(01-21-2019 08:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:15 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:55 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This probably isn't much different from most other schools. They just need to start dropping sports. I personally would like to see school start lobbying to get Title IX revised.

Title IX is one issue. Giving schools and conferences more freedom to select what level/division they can field their sports would be greatly beneficial, imo. It's probably something where Title IX and the NCAA can change.

I know there are schools that will make the women's and non-revenue sports pound sand...I doubt that's everywhere, even in the P5/6.

Well thats not fair when pretty much all womens sports are at a D3 level and no scholarships are provided while schools build huge facilities with all the bells and whistles for the football team. Kind of why title 9 exists in the first place.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

Yeah, I remember when Wright led Villanova to its title and the ensuing application boom the institution experienced. That's what this is about. And Villanova has thrived institutionally because of the Big East and its consistent success in basketball.

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:15 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:55 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This probably isn't much different from most other schools. They just need to start dropping sports. I personally would like to see school start lobbying to get Title IX revised.

Title IX is one issue. Giving schools and conferences more freedom to select what level/division they can field their sports would be greatly beneficial, imo. It's probably something where Title IX and the NCAA can change.

I know there are schools that will make the women's and non-revenue sports pound sand...I doubt that's everywhere, even in the P5/6.

Well thats not fair when pretty much all womens sports are at a D3 level and no scholarships are provided while schools build huge facilities with all the bells and whistles for the football team. Kind of why title 9 exists in the first place.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

That is not what the original purpose was. It was student pride and student fitness. Its only in recent years that has become the primary purpose.

(01-22-2019 10:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:15 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:55 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This probably isn't much different from most other schools. They just need to start dropping sports. I personally would like to see school start lobbying to get Title IX revised.

Title IX is one issue. Giving schools and conferences more freedom to select what level/division they can field their sports would be greatly beneficial, imo. It's probably something where Title IX and the NCAA can change.

I know there are schools that will make the women's and non-revenue sports pound sand...I doubt that's everywhere, even in the P5/6.

Well thats not fair when pretty much all womens sports are at a D3 level and no scholarships are provided while schools build huge facilities with all the bells and whistles for the football team. Kind of why title 9 exists in the first place.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

That is not what the original purpose was. It was student pride and student fitness. Its only in recent years that has become the primary purpose.

And IMO, that's a stretch as well. If you phrased that as the primary "justification" instead of "purpose", I think you would be closer to the truth. At some point in the evolution of intercollegiate sports the concept of "mens sana in corpore sano" as an institutional goal stopped being cost effective. And with recruiting of athletes who possessed "corpore sano" in spades but were clearly lagging in the "mens sana" part, it became downright hypocritical.

The only way to sell the ever increasing cost of producing winners on the football field to a reluctant faculty was to characterize that cost as a marketing expense that would attract more and better students to the non-athlete student population.

The economics of sport in today's world makes even that justification strained to the point of incredulity at most schools. But rest assured, if we need some other justification for the athletics arms race we will surely find one. Sports and entertainment are that important in our culture.

(01-22-2019 10:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:15 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:55 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This probably isn't much different from most other schools. They just need to start dropping sports. I personally would like to see school start lobbying to get Title IX revised.

Title IX is one issue. Giving schools and conferences more freedom to select what level/division they can field their sports would be greatly beneficial, imo. It's probably something where Title IX and the NCAA can change.

I know there are schools that will make the women's and non-revenue sports pound sand...I doubt that's everywhere, even in the P5/6.

Well thats not fair when pretty much all womens sports are at a D3 level and no scholarships are provided while schools build huge facilities with all the bells and whistles for the football team. Kind of why title 9 exists in the first place.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

That is not what the original purpose was. It was student pride and student fitness. Its only in recent years that has become the primary purpose.

Going back as far as the early 1900s, college athletics had become a way to promote the school and create a perception in the mind of the general populace that elite schools sponsored athletics and associated with one another through competition.

Think of it this way, why else would a program like Notre Dame barnstorm the country in a time when it wasn't at all convenient to do so? Pride doesn't pay the bills.

These were the beginnings of conferences and the introduction of the notion that academic quality was a factor when determining the membership of the conference.

