given up. If Missouri STate gets a full-time Kona Ice truck for their athletic complex, Illinois State and Northern Iowa aren't under much pressure to "keep up with the Jones's"

I agree, but Ironically, that's why i didn't pay much mind to your original "gradations" comment. Because its truth tends to be categorical - schools allegedly within the same category, like FBS, feel the pressure to keep up with the Leaders, such that when Ohio State sneezes, Michigan State follows closely, then Akron thereafter. But, there is then a categorical break, such that as you say here, schools in FCS do not feel the same pressure to do what Michigan is doing. They have "given up" trying to keep up with Ohio State, or they never tried to to begin with, they just try to keep up with each other within the FCS level.

This implies significant possible savings to dropping down to FCS, because you aren't spending on ridiculous things like staying in hotels the night of home games (note - maybe FCS teams do do this? LOL, but its just an example) just because Nick Saban does it with his Alabama team, or hiring five different "offensive analysts" for your staff just because LSU is doing it, you're not trying to stock a "training table" (when did that become a thing?) that looks like the buffet at a Trump kid's wedding, etc.

They had training tables in the 70s if not before. Now they have sports nutritionists. And many have expanded it to all the sports, not just football.

Well obviously, schools have always fed their athletes. But I never heard the term "training table" until very recently. Implies it has become this big sophisticated thing rather than the athletes eating in the cafeteria with the other kids.

(05-18-2020 10:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 09:54 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 08:19 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:28 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 07:06 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Right the MAC is several levels down from OSU so that comparison is a non-starter.

But the point is, it matters for the arms race, because everything trickles down.

If Ohio State hires a full time Kona Ice truck for the football practice facility in 2020 (ridiculous example), that doesn't effect Kent State today. But by 2022 Michigan State will have one, by 2026 Purdue will have one, by 2030 Cincinnati will have one, so by 2045 Kent STate feels like they have to have one.

(I'm fairly confident that's how MAC schools ended up putting their football teams in hotels before home games, etc. )

But if you're FCS, you've given up. If Missouri STate gets a full-time Kona Ice truck for their athletic complex, Illinois State and Northern Iowa aren't under much pressure to "keep up with the Jones's"

I agree, but Ironically, that's why i didn't pay much mind to your original "gradations" comment. Because its truth tends to be categorical - schools allegedly within the same category, like FBS, feel the pressure to keep up with the Leaders, such that when Ohio State sneezes, Michigan State follows closely, then Akron thereafter. But, there is then a categorical break, such that as you say here, schools in FCS do not feel the same pressure to do what Michigan is doing. They have "given up" trying to keep up with Ohio State, or they never tried to to begin with, they just try to keep up with each other within the FCS level.

This implies significant possible savings to dropping down to FCS, because you aren't spending on ridiculous things like staying in hotels the night of home games (note - maybe FCS teams do do this? LOL, but its just an example) just because Nick Saban does it with his Alabama team, or hiring five different "offensive analysts" for your staff just because LSU is doing it, you're not trying to stock a "training table" (when did that become a thing?) that looks like the buffet at a Trump kid's wedding, etc.

They had training tables in the 70s if not before. Now they have sports nutritionists. And many have expanded it to all the sports, not just football.

Well obviously, schools have always fed their athletes. But I never heard the term "training table" until very recently. Implies it has become this big sophisticated thing rather than the athletes eating in the cafeteria with the other kids.

Texas had a separate cafeteria for the football players in the 70s. It was located between the Jester East and Jester West dorms. The younger players stayed in Jester East but didn't have to eat Jester cafeteria food. Older players stayed in apartments but came in for meals.

Now I understand they do it for all athletes.

I remember reading an article quoting some players from the mid 2000s complaining, "What? Steak again?"

It was an article promoting their new sports nutritionist who offered more variety.

(05-18-2020 09:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  Many don't. And its not just football and basketball players (although some sports do have good students). And the time demands from the sport are pretty heavy during their season.

True, but I think the change is one that shifted toward more time and dedication to the athletic program and away from the student and scholarly component.

Before you had these programs and other benefits, some schools ran classes well into the night, or used the summer to fill in gaps with specialized sections.

It used to work, is what I mean. And now it doesn’t. Now you need all this trimming and extra stuff, and the athletes don’t even exist in the normal classroom. If it’s gone that far, it’s because the school has let it go that far, and that’s maybe the real problem and call for a walk-back.

To me, I could buy into the value of having these programs if schools could just qualify and quantify their value; articulate it even a little. When you know the school is bleeding because of a sport, and the media money doesn’t even come close to covering the tab, I don’t for the life of me understand why schools aren’t all about emphasizing how that value presents. Like, are you seeing increased giving on game days? Apps from prospective students saying they wanted to come there because they saw them on ESPN?

(05-18-2020 01:46 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  To me, I could buy into the value of having these programs if schools could just qualify and quantify their value; articulate it even a little.

That's my point: it's something that is quantifiable. It can't be quantified by chewing the fat on a discussion forum, but it CAN be quantified.

Quote: When you know the school is bleeding because of a sport, and the media money doesn’t even come close to covering the tab, I don’t for the life of me understand why schools aren’t all about emphasizing how that value presents.

It seems likely it's because they don't want to risk finding out that the answer doesn't flatter the sports subsidy.

It's not as if the (actual) spending on the sports subsidy is the biggest source of losses at a University like Akron ... that would be the padding of administrative positions in the ongoing empire building games of college administrators.

After all, a $25m contribution from a University with an enrollment of around 15,000 and $31,000 full time tuition (the reduced tuition in-state represents the additional state subsidy to in-state students, so it just redirects where some of that $31,000 comes from) is about 5.4% of tuition revenue. Waste on administrative feather bedding and empire building is going to be in the double digits.

