(05-16-2020 12:08 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-16-2020 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  JB: The loss would be in tuition revenues, and in enrollment in general.

But we're talking about the size of the *athletic* subsidy here. Maybe 75% of kids attend Akron solely because of Zips football, which might cause the U to lose tens of millions in tuition, but what matters is what trickles through to the athletic budget, like lost ticket sales.

The athletic subsidy (theoretically) is an advertising expense to bring in the rubes--I mean full-tuition-paying students. Maybe you're being sarcastic and I missed it, but losing millions in tuition would be bad even if it doesn't show up on the athletic department balance sheet.

I was not being sarcastic. When I was talking to BruceMF, there were two aspects to the discussion - the impact of dropping football on the athletic subsidy, and the impact on other aspects of the university like general student enrollment. You jumped in to the part that was about the athletic subsidy. The possible impact on other things was addressed elsewhere.

But to summarize - I conceded that it was possible that football is the main reason most students come to Akron, such that if football was dropped, enrollment would fall from 25k to 10k and the university would lose $30m, making the apparent $9m loss on football actually the best money it spends. But, there's no evidence for that any more than there is for the idea that most come for women's soccer or men's rowing, it could be that enrollment would plunge massively if those sports are dropped, but university admins feel perfectly comfortable taking that risk and dropping them (as they just dropped three sports). I guess this is where your "eyeballs hypothesis" about football would come in, but the thing is, by not dropping football, admins aren't testing the eyeballs-marketing hypothesis, they are assuming it is correct.

Quote:So if Akron cancelled football tomorrow and joined Wright State and Cleveland State in the Horizon League, with the same athletic budgets, they'd still be at a $15M deficit. It's very very hard to unscramble the eggs.

First, Akron's subsidy is $24m, compared to $10m or so for those schools. The debt on the stadium is $4m, so that brings the difference down to $10m, still a very substantial sum. Also, nobody has shown that this $4m stadium debt is actually charged to athletics, that is, that $4m of the $24m athletic subsidy is that stadium debt. It might be charged to general capital improvements.

But even if it is, again, we're talking just $4m of a $14m difference between Akron and those other schools.

True. But it makes the costs of FBS vs FCS / non-FB $10M a year, not $15M a year for Akron. That's a big bite.

Thing is, though, nobody has answered my query about whether the $4m stadium bill is part of that athletic subsidy or not. I'm genuinely curious about that.

Quote:That's disingenuous, Quo. the hypothesis is that FBS football brings eyeballs, eyeballs equals advertising, advertising brings in full-tuition-paying students (or better SAT scoring students). Cutting sports with zero eyeballs is not relevant to the hypothesis.

I'm a skeptic of the hypothesis, but be clear on how it's supposed to work.

Nothing about my statement denies how the hypothesis is supposed to work, it just doesn't assume it is working.

You were saying that nobody cited the hypothesis in defense of women's volleyball or whatever Akron cut. I'm saying that nobody is using the hypothesis to say that nonrevenue sports produce any revenue or advertising benefits.

Fair enough.

Quote: QUO: In contrast, your statement seems to assume it is working, when it may not be.

To test a hypothesis, you must consider the possibility that it is working. I'm skeptical, but I can't rule out the "front porch" theory of big-time (ESPN) college athletics.

(05-16-2020 09:07 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  But it's not honest to compare Wright States' athletic budget to Akron's, and say that Akron could adopt the Wright State plan. Unless you have a way to get out of that stadium debt, it's a fixed part of the budget.

"Not honest"? If the $4m Akron is paying towards its stadium is part of its $24m subsidy, then just subtract that out, and use a figure of $20m to compare with Wright State's $8m subsidy.

Fair enough.

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.

Um, OK ... And?

And I felt like somebody was about to say "come on, Akron isn't even trying to compete with Buckeye Nation." I was filling in the intermediate steps. Akron Zip aspires to Bearcat aspires to Boilermaker aspires to Badger aspires to Buckeye.

Quote:That's a ridiculous argument that "Coach" is making. Do the men's volleyball and women's soccer teams spend the night in hotel rooms on Friday nights before Saturday games?

I think they would if they could get away with it. But they can't so they don't.
And now reality is creeping in, and MAC football coaches can't get away with demanding it anymore.

I just think it speaks volumes about the fat-cow nature of football. The same logic of competitiveness would seem to apply to other sports, but they don't get to put their kids in hotels the night before games, while football does. It's pretty absurd.