(05-14-2020 06:12 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-14-2020 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  In terms the of the marketing benefit an athletics department might deliver to a school----I would imagine the vast majority of it comes from football at most FBS universities. Thats probably the reason a school is willing to lose some money on that sport and more likely to cut rowing, even though it loses less money than football.

I'd be really curious to see some sort of data on this.

Maybe a survey asking people in Texas, especially high school students and parents, to identify the made up schools out of University of North Texas, Texas State University, Sam Houston State, South Texas STate, UT Rio Grande Valley, UT Fort Worth, Texas Southern University, and East Texas A&M.

Does the "front porch" advertising effect of lower-FBS really do any good compared to FCS? Does Texas State really have a higher profile than Stephen F Austin State? I really don't know. Does FBS North Texas really have advantages over UT Dallas or UT Arlington? Or is that not a good comparison, because UNT students aren't competitive for UTA or UTD?

No idea about data. What’s clear to anyone is the Akron name is incredibly visible for 8-12 weeks each fall for 3 hours a week on national television—watched by sometimes over a million people on Tuesday nights. There will be large Akron write ups in the paper, additional reports on local news, and even more mentions on cable sports shows and cable news crawlers. Women’s rowing or cross country can’t touch that. Heck, even FCS football csnt touch that. In most any business, that kind of exposure would be considered beneficial and valuable.

One more thing to remember—the biggest cost of football is the scholarships—which means the biggest component of this subsidy is the university sending money to athletics that the athletics department then immediately sends back to the university.