It's not really a recent development at all. There's just a lot more money involved now.

(01-22-2019 11:31 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 10:45 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:15 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Title IX is one issue. Giving schools and conferences more freedom to select what level/division they can field their sports would be greatly beneficial, imo. It's probably something where Title IX and the NCAA can change.

I know there are schools that will make the women's and non-revenue sports pound sand...I doubt that's everywhere, even in the P5/6.

Well thats not fair when pretty much all womens sports are at a D3 level and no scholarships are provided while schools build huge facilities with all the bells and whistles for the football team. Kind of why title 9 exists in the first place.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

That is not what the original purpose was. It was student pride and student fitness. Its only in recent years that has become the primary purpose.

And IMO, that's a stretch as well. If you phrased that as the primary "justification" instead of "purpose", I think you would be closer to the truth. At some point in the evolution of intercollegiate sports the concept of "mens sana in corpore sano" as an institutional goal stopped being cost effective. And with recruiting of athletes who possessed "corpore sano" in spades but were clearly lagging in the "mens sana" part, it became downright hypocritical.

The only way to sell the ever increasing cost of producing winners on the football field to a reluctant faculty was to characterize that cost as a marketing expense that would attract more and better students to the non-athlete student population.

The economics of sport in today's world makes even that justification strained to the point of incredulity at most schools. But rest assured, if we need some other justification for the athletics arms race we will surely find one. Sports and entertainment are that important in our culture.

There's a synergy between our culture's addictions and institutions that seek to promote their own interests.

Professional sports exist to make money. The owners and leagues are successful in their endeavor because the people want the product. It's much the same for college athletics. It's not so much a straight profit motive, but a college doesn't really exist to generate money anyway.

If you're a school with sufficient resources then it only makes sense to use them to perpetuate your own survival by convincing the populace of how much they need you. So in a culture that values sports, we see schools sponsor them for a variety of reasons that all come back to the same goal...survival and hopefully an increase in influence.

Sports entertains the students and in so doing fosters a sense of loyalty and down the road probably fosters donations.

Sports entertains the alumni and in so doing fosters a sense of loyalty and probably attracts donations.

Sports entertains the general populace and in so doing attracts new students.

Sports entertains the people who identify with their community so all of a sudden random people start to care about the health and wealth of an institution they may have never attended, but start to see as an integral member of their favorite community.

Sports entertains powerful people and so they pull a string every now and then to help State U even if it's not cost effective or particularly beneficial to their own person.

In the end, the school gets exactly what it wants and so throwing around a few million extra to refine their "drug" becomes the cost of doing business.

It's the same reason the Socialist professor will be the first one to complain about how hard he works and thus deserves more money. It's because academics to a large degree is just another business. Everyone involved is motivated by self-interest. This leads them to be interested in the benefit of the institution as a whole. In an academic context, they use the somewhat nebulous notion of the "benefit of society" as the tool by which they guarantee their own personal survival and profit.

There's not necessarily anything wrong with that, but it is what it is. There aren't very many spheres of human existence that are purely altruistic.

This 2014 research journal article linked at the bottom is interesting, in that it looked at the impact of football, men's hoops, and women's hoops in generating SAT score submissions from prospective students. The key findings are:

1) If a football team makes the final AP top 10 or men's hoops team makes the Final 4, there is a significant boost in SAT score submissions. If you win the national title it is greater still (up to 12%).

2) If a team makes the football top 20 or men's team makes the NCAA tournament at all (round of 64), there is a minor boost to SAT score submissions (about 2%).

3) Applications by female students go up when *men's* hoops has success, but not women's hoops. In fact, even great success in women's hoops does not cause an increase in SAT submissions overall by anyone.

The whole article is interesting, but what stands out to me is that fact for there to be a "front porch" effect when it comes to SAT submissions, a school can't merely have teams, they have to be *successful*, and significantly so.

I mean, take my USF. A "front porch" claim on this criteria probably can't sustain the spending on athletics, because we've never finished in the AP top 10 in football or hoops. And that's true of the great majority of schools out there.