Quote: Like, are you seeing increased giving on game days? Apps from prospective students saying they wanted to come there because they saw them on ESPN?

That would be mostly anecdotal, but a good quantitative marketing firm could do targeted surveys of prospective high school graduates and their parents and get a reasonably good estimate of how it impacts the decision of the marginal accepted student whether to enroll at Akron or somewhere else.

My guess would be if they actually did that, the answer would be having Division 1 basketball and a nationally respected soccer program gives them approximately the same impact as their current entire sports set-up, and they could cut football entirely for a substantial net gain. But that's just a guess ... you have to actually do the study to find out.

_______________________________________________

(05-18-2020 08:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  In any event, my statements were a fair inference from what you say you meant, because if Akron is surrounded by higher-profile FBS programs, that implies that they might sink further into obscurity as an FCS/D1sub, and thus might struggle to achieve the marketing benefits of athletics at that level, which would translate into lower tangible revenues like ticket sales, etc. (wheras say an FCS like North Dakota State, not having any FBS powers in proximity, might have an easier time building a high profile program with the resulting benefits) thus requiring a higher subsidy than the average FCS/D1Sub. So it was good that I compared them to some similar FCS/D1sub programs that are currently in that same boat.

Sorry, I am not used to the "sentence X in post #N" comparison as opposed to just copy and paste and wrap in {quote}{/quote}, I was looking at the wrong sentence.

For that sentence, Dayton and X are not in the same boat because they have BUILT their profile in the Southwest Ohio media markets ... where college basketball rules the roost because there is no local NBA team. Literally 50% of an "In-Ohio FCS average" comparison and 33% of an "In-Ohio NFS average" are schools that are quite obviously NOT in the same boat. Akron would be in the Cleveland State, Wright State, Youngstown boat, not in the Dayton Flyers, Xavier boat, but the "Ohio FCS" and "Ohio NFS" averages don't allow segregating things that way.

The national averages are much better for smoothing out the impacts of the outliers.

_____________________________________________

(05-17-2020 02:38 PM)bullet Wrote:  And the incremental costs of athletes cannot be assumed to be zero. There is a huge tutoring/mentoring component. I know people involved with that at a major school. There are mandatory study halls. There are tutors for each subject. There are note takers. There are attendance takers. There are general tutors for things like time management. There are coordinators who interface with the coaches. Its a lot. There is the training table. In some universities, they are a large component of certain academic programs. Those academic programs might not exist if they weren't doing football.

Except only the last part is part of the general University budget. That's part of why I didn't assume zero incremental general education costs, but rather 20%-40%. There are gut classes in the humanities and social sciences that engineering students seek out so they have more time to spend on their engineering classes ... I'll happily bet that there are FB and Basketball players in those same classes.

The dedicated "keep the scholarship FB and BBall players from academic probation" infrastructure is part of what was assumed to be funded by the $3m+ from buy games and MAC distribution and ticket sales (which are listed in descending order of size ... Akron gets more from the MAC than they get from people attending their sporting contests). If that is a net (-$1m) rather than $0 for the subsidy, add $1m to the saving of scrapping football.

(05-19-2020 02:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 01:46 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  To me, I could buy into the value of having these programs if schools could just qualify and quantify their value; articulate it even a little.

That's my point: it's something that is quantifiable. It can't be quantified by chewing the fat on a discussion forum, but it CAN be quantified.

It’s definitely quantifiable because there are programs out there who do succeed to demonstrate value and articulate how it works.

But I think a lot of schools where this doesn’t work, or isn’t publicly defended or defined, lazily just take from the success stories as their position.

(05-19-2020 06:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 02:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 01:46 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  To me, I could buy into the value of having these programs if schools could just qualify and quantify their value; articulate it even a little.

That's my point: it's something that is quantifiable. It can't be quantified by chewing the fat on a discussion forum, but it CAN be quantified.

It’s definitely quantifiable because there are programs out there who do succeed to demonstrate value and articulate how it works.

But I think a lot of schools where this doesn’t work, or isn’t publicly defended or defined, lazily just take from the success stories as their position.

Ehh, the places where it's clearly quantifiable, it's in the immediate (2-3 year) aftermath of dramatic success--the "Flutie Effect." Major bowl game, Final Four / Sweet Sixteen run. There is clear unambiguous data that something like Florida Gulf Coast's run boosted awareness of FGCU and boosted applications. Alabama is down to 40% Alabama natives in their freshman class.

The data isn't screamingly obvious about the effects of anyone's steady-state program in a normal year.

(05-19-2020 06:25 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 06:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-19-2020 02:07 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-18-2020 01:46 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  To me, I could buy into the value of having these programs if schools could just qualify and quantify their value; articulate it even a little.

That's my point: it's something that is quantifiable. It can't be quantified by chewing the fat on a discussion forum, but it CAN be quantified.

It’s definitely quantifiable because there are programs out there who do succeed to demonstrate value and articulate how it works.

But I think a lot of schools where this doesn’t work, or isn’t publicly defended or defined, lazily just take from the success stories as their position.

Ehh, the places where it's clearly quantifiable, it's in the immediate (2-3 year) aftermath of dramatic success--the "Flutie Effect." Major bowl game, Final Four / Sweet Sixteen run. There is clear unambiguous data that something like Florida Gulf Coast's run boosted awareness of FGCU and boosted applications. Alabama is down to 40% Alabama natives in their freshman class.

The data isn't screamingly obvious about the effects of anyone's steady-state program in a normal year.

I’m thinking more like giving/donations. Texas football and some of the basketball blue bloods.

But, even for the FGCU’s, it’s a data point where it’s needed. I know Villanova has credited its basketball success to more applications. That’s something, even if fleeting and one that demands consistent success, it’s something.