From WSJ article "Colorado State University Bets on a Stadium to Fill its Coffers":

"Even if sports success fosters more donations, there is no guarantee some will spill over into academic causes. In a 2004 study of the University of Oregon, researchers Jeffrey Stinson and Dennis Howard found that significant increases in private donations to athletics were associated with decreases in giving to academics. A 2007 study by researchers Brad Humphreys and Michael Mondello that examined nationwide data over 20 years concluded that when athletic success spurred increases in private donations, the increases usually lasted only as long as the success, and tended to be concentrated in athletics."

(10-08-2013 10:16 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  From WSJ article "Colorado State University Bets on a Stadium to Fill its Coffers":

"Even if sports success fosters more donations, there is no guarantee some will spill over into academic causes. In a 2004 study of the University of Oregon, researchers Jeffrey Stinson and Dennis Howard found that significant increases in private donations to athletics were associated with decreases in giving to academics. A 2007 study by researchers Brad Humphreys and Michael Mondello that examined nationwide data over 20 years concluded that when athletic success spurred increases in private donations, the increases usually lasted only as long as the success, and tended to be concentrated in athletics."

I don't doubt this for a second, but I keep coming back to where JMU is now. Giving is abysmal, SOMETHING has to be done. If an increase in Athletic investment to drive success has a chance to increase giving to academics, then I think JMU has to give it a shot. Whatever they have done over the last 100 years hasn't worked.

I hope you are right. If you are not, and there is little or no evidence to support your position, the academic side (not the athletic side) will suffer the consequences.

(10-08-2013 10:36 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  I hope you are right. If you are not, and there is little or no evidence to support your position, the academic side (not the athletic side) will suffer the consequences.

Virginia Tech, Alabama, VCU, GMU, etc....

All have used athletics to the benefit of academics. I could name plenty of other schools that have seen academic growth that was predicated on athletic success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flutie_Effect

(10-08-2013 10:36 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  I hope you are right. If you are not, and there is little or no evidence to support your position, the academic side (not the athletic side) will suffer the consequences.

While I agree that there is likely to be little or no measurable benefit to academics with a move to FBS, any dire predictions of academic calamity are laughable. If moving to FBS requires an institutional investment of 10, JMU is already at 9+. Where was the faculty outrage when field hockey scholarships were increased or when a new facility was built for baseball and softball?

(10-08-2013 10:46 AM)POTUS#4 Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 10:36 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  I hope you are right. If you are not, and there is little or no evidence to support your position, the academic side (not the athletic side) will suffer the consequences.

While I agree that there is likely to be little or no measurable benefit to academics with a move to FBS, any dire predictions of academic calamity are laughable. If moving to FBS requires an institutional investment of 10, JMU is already at 9+. Where was the faculty outrage when field hockey scholarships were increased or when a new facility was built for baseball and softball?

Yep. The the horse is already out of the barn. Very little choice now except move up and "hope" donations increase (they will) or de-emphasize sports and have the worlds most expensive, once a year graduation ceremony venue.

I feel like JMU is poised for another fast growth clip. New village dorms, new buildings, additional programs. It would seem that in these growth periods, the selectivity goes down (supply/demand). That cycle more than FBS or not - will influence the academics to some point.

Giving for JMU has been a challenge - I think the best way to address this is to keep the alumni very engaged in the university and get them on campus - for meetings, interviewing students, going to plays, and attending sporting events.

(10-08-2013 10:16 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  From WSJ article "Colorado State University Bets on a Stadium to Fill its Coffers":

"Even if sports success fosters more donations, there is no guarantee some will spill over into academic causes. In a 2004 study of the University of Oregon, researchers Jeffrey Stinson and Dennis Howard found that significant increases in private donations to athletics were associated with decreases in giving to academics. A 2007 study by researchers Brad Humphreys and Michael Mondello that examined nationwide data over 20 years concluded that when athletic success spurred increases in private donations, the increases usually lasted only as long as the success, and tended to be concentrated in athletics."

Are scholarships for 400+ students not academic causes?

Whether we raise 2 million for athletics/2 million for academics, 4 million for athletics/0 for academics, or 0 for athletics/4 million for academics, isn't it all going to JMU in the end?

And for every 2004 Oregon study (one example) are there not exponentially more that show how academics benefited from a larger athletic profile?

Someone tell Virginia Tech they didn't benefit over the last two decades academically in large part due to the rise of their football program...

(10-08-2013 11:03 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 10:16 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  From WSJ article "Colorado State University Bets on a Stadium to Fill its Coffers":

"Even if sports success fosters more donations, there is no guarantee some will spill over into academic causes. In a 2004 study of the University of Oregon, researchers Jeffrey Stinson and Dennis Howard found that significant increases in private donations to athletics were associated with decreases in giving to academics. A 2007 study by researchers Brad Humphreys and Michael Mondello that examined nationwide data over 20 years concluded that when athletic success spurred increases in private donations, the increases usually lasted only as long as the success, and tended to be concentrated in athletics."