Now, for a UConn, a school that has won multiple men's basketball titles the past 15 years, that is different. Ditto for a UCF that has finished in the football top 10 the past two years (or close to it). BUT, even in these cases, the researchers find that the impact "decays" quickly. E.g., it is unlikely that UConn is getting any 2019 boost in applications from even their 2014 national title, much less the 2011 title.

So I think a key takeaway from this research is that while a "front porch" effect exists, and it can be powerful, it is only so for successful schools. It is not automatic merely by having teams, at least not for SAT score submissions.

Now this research didn't look at other 'front porch' effects, like say alumni donations, but it does suggest that many schools are probably wasting the big money they lose on athletics. If you are a G5 that finishes unranked in hoops and football, in that sense you wasted that year's athletic subsidies. These schools do not gain a "front porch" effect, what they are really doing is spending a lot of money now in hopes of eventually getting one, when their teams start making the Final 4, going to NY6 bowls, etc.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/devin.po...ention.pdf

(01-22-2019 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  BUT, even in these cases, the researchers find that the impact "decays" quickly. E.g., it is unlikely that UConn is getting any 2019 boost in applications from even their 2014 national title, much less the 2011 title.

What do you mean when you say decay? Do you mean the scores themselves decay? Or is it the rate of growth in scores that decay?

Let's say a school wins a national title and their SAT scores go from say 1300 to 1400. 4 years from now, will the SAT scores remain at 1400 or will they be back to 1300?

(01-22-2019 03:12 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  BUT, even in these cases, the researchers find that the impact "decays" quickly. E.g., it is unlikely that UConn is getting any 2019 boost in applications from even their 2014 national title, much less the 2011 title.

What do you mean when you say decay? Do you mean the scores themselves decay? Or is it the rate of growth in scores that decay?

Let's say a school wins a national title and their SAT scores go from say 1300 to 1400. 4 years from now, will the SAT scores remain at 1400 or will they be back to 1300?

It means that the boost they got from the title melts away, such that the SAT submissions decline back to the pre-title level.

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

The schools are plenty welcome to drop the "student-athlete" façade whenever they'd like and pay taxes and salary just like every other big-time entertainment venture, but that's more expensive than it is for LSU to waive tuition for some gymnasts. So long as they're pretending football and basketball are not-for-profit ventures for the well-being of amateur students, and they're accepting taxpayer subsidy (which even the private schools do), the proportion of their scholarships awarded will have to run more or less in line with the proportion of the "student" part of "student-athlete"

(01-22-2019 06:02 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

The schools are plenty welcome to drop the "student-athlete" façade whenever they'd like and pay taxes and salary just like every other big-time entertainment venture, but that's more expensive than it is for LSU to waive tuition for some gymnasts. So long as they're pretending football and basketball are not-for-profit ventures for the well-being of amateur students, and they're accepting taxpayer subsidy (which even the private schools do), the proportion of their scholarships awarded will have to run more or less in line with the proportion of the "student" part of "student-athlete"

The government funding is the key factor here, I understand, but the nature of athletics demands that men and women have separate access to the same resources.

I think the intention of Title IX was to make sure women weren't being discriminated against which is a good goal. The problem is there's really no other endeavor or program on a college campus that would require a separation between men and women. In other words, men and women are competing for the same spots and the same resources in other endeavors. In athletics, by contrast, they don't compete against each other on the same teams. They do compete against each other directly for funding, but it's an either/or proposition. So in practice the school has to decide whether they're going to spend money on a women's sport or a men's sport and they're obviously required to do certain things in proportion to one another.

That's an arbitrary manner of enforcement. Instead of ensuring a lack of discrimination, all they've done is ensure women have access to some of the funding. Everyone knows though that a lot of men's sports around the country were scrapped in the wake of Title IX which is a form of discrimination in and of itself because those men wouldn't have been given an opportunity to compete on a woman's team in their respective sport.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but the current enforcement doesn't particularly solve any problems.

I disagree, however, that the student-athlete is merely a facade. I get that football and basketball players aren't going to be held to high standards academically because the purpose of those sports is to generate money, but a lot of the Olympic athletes aren't there to generate funding and often don't get full scholarships. They tend to graduate more often and have better GPAs. We could eliminate the tax exempt status of ADs, but all those kids would suffer for that and I have no idea who would be better off. I don't think that's a good solution.

