(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Long story short: most university presidents are only going to be at their particular jobs for a few years before moving somewhere else, so he/she doesn't want that reputation of being the person that killed Division I sports at a school. That's a scarlet letter that doesn't ever leave a resume. In contrast, it's FAR easier for those university presidents to simply tack on an additional athletic fee to student bills. There's no contest there. It looks a heck of a lot better on a resume for better jobs when university presidents figure out ways to *save* athletic departments (even if it's superficial via more student fees) as opposed to killing them.

I don't think we disagree here. I've been saying for years that Admins tack on student fees and keep alive obviously white-elephant athletic programs for their own career prospects. True, in the business world, there are executives who can gain a reputation as "retrenchment" or "turnaround" experts, guys you bring in when red ink is flowing and you need budgets slashed and departments chopped and mass layoffs to save the company, and these guys can make good money doing that. But that is almost never the case in the public sector, where the vast majority of student-soaking universities are located, because they don't face the same kind of market discipline. In that domain, a good 'executive' grows things.

But I also think the "human" element goes beyond that to admin ego as well. A bureaucrat almost never likes to see programs under his/her auspices shrink or be dismantled, they always want new ones created or existing ones expanded, because the larger the budget and programs and resources you preside over, the more power and prestige you have in that world.

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

As I mentioned earlier, there was a study published last year that showed an "advertising" impact of athletics on enrollment only when football or men's hoops achieves an elite performance outcome. Merely having such teams, even if they perform pretty well, has no such impact. And there is no impact at all for other sports even if they perform at an elite level.

Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

(03-09-2020 01:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:21 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Of course they do, especially the big donors.

Right, and I find that lends to trouble. You have designated groups doing this collecting, but also reliant upon leaders doing it with them, competing with themselves, really.

Well, the AD and football coach typically aren't out trying to raise money for a new science building so other than the President I don't think there's a lot of crossover. And everyone has their lists. So and so supports the arts. This guy is an alum of the business school that's really done well. Same is true for athletics. Would they give more to the school of business if there were no athletics or would they not give at all? The world may never know.

If you're the person working on a campaign drive, the sports buff and the business mogul are one in the same to you. If you're the president, the same is true for their dollars; it's coming to you, but who is getting it?

You bring up the athletic director and football coach...you know, at a place like Villanova, when Vince Nicastro was there while Andy Talley was lobbying hard for FBS? They totally weren't on the same side for donations.

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

(03-09-2020 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

Did you quote the right post?

Lots and lots of MAC-ish schools in VA and the Carolinas on that list. I think that is reflective of the disarray geographically in the low to mid conferences in the greater southeast. If the Sun Belt, C-USA, SoCon, and Big South were to reshuffle the deck based upon history, tradition, and geographic cohesiveness like the MAC they'd all be better off and not need to so heavily rely on student subsidies.

(03-09-2020 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

So at what level of subsidy should you be allowed to to be in FBS and Div I. And should it be actual self generated revenue like ticket sales and donations or are you allowed to suck off the the teet of your conference and the successes of other teams? Asking for a friend.

(03-09-2020 02:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Lots and lots of MAC-ish schools in VA and the Carolinas on that list. I think that is reflective of the disarray geographically in the low to mid conferences in the greater southeast. If the Sun Belt, C-USA, SoCon, and Big South were to reshuffle the deck based upon history, tradition, and geographic cohesiveness like the MAC they'd all be better off and not need to so heavily rely on student subsidies.

What do you mean by "MAC-ish"?

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  ....bury those fees in fine print or on websites because they know they are morally wrong. They are soaking regular students to pay for athletes, and money losing athletic programs that stroke admin and high-roller alumni egos.

Doesn't an athletic program act as advertising for a University? I would venture to guess that a successful athletic program actually draws in students....i.e. that schools enrollment numbers increase directly because of the athletic program. So those fees could be considered nothing more than additional advertising money.

But how much more could be done with direct promotion?

(03-09-2020 03:12 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

So at what level of subsidy should you be allowed to to be in FBS and Div I. And should it be actual self generated revenue like ticket sales and donations or are you allowed to suck off the the teet of your conference and the successes of other teams? Asking for a friend.