Are scholarships for 400+ students not academic causes?

Whether we raise 2 million for athletics/2 million for academics, 4 million for athletics/0 for academics, or 0 for athletics/4 million for academics, isn't it all going to JMU in the end?

And for every 2004 Oregon study (one example) are their not exponentially more that show how academics benefited from a larger athletic profile?

Someone tell Virginia Tech they didn't benefit over the last two decades academically in large part due to the rise of their football program...

Well said; thank you.

For every Va Tech example, I can provide a half dozen dozen counter examples (all the Louisiana directional schools, Marshall, UMass). There are only 12 schools that "arguably" are profitable.

(10-08-2013 11:09 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  For every Va Tech example, I can provide a half dozen dozen counter examples (all the Louisiana directional schools, Marshall, UMass). There are only 12 schools that "arguably" are profitable.

I think it much more relevant to compare us to other schools in VA, Not Louisiana (poor public university system), WV (obvious reasons), and Mass (an area that simply does not support college athletics).

And no one said anything about athletics being profitable. That is a foregone conclusion....but I can argue that JMU loses more $$$ by staying FCS than moving to FBS. As has been mentioned numerous times, the status quo is a definite loser.

(10-08-2013 11:09 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  For every Va Tech example, I can provide a half dozen dozen counter examples (all the Louisiana directional schools, Marshall, UMass). There are only 12 schools that "arguably" are profitable.

At this point, you'd rather have JMU spend more money and stay 1-AA just because they can win a low level championship?

(10-08-2013 11:14 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 11:09 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  For every Va Tech example, I can provide a half dozen dozen counter examples (all the Louisiana directional schools, Marshall, UMass). There are only 12 schools that "arguably" are profitable.

At this point, you'd rather have JMU spend more money and stay 1-AA just because they can win a low level championship?

JMU could dominate in the NAIA with our athletic budget.

(10-08-2013 11:09 AM)Phlegmish Wrote:  For every Va Tech example, I can provide a half dozen dozen counter examples (all the Louisiana directional schools, Marshall, UMass). There are only 12 schools that "arguably" are profitable.

Profitable? Who said anything about being profitable? Florida Gulf Coast University doesn't have a profitable athletic department but they received millions if not billions of dollars in publicity.

Athletic departments are not meant to be profitable. They are meant to provide top tier competition for the 400+ athletes that participate and they are meant to provide publicity, engagement opportunities, and recognition for the thousands of alumni and students they represent.

Ok, I appreciate the consensus that athletics are not profitable. Now let's go back to the purpose of a university and how athletics furthers a university's mission.

(10-08-2013 12:25 PM)Phlegmish Wrote:  Ok, I appreciate the consensus that athletics are not profitable. Now let's go back to the purpose of a university and how athletics furthers a university's mission.

Here you go:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/...o-alabama/

Ok, Alabama is one of the 12 winners that I mentioned before, so here are twelve more losers: the other 12 teams in Conference USA that I didn't previously mention.

(10-08-2013 12:25 PM)Phlegmish Wrote:  Ok, I appreciate the consensus that athletics are not profitable. Now let's go back to the purpose of a university and how athletics furthers a university's mission.

JMU's mission:

Quote:We are a community committed to preparing students
to be educated and enlightened citizens
who lead productive and meaningful lives.

As someone who has participated in competitive sports their whole life, my time spent on sports teams prepared me to in all of those areas.

JMU Athletics provides that opportunity for 400+ students. Because of the popularity of athletics in our society, the university is fortunate to benefit in other ways by highlighting their athletic competition.

(10-08-2013 12:25 PM)Phlegmish Wrote:  Ok, I appreciate the consensus that athletics are not profitable. Now let's go back to the purpose of a university and how athletics furthers a university's mission.

That's a great discussion and I am happy to have it but as it relates to JMU it's way too late. W&M is a great example. I admire them because they are very clear about who they are and who they will be. They are a great academic school who offers Athletics. Their athletic budget and spending on facilities reflects this. They have a large endowment and people give to the academic side because they recognize it's importance and they continue to take pride in the academic reputation.

JMU has already invested heavily in athletics as is reflected in the athletic budget and the athletic facilities. Let's either cut the athletic budget and write-off the over built facilities or go all in. Someone along the way let the Athletic budget increase and committed to build the facilities without having the "purpose of the university" discussion, or had it and decided that playing and competing at the highest levels (regardless of cost) was the right way to go.

I don't disagree with your opinion on the purpose of the University, I came to JMU for the education, certainly not the sports. I just feel like JMU is too far down the road to turn back now.