But either way, the Alston case will probably shake up how ADs are funded and managed. Title IX will have less impact in a world where certain athletes are being paid....unless they rule that all athletes have to be paid then it gets a lot more complicated.

(01-22-2019 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  This 2014 research journal article linked at the bottom is interesting, in that it looked at the impact of football, men's hoops, and women's hoops in generating SAT score submissions from prospective students. The key findings are:

1) If a football team makes the final AP top 10 or men's hoops team makes the Final 4, there is a significant boost in SAT score submissions. If you win the national title it is greater still (up to 12%).

2) If a team makes the football top 20 or men's team makes the NCAA tournament at all (round of 64), there is a minor boost to SAT score submissions (about 2%).

3) Applications by female students go up when *men's* hoops has success, but not women's hoops. In fact, even great success in women's hoops does not cause an increase in SAT submissions overall by anyone.

The whole article is interesting, but what stands out to me is that fact for there to be a "front porch" effect when it comes to SAT submissions, a school can't merely have teams, they have to be *successful*, and significantly so.

I mean, take my USF. A "front porch" claim on this criteria probably can't sustain the spending on athletics, because we've never finished in the AP top 10 in football or hoops. And that's true of the great majority of schools out there.

Now, for a UConn, a school that has won multiple men's basketball titles the past 15 years, that is different. Ditto for a UCF that has finished in the football top 10 the past two years (or close to it). BUT, even in these cases, the researchers find that the impact "decays" quickly. E.g., it is unlikely that UConn is getting any 2019 boost in applications from even their 2014 national title, much less the 2011 title.

So I think a key takeaway from this research is that while a "front porch" effect exists, and it can be powerful, it is only so for successful schools. It is not automatic merely by having teams, at least not for SAT score submissions.

Now this research didn't look at other 'front porch' effects, like say alumni donations, but it does suggest that many schools are probably wasting the big money they lose on athletics. If you are a G5 that finishes unranked in hoops and football, in that sense you wasted that year's athletic subsidies. These schools do not gain a "front porch" effect, what they are really doing is spending a lot of money now in hopes of eventually getting one, when their teams start making the Final 4, going to NY6 bowls, etc.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/devin.po...ention.pdf

One thing to consider—-it’s a major student amenity. There are a significant number of students who expect the athletics component to be part of thier college experience and wouldn’t even consider a school that doesn’t have it. My guess is most of those would migrate toward FBS schools. The point is—much of front porch affect has been minimized by athletics becoming fairly common at universities. So now—-you don’t as much gain students by having it—you just don’t lose students by not having it. As far as FBS goes—-that’s actually still somehwhat rare as only 129 schools in the entire nation offer that level of football experience. Even teams only getting 20K to games are creating an atmosphere that would look pretty big time compared with most FCS programs. In addition, as the paper you linked indicates—you get an additional boost by being very successful.

IMO, the real value of a football program isn't on the "front porch" end but on the back end. It does help to maintain a connection in the minds of the alumni who will be your potential donors down the road. They will follow their school's team through the media, especially when they are on TV. There aren't many other aspects of a university that can be followed by the average alum as readily as its sports teams. And out of sight, out of mind.

(01-22-2019 03:12 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(01-22-2019 01:00 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  BUT, even in these cases, the researchers find that the impact "decays" quickly. E.g., it is unlikely that UConn is getting any 2019 boost in applications from even their 2014 national title, much less the 2011 title.

What do you mean when you say decay? Do you mean the scores themselves decay? Or is it the rate of growth in scores that decay?

Let's say a school wins a national title and their SAT scores go from say 1300 to 1400. 4 years from now, will the SAT scores remain at 1400 or will they be back to 1300?

I'm not sure there is any evidence that a school's SAT scores go up as a result of on field success. It's even possible they could go down if the increase in applications comes from less qualified students. But I don't know of any studies that show whether average test scores by applicants increase or decrease significantly.