What level of subsidy? Ultimately, athletic departments should be self-sustaining. But to allow for contingencies, then maybe a 5-year rolling average of 20% is a reasonable number. That shows an AD that is largely sustaining itself and not cannibalizing its university. Below that should be another division.

What would also help is much higher barriers to entry. Right now, the NCAA barriers to FBS are very low, and allow indefinite soaking of students and pathetic attendance requirements. E.g., the 15,000 number is very low, and schools are allowed to fake it by buying their own tickets. E.g., I saw a report that said that Miami of Ohio has been buying 10,000 tickets a year to get to the 15,000 threshold, meaning actual fans are only buying 5,000 tickets per game. That's absurd.

An attendance requirement of 30,000 with no gimmicks would go a long way towards ending the ego-driven push for FBS by bottom-scroungers.

As for "sucking off the teet or your conference" well that makes no sense, as a conference is a coalition of schools that want to be together so nobody is "sucking" in that sense.

(03-09-2020 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:12 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

So at what level of subsidy should you be allowed to to be in FBS and Div I. And should it be actual self generated revenue like ticket sales and donations or are you allowed to suck off the the teet of your conference and the successes of other teams? Asking for a friend.

What level of subsidy? Ultimately, athletic departments should be self-sustaining. But to allow for contingencies, then maybe a 5-year rolling average of 20% is a reasonable number. That shows an AD that is largely sustaining itself and not cannibalizing its university. Below that should be another division.

As for "sucking off the teet or your conference" well that makes no sense, as a conference is a coalition of schools that want to be together so nobody is "sucking" in that sense.

20% by what accounting standard? And so if we cut our budget to like $25M by removing some items from our budget and putting them on the university side as most schools do an maybe dropping the sailing program then we could be Div I with the 40 or so other top echelon schools?

I'm asking if you should have actual fan support? People that care about seeing your product and not just a warm body in Florida.

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:38 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  "It helps attract and retain students," is usually the college response.

Thing is though, it really doesn't, at least not (ironically) for the schools that seem to soak their students the most. There was a study published last year that showed that truly elite performance in the major sports - like winning a BCS bowl game or making the final AP top 10, or making the Final 4 in men's hoops, did cause a non-trivial increase in student enrollment, which faded out after about 3 years.

IOW's, it really is a "Flutie Effect", you need to win a major bowl like the 1985 Cotton Bowl, and have the Heisman Trophy winner, to get the effect.

All other achievements, even in women's hoops and baseball, had zero impact. And of course 99% of all the schools soaking their students with athletic fees never attain the kind of success needed to gain these benefits.

The simple answer is that there are humans involved here and, at the end of the day, administrators that would dare downsize or eliminate an athletic department have more to lose *personally* than administrators that keep them going. (See UAB football.)

I'd compare it to pro sports stadiums. Every economic study under the sun shows that municipalities are on the losing end of public funding of pro sports stadiums.

So, why do governors and mayors still sign onto pro sports stadium deals? It's because despite all of the taxpayer watchdog group warnings, the simple fact of the matter is that governors and mayors have a history of getting voted *out* of office if they lose a pro sports team, whereas they get hailed as heroes when they get a pro sports team. Public opinion polls might even state that a majority of the people don't want to have public subsidies for pro sports stadiums. However, when a pro sports team actually carries out an act of leaving for another location, the politicians get hammered by the voters much more than if they had signed onto a new stadium deal.

Ultimately, "we" the public (and I mean the royal "we" as opposed to this board in particular) are to blame for this because we all talk both sides of our mouths on this issue (myself included). We claim that we don't want overspending on sports, whether college or pro... yet our TV viewing habits and actions support the notion that spectator sports are actually more valuable than ever. We claim that we don't want public funding for a pro sports stadium, but when our favorite team leaves for another city, we then blame the mayor.

Politicians *fear* that this will happen, but recent events suggest that maybe they fear too much. Voters did not punish mayors in Oakland, San Diego, or St. Louis, though no doubt the NFL did its best to spread fear of voter retaliation.

(03-09-2020 03:24 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Lots and lots of MAC-ish schools in VA and the Carolinas on that list. I think that is reflective of the disarray geographically in the low to mid conferences in the greater southeast. If the Sun Belt, C-USA, SoCon, and Big South were to reshuffle the deck based upon history, tradition, and geographic cohesiveness like the MAC they'd all be better off and not need to so heavily rely on student subsidies.

