Serious question. Money, Winning, Attendance, National Visibility, Alumni Engagement, etc. All are important.

Why?

What is the end game when you really get down to it?

Why do schools choose to abandon long standing rivalries or weekend playoff games for money? Is money the end game? Or is it what spending that money gets them? It seems that decisions at nearly all levels are being made based on what drives the most revenue. Administrators say they need revenue to win which will in-turn drive attendance, alumni engagement, and interest from more casual fans. If that is the goal, I don't understand why schools so often make decisions that make it harder or less enjoyable for fans to watch or attend or participate. So what is the end goal of collegiate athletics? Money is too surface level of an answer. So is an answer that's as broad as "national visibility", etc. WHY do schools want those things? What is it that they really want?

(05-16-2023 12:26 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Serious question. Money, Winning, Attendance, National Visibility, Alumni Engagement, etc. All are important.

Why?

What is the end game when you really get down to it?

The UH Administration mentions two things repeatedly:

Student Experience
Access to students (raising the profile of the school)

(05-16-2023 12:33 PM)splitstud Wrote:  

(05-16-2023 12:26 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Serious question. Money, Winning, Attendance, National Visibility, Alumni Engagement, etc. All are important.

Why?

What is the end game when you really get down to it?

The UH Administration mentions two things repeatedly:

Student Experience
Access to students (raising the profile of the school)

Alumni involvement?

(05-16-2023 12:33 PM)splitstud Wrote:  

(05-16-2023 12:26 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Serious question. Money, Winning, Attendance, National Visibility, Alumni Engagement, etc. All are important.

Why?

What is the end game when you really get down to it?

The UH Administration mentions two things repeatedly:

Student Experience
Access to students (raising the profile of the school)

Student athletes or the average student?

[insert yet-to-be created 'money' emoji/simile thingy here... ...actually quite a few of them...]

Bring in Money?

Athletics are part of the student recruiting and alumni fundraising arms of a university.

Universities offer athletics for educational reasons. It's good for students.

Historically, it happened that after WW2 some sports took off in popularity. In modern parlance we'd say some 'went viral.' These popular sports then acquired new value as vehicles for public relations (including student recruiting) and for generating money to fund programs.

(05-16-2023 12:27 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Why do schools choose to abandon long standing rivalries or weekend playoff games for money? Is money the end game? Or is it what spending that money gets them? It seems that decisions at nearly all levels are being made based on what drives the most revenue. Administrators say they need revenue to win which will in-turn drive attendance, alumni engagement, and interest from more casual fans. If that is the goal, I don't understand why schools so often make decisions that make it harder or less enjoyable for fans to watch or attend or participate. So what is the end goal of collegiate athletics? Money is too surface level of an answer. So is an answer that's as broad as "national visibility", etc. WHY do schools want those things? What is it that they really want?

Well, as with everything, there’s no one-size fits all answer.

For North Dakota, maximizing revenue means focusing on hockey and driving in-person attendance with regional rivalries.

For USC and USC, maximizing revenue means focusing on football and getting national TV money as opposed to attendance (and arguably bigger national brands coming to town are better drivers for attendance than local schools).

For the Ivy League, maximizing revenue means the much higher alumni donation rates that they receive from athletes compared to other students.

For most of Division I, maximizing revenue means simply being in a league that has an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament and everything else stems from there.

So, “money” is surface level, but it can mean a lot of different things to various types of institutions.

I will say that higher education is unique compared to most industries because so much of a school’s value is wrapped up in academic reputation where (a) much of it is qualitative and out of a school’s control and (b) moving up is extremely hard to do. That’s why schools are so obsessed with concrete groupings to distinguish themselves, whether it’s AAU membership, athletic conferences or, yes, Division I status itself.

Athletics is one of the few *quantifiable* ways for a school to distinguish itself in a world where academic prestige and other key factors in valuing universities is often uncontrollably qualitative. Division I is the highest level available for a quantitative value factor that is actually directly under the control of a university, so that’s going to naturally be highly-valued.

(05-16-2023 12:27 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Why do schools choose to abandon long standing rivalries or weekend playoff games for money? Is money the end game? Or is it what spending that money gets them? It seems that decisions at nearly all levels are being made based on what drives the most revenue. Administrators say they need revenue to win which will in-turn drive attendance, alumni engagement, and interest from more casual fans. If that is the goal, I don't understand why schools so often make decisions that make it harder or less enjoyable for fans to watch or attend or participate. So what is the end goal of collegiate athletics? Money is too surface level of an answer. So is an answer that's as broad as "national visibility", etc. WHY do schools want those things? What is it that they really want?