(01-23-2019 02:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing to consider—-it’s a major student amenity. There are a significant number of students who expect the athletics component to be part of thier college experience and wouldn’t even consider a school that doesn’t have it. My guess is most of those would migrate toward FBS schools. The point is—much of front porch affect has been minimized by athletics becoming fairly common at universities. So now—-you don’t as much gain students by having it—you just don’t lose students by not having it. As far as FBS goes—-that’s actually still somehwhat rare as only 129 schools in the entire nation offer that level of football experience. Even teams only getting 20K to games are creating an atmosphere that would look pretty big time compared with most FCS programs. In addition, as the paper you linked indicates—you get an additional boost by being very successful.

About the bolded parts ... I guess evidence could be collected on this, but I'm skeptical. E.g., schools in Florida like USF and UCF experienced tremendous booms in student enrollment well before they had football teams. I imagine the same is true of FIU and FAU as well.

Plus, I imagine that if the football experience is really a *decisive* factor for an applicant, then the 'success' factor is going to play a big role. They are going to apply to Texas A/M, not Texas State or Texas San Antonio. They are not looking for a school that merely has a team, they want to be part of a big time/winning tradition and experience.

About the second bolded part, it depends. E.g., USF draws more fans than Southern University (an FCS/HBCU), but Southern has an amazing game day atmosphere, RVs start arriving from all over the south on Wednesday evening for a Saturday game, and there is tailgating for two days before kickoff. And football permeates the life of the school year-round. It is an enormous source of pride, win or lose, while USF's atmosphere pales by comparison. Again, it depends on the traditions, etc. of the institutions.

IMO, most G5 that are pouring huge sums in to football are, on balance, losing a huge amount of money overall. The benefits they get here and now are much less compared to the real costs.

They are spending in the hope of getting the front and "back porch" effects (e.g., alumni donations) some day in the future.

(01-23-2019 10:14 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-23-2019 02:58 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing to consider—-it’s a major student amenity. There are a significant number of students who expect the athletics component to be part of thier college experience and wouldn’t even consider a school that doesn’t have it. My guess is most of those would migrate toward FBS schools. The point is—much of front porch affect has been minimized by athletics becoming fairly common at universities. So now—-you don’t as much gain students by having it—you just don’t lose students by not having it. As far as FBS goes—-that’s actually still somehwhat rare as only 129 schools in the entire nation offer that level of football experience. Even teams only getting 20K to games are creating an atmosphere that would look pretty big time compared with most FCS programs. In addition, as the paper you linked indicates—you get an additional boost by being very successful.

About the bolded parts ... I guess evidence could be collected on this, but I'm skeptical. E.g., schools in Florida like USF and UCF experienced tremendous booms in student enrollment well before they had football teams. I imagine the same is true of FIU and FAU as well.

Plus, I imagine that if the football experience is really a *decisive* factor for an applicant, then the 'success' factor is going to play a big role. They are going to apply to Texas A/M, not Texas State or Texas San Antonio. They are not looking for a school that merely has a team, they want to be part of a big time/winning tradition and experience.

About the second bolded part, it depends. E.g., USF draws more fans than Southern University (an FCS/HBCU), but Southern has an amazing game day atmosphere, RVs start arriving from all over the south on Wednesday evening for a Saturday game, and there is tailgating for two days before kickoff. And football permeates the life of the school year-round. It is an enormous source of pride, win or lose, while USF's atmosphere pales by comparison. Again, it depends on the traditions, etc. of the institutions.

IMO, most G5 that are pouring huge sums in to football are, on balance, losing a huge amount of money overall. The benefits they get here and now are much less compared to the real costs.

They are spending in the hope of getting the front and "back porch" effects (e.g., alumni donations) some day in the future.

Every school has a different situation.

If you got rid of all intercollegiate athletics and assume it makes no difference in the number of high school graduates pursuing higher education, I suspect you'd see a surge of enrollment at most colleges in metro areas and in close proximity. I suspect you'd see a surge at many junior colleges. The more rural/remote colleges outside of the land grants would likely struggle as enrollment would drop.

UT Arlington is often mentioned as a "should add football" and I can't see what they gain with football they don't have already. Enrollment has grown, their academic reputation has grown. They aren't struggling to attract qualified students.