What do you mean by "MAC-ish"?

Universities big enough to offer the full spread of athletics but small enough to not warrant their own conference network. In other words Universities best suited by maintaining a tight geographic footprint with traditional rivals of relative peer status. It's not a pejorative. The MAC may not have the best hand out there but they play what they have well. You can play football from one end of the conference to the other without needing to bring airfare into the equation. There's a lot to be said about that. Especially when you get to all those other sports that only bleed money like the olympic sports and the various Title IX football offset sports.

(03-09-2020 03:47 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:12 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

So at what level of subsidy should you be allowed to to be in FBS and Div I. And should it be actual self generated revenue like ticket sales and donations or are you allowed to suck off the the teet of your conference and the successes of other teams? Asking for a friend.

What level of subsidy? Ultimately, athletic departments should be self-sustaining. But to allow for contingencies, then maybe a 5-year rolling average of 20% is a reasonable number. That shows an AD that is largely sustaining itself and not cannibalizing its university. Below that should be another division.

As for "sucking off the teet or your conference" well that makes no sense, as a conference is a coalition of schools that want to be together so nobody is "sucking" in that sense.

20% by what accounting standard? And so if we cut our budget to like $25M by removing some items from our budget and putting them on the university side as most schools do an maybe dropping the sailing program then we could be Div I with the 40 or so other top echelon schools?

I'm asking if you should have actual fan support? People that care about seeing your product and not just a warm body in Florida.

I think 20% subsidy and 30,000 in the stands - stringently defined- would clear out a lot of student-soaking dead wood in FBS. So I agree with you about actual fan support.

As for warm bodies, the standards would have to apply to everyone. And I wasn't singling out ODU, I was the one who posted that ODU is actually right in the mix as far as C-USA is concerned and not an extreme outlier. Heck my USF would have a lot of work to do to meet my standards, but IMO that's what should happen. As of now, FBS has way too many schools that lack true FBS-level support in any way shape or form, with a lot of gimmickry to meet the already way too low standards.

(03-09-2020 01:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:21 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Of course they do, especially the big donors.

Right, and I find that lends to trouble. You have designated groups doing this collecting, but also reliant upon leaders doing it with them, competing with themselves, really.

Well, the AD and football coach typically aren't out trying to raise money for a new science building so other than the President I don't think there's a lot of crossover. And everyone has their lists. So and so supports the arts. This guy is an alum of the business school that's really done well. Same is true for athletics. Would they give more to the school of business if there were no athletics or would they not give at all? The world may never know.

They know. It's also why you see so many administrations fighting tooth and nail to stay D1.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012...ll-success

(03-09-2020 12:51 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:31 PM)DawgNBama Wrote:  Those fees differ from state to state. The state of Virginia is ridiculous with their student fees, I've noticed.

Athletics fees got so bad, that the state had to pass a law that limits athletics fees to a percentage of athletics budget. Looking at the top 10, there are a lot of schools out of compliance. I guess nothing is being done to enforce the law.

Virginia Military Institute $3,340
Citadel Military College of South Carolina $2,713
James Madison University $2,340
Longwood University $2,012
College of William and Mary $1,900
Old Dominion University $1,678
Norfolk State University $1,538
College of Charleston $1,278
Winthrop University $1,225
Radford University $1,180

And as shown here, South Carolina is just as obnoxious. They have the other three schools here, with Coastal close behind.

(03-09-2020 06:31 PM)Mav Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:43 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:21 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 12:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Of course they do, especially the big donors.

Right, and I find that lends to trouble. You have designated groups doing this collecting, but also reliant upon leaders doing it with them, competing with themselves, really.

Well, the AD and football coach typically aren't out trying to raise money for a new science building so other than the President I don't think there's a lot of crossover. And everyone has their lists. So and so supports the arts. This guy is an alum of the business school that's really done well. Same is true for athletics. Would they give more to the school of business if there were no athletics or would they not give at all? The world may never know.

They know. It's also why you see so many administrations fighting tooth and nail to stay D1.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012...ll-success

Well, that report looks at the impact of *winning*. You have to win to gain benefits, not just have programs in existence. And, the author also says "these “spillover benefits” are still not enough to justify athletics expenditures."