It's helpful to understand that a fundamental mismatch exists in revenue sport at the college level.

The programs and institutions are nonprofit. The media companies are commercial.

Other than a general agreement between these two entities that it's better to make money than to go begging, the two are in it for completely different reasons.

(05-16-2023 12:57 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-16-2023 12:27 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Why do schools choose to abandon long standing rivalries or weekend playoff games for money? Is money the end game? Or is it what spending that money gets them? It seems that decisions at nearly all levels are being made based on what drives the most revenue. Administrators say they need revenue to win which will in-turn drive attendance, alumni engagement, and interest from more casual fans. If that is the goal, I don't understand why schools so often make decisions that make it harder or less enjoyable for fans to watch or attend or participate. So what is the end goal of collegiate athletics? Money is too surface level of an answer. So is an answer that's as broad as "national visibility", etc. WHY do schools want those things? What is it that they really want?

Well, as with everything, there’s no one-size fits all answer.

For North Dakota, maximizing revenue means focusing on hockey and driving in-person attendance with regional rivalries.

For USC and USC, maximizing revenue means focusing on football and getting national TV money as opposed to attendance (and arguably bigger national brands coming to town are better drivers for attendance than local schools).

For the Ivy League, maximizing revenue means the much higher alumni donation rates that they receive from athletes compared to other students.

For most of Division I, maximizing revenue means simply being in a league that has an automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament and everything else stems from there.

So, “money” is surface level, but it can mean a lot of different things to various types of institutions.

I will say that higher education is unique compared to most industries because so much of a school’s value is wrapped up in academic reputation where (a) much of it is qualitative and out of a school’s control and (b) moving up is extremely hard to do. That’s why schools are so obsessed with concrete groupings to distinguish themselves, whether it’s AAU membership, athletic conferences or, yes, Division I status itself.

Athletics is one of the few *quantifiable* ways for a school to distinguish itself in a world where academic prestige and other key factors in valuing universities is often uncontrollably qualitative. Division I is the highest level available for a quantitative value factor that is actually directly under the control of a university, so that’s going to naturally be highly-valued.

A+ This is a great answer.

(05-16-2023 12:26 PM)nodak651 Wrote:  Serious question. Money, Winning, Attendance, National Visibility, Alumni Engagement, etc. All are important.

Why?

What is the end game when you really get down to it?

According to JR, a sea change is coming and with potential decreases in college attendance (demographic changes), the athletics of a university will play a greater part in the school's branding and will help ensure the very survival of some institutions.

(05-16-2023 12:54 PM)Gitanole Wrote:  Universities offer athletics for educational reasons. It's good for students.

Historically, it happened that after WW2 some sports took off in popularity. In modern parlance we'd say some 'went viral.' These popular sports then acquired new value as vehicles for public relations (including student recruiting) and for generating money to fund programs.

Originally most sports really were students competing against students from other universities as opposed to recruited athletes competing against recruited athletes.

(05-16-2023 12:42 PM)ShakeNBake Wrote:  Bring in Money?

For most of Division I, college athletics does not accomplish this.

I think it's about the visibility -- improving your brand with prospective students, with alumni, and with the public. For the MAC, participation in FBS increases exposure and drives home the message that these are national universities that expect to play on the main stage (even if they don't always win on the main stage).

I'm honestly not sure anymore. The American concept of college sports is nothing like the rest of the world that's for sure.

Advertising for the school. Admission numbers as well as the quality of students have shot through the roof ever since TCU won the Rose Bowl. Alums also like a winner, so they give more.

Look at it this way... as a fan or alumni, how does it benefit your school to be playing in D-1 athletics?

I'm not really sure...

1. We can offer more scholarships which is a plus for student athletes.
2. We just left a far flung conference for a more regional conference to benefit our fans, alumni and student athletes.
3. We pocket some money, not much.
4. We get to scalp some P5s on National TV every once in a while.

As for the big Cartel schools I think their motivation is more on the side of filling the pockets of their Admin, the NCAA offices and conference HQs. They aren't spending the money generated by athletics on education, that's for sure.

https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/s...e-sharing/

To crush your rivals. See them driven before you. And to hear the lamentations of their fanbase.

Prestige.

My dog is better than your dog.