(01-21-2019 11:22 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 08:43 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 03:15 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-21-2019 10:55 AM)TrojanCampaign Wrote:  This probably isn't much different from most other schools. They just need to start dropping sports. I personally would like to see school start lobbying to get Title IX revised.

Title IX is one issue. Giving schools and conferences more freedom to select what level/division they can field their sports would be greatly beneficial, imo. It's probably something where Title IX and the NCAA can change.

I know there are schools that will make the women's and non-revenue sports pound sand...I doubt that's everywhere, even in the P5/6.

Well thats not fair when pretty much all womens sports are at a D3 level and no scholarships are provided while schools build huge facilities with all the bells and whistles for the football team. Kind of why title 9 exists in the first place.

Fairness doesn't have much to do with it.

The purpose of an academic institution sponsoring a sport in the first place is to promote the institution. Women's field hockey does not accomplish that goal to any reasonable degree, for example.

Football and basketball programs get the majority of reinvestment because they 1) generate the most revenue and 2) are most effective at fulfilling the purpose of sponsoring athletics.

I would agree that Title IX needs to be revised although I'm not sure what the best way to do that is. One thing is clear, it's an arbitrary principle at work. I'm all for women playing sports and having opportunities to compete at a high level, but the provision for doing so should not cost any men the opportunity to do the same.

With regard to the finances, if any organization(an athletic department in this case) needs to work on being solvent then they should have the freedom to do what is in their own best interest. Federal law shouldn't have much to do with it.

Thats kinda what Im thinking. You cant whine about deficits on the one hand and then demand that athletics fund programs that have no real following and are massive money losing propositions.

Bottom line is that Title IX isn't ever going away. It has only been *strengthened* over the years, never weakened, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats have controlled the government.

And let's face it: Title IX isn't the reason G5 schools suffer athletic money problems. The main reason is that football just doesn't pay for itself, not anywhere close. UConn football lost almost $9m last year. Women's Lacrosse didn't lose that much.

(01-24-2019 07:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that Title IX isn't ever going away. It has only been *strengthened* over the years, never weakened, regardless of whether the Republicans or Democrats have controlled the government.

And let's face it: Title IX isn't the reason G5 schools suffer athletic money problems. The main reason is that football just doesn't pay for itself, not anywhere close. UConn football lost almost $9m last year. Women's Lacrosse didn't lose that much.

If Alston wins revenue sports will be separated from non revenue sports. There won't be athletic scholarships for revenue sports. They will pay the players. Title IX is going to have a deuce difficult time keeping pace. No scholarships for football and basketball could go a long way to trimming some sports.

It will be a new paradigm. So we'll watch, wait, and eventually see how Title IX applies in that new paradigm.

(01-23-2019 09:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  I'm not sure there is any evidence that a school's SAT scores go up as a result of on field success. It's even possible they could go down if the increase in applications comes from less qualified students. But I don't know of any studies that show whether average test scores by applicants increase or decrease significantly.

Since Nick Saban arrived at the Univ of Alabama about 11 years ago: enrollment has nearly doubled, applications have nearly tripled, tuition has more than doubled, a majority of students now are from out of state (paying that high tuition $$ ), the school is more selective, applicants have higher SATs and GPAs. UA’s number of National Merit finalists rate in the top 5 for public schools according to the NYTimes. UA wasn't a prestigious academic institution 20 years ago. They are becoming one. And they keep building and adding. The football success has been calculated to have added billions of dollars to economically to the school, the community, and the state, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

ajc.com/sports/college/decade-dominance-how-nick-saban-success-transformed-alabama-and-not-just-football/qEGqFDdct5d8Jy7eaKyeUP/

I read how HC Mark Few’s success at Gonzaga basically saved a declining school. Without the basketball success they’d be Rockhurst.

espn.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/119205/how-the-basketball-program-helped-gonzaga-university-flourish

It’s weird, but sports is one of the primary PR and marketing efforts of schools. Success in sports has real world consequences in attracting students, faculty, money, gaining prestige for diplomas, professors' careers, etc. That’s why schools are desperate to be successful and are willing to sink the money into it.

It’s crazy. But it’s real.