(03-09-2020 03:35 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 03:12 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 02:01 PM)CitrusUCF Wrote:  Jeez, using the numbers available, if UCF charged the same student fee as James Madison, we'd have a $164m budget, which is about $3m larger than UF.

Looking at the USA Today data, ODU has an overall athletic transfer rate - student athletic fees and other school transfers- of 64%. That's in the same ballpark as other C-USA schools, such as UNCC (70%), North Texas (67%), Middle Tennessee (67%), UTEP (64%) and UAB (60%).

Of course, all of those subsidy %s are way too high and indicate programs that should not be in FBS or Division I. But ODU isn't extra- out of line as the student fee size seems to indicate.

So at what level of subsidy should you be allowed to to be in FBS and Div I. And should it be actual self generated revenue like ticket sales and donations or are you allowed to suck off the the teet of your conference and the successes of other teams? Asking for a friend.

What level of subsidy? Ultimately, athletic departments should be self-sustaining. But to allow for contingencies, then maybe a 5-year rolling average of 20% is a reasonable number. That shows an AD that is largely sustaining itself and not cannibalizing its university. Below that should be another division.

What would also help is much higher barriers to entry. Right now, the NCAA barriers to FBS are very low, and allow indefinite soaking of students and pathetic attendance requirements. E.g., the 15,000 number is very low, and schools are allowed to fake it by buying their own tickets. E.g., I saw a report that said that Miami of Ohio has been buying 10,000 tickets a year to get to the 15,000 threshold, meaning actual fans are only buying 5,000 tickets per game. That's absurd.

An attendance requirement of 30,000 with no gimmicks would go a long way towards ending the ego-driven push for FBS by bottom-scroungers.

As for "sucking off the teet or your conference" well that makes no sense, as a conference is a coalition of schools that want to be together so nobody is "sucking" in that sense.

Nobody in Division II or III is self-sustaining. But sports is seen as part of the student experience-for the participants, not just the spectators. However, those subsidies are manageable. Division I is a different story where 14 sports are required.

(03-09-2020 04:08 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:29 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:46 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 10:38 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  "It helps attract and retain students," is usually the college response.

Thing is though, it really doesn't, at least not (ironically) for the schools that seem to soak their students the most. There was a study published last year that showed that truly elite performance in the major sports - like winning a BCS bowl game or making the final AP top 10, or making the Final 4 in men's hoops, did cause a non-trivial increase in student enrollment, which faded out after about 3 years.

IOW's, it really is a "Flutie Effect", you need to win a major bowl like the 1985 Cotton Bowl, and have the Heisman Trophy winner, to get the effect.

All other achievements, even in women's hoops and baseball, had zero impact. And of course 99% of all the schools soaking their students with athletic fees never attain the kind of success needed to gain these benefits.

The simple answer is that there are humans involved here and, at the end of the day, administrators that would dare downsize or eliminate an athletic department have more to lose *personally* than administrators that keep them going. (See UAB football.)

I'd compare it to pro sports stadiums. Every economic study under the sun shows that municipalities are on the losing end of public funding of pro sports stadiums.

So, why do governors and mayors still sign onto pro sports stadium deals? It's because despite all of the taxpayer watchdog group warnings, the simple fact of the matter is that governors and mayors have a history of getting voted *out* of office if they lose a pro sports team, whereas they get hailed as heroes when they get a pro sports team. Public opinion polls might even state that a majority of the people don't want to have public subsidies for pro sports stadiums. However, when a pro sports team actually carries out an act of leaving for another location, the politicians get hammered by the voters much more than if they had signed onto a new stadium deal.

Ultimately, "we" the public (and I mean the royal "we" as opposed to this board in particular) are to blame for this because we all talk both sides of our mouths on this issue (myself included). We claim that we don't want overspending on sports, whether college or pro... yet our TV viewing habits and actions support the notion that spectator sports are actually more valuable than ever. We claim that we don't want public funding for a pro sports stadium, but when our favorite team leaves for another city, we then blame the mayor.

Politicians *fear* that this will happen, but recent events suggest that maybe they fear too much. Voters did not punish mayors in Oakland, San Diego, or St. Louis, though no doubt the NFL did its best to spread fear of voter retaliation.

Nor did Houston.