How important are sports to universities?

[whaler11]

I've never gotten the impression Zimbalist hates sports. I haven't read his work on this topic, but his research into stadium funding helps expose what a joke that is.

 

[UConnDan97]

I'm seriously not impressed by any of these stats. Anyone can increase enrollment, obviously, by letting more in. Most schools actually do the opposite. They curtail enrollment, which increases their rep. The endowment is also relatively small. I mean, look at Quinnipiac--it was able to accomplish all that and hardly anyone knows what it is.

VCU, by the way, is an undersupported school. I'm not looking for FGCU to get to the level of UConn, but rather USF. USF has a big lead on them. Forget about Florida St.

The general point though is that for the vast majority, not much changes. In fact, Zimbalist cracked that as some of these schools cut programs, lose academic ranking, they also lose tons to athletics, while losing on the field as well, then they start losing students who don't want to go to the "loser's school."

There are exceptions to every rule, and we can discuss them forever, I suppose. Gonzaga, Boise, BC... just to name a few. But at the very top of the rankings (i.e. top 50) sports really don't matter. After that, there are a bunch of state schools. You'll have to tell me how one compares U. Cal. San Diego to Oregon or Arizona. UCSD is higher ranked than many other public schools--without sports.

Alright, so we are definitely talking about two different things. I am talking about how athletic success can help lead to monetary success and overall better health of an institution. You're asking if it will transform a school into a "top 50" academic institution. Well, it may take a couple of Sweet Sixteens to get that accomplished...

 

[Waquoit]

You live in fantasyland.

Says the JoePa watercarrier.

 

[Husky25]

What I mean by athletic success is some success beyond that first "Dream Season". In other words, if FGCU has a follow-up year to this year where they do well again, you can expect much bigger things to happen for that university.

To be fair, I think it would be a real long-shot indeed for that university to match what has happened for UConn. But I don't think it is out of the question for them to enjoy the benefits that a VCU enjoys (for instance), or even a smaller success story like a Valparaiso. Valpo didn't do a whole hell of a lot (only 1 Sweet Sixteen), but there are a great many people in the country now that know what you are talking about when you say the word "Valpo", and that exposure is priceless for any college:

Valpo enrollment in 2000 - less than 3k
Valpo enrollment today - more than 4k
Valpo endowment "goal" in 2000 - 80 million
Valpo endowment today - 141 million
Valpo has constructed multiple large buildings in the 2000's, including library, student union, arts and sciences building, welcome center, and solar energy building.

Imagine if they had gone to an Elite Eight!!!

There's a difference between comparing FGCU to UConn '90 that is not being mentioned.

FGCU plays in the Atlantic Sun Conference, which is a minor conference (it's not even mid-major). As such Andy Enfield is sure to be courted by other schools in more prominent conferences. What's the difference between him and Calhoun in 1986-1990? Gtown happened (just finished a run of three Final 4s in four years; one NC), Villanova happened (NC in '85) and. The 1987 Final 4 happened. Bottom line, is that UConn was in a growing power basketball conference. Calhoun was certainly courted but why for another team in a power conference who are down on their luck, when you have the oppertunity to lead the team you've built and are in a equal or better position? The only reason is to go pro and how did that treat Mike Montgomery, Tim Floyd, Rick Pitino, John Calipari, or Jerry Tarkanian?

What's the point? As Andy Enfield goes, so goes the popularity of Florida Gulf Coast University and by extension, their exposure.

 

[zls44]

The only reason is to go pro and how did that treat Mike Montgomery, Tim Floyd, Rick Pitino, John Calipari, or Jerry Tarkanian?.

A: It treated them all fanta$$$$tically.

 

[Husky25]

A: It treated them all fanta$ $tically.

Yes they got dollars. But these guys are all equally about ego too. They could do one thing in college that they could not do in the pros...Win. Ergo they all returned.

My point is Andy Enfield is not long for Fort Myers, potentially as soon as the sun sets next Monday.

 

[upstater]

Says the JoePa watercarrier.

You're like a 2 year old child

Is that all you got?

 

[upstater]

Alright, so we are definitely talking about two different things. I am talking about how athletic success can help lead to monetary success and overall better health of an institution. You're asking if it will transform a school into a "top 50" academic institution. Well, it may take a couple of Sweet Sixteens to get that accomplished...

No, I am addressing the marketing aspect only. I'm of the firm conviction that athletic success ALWAYS leads to monetary loss and less health. I also am not referring to top 50 academic transformations. I was comparing two similar schools, say Oregon or Arizona and UCSD, and wondering why schools that are very alike were not hurt or helped.

 

[zls44]

Yes they got dollars. But these guys are all equally about ego too. They could do one thing in college that they could not do in the pros...Win. Ergo they all returned.

My point is Andy Enfield is not long for Fort Myers, potentially as soon as the sun sets next Monday.

Pitino did very well with the Knicks, FWIW.

 

[Husky25]

He did, but he was fustrated with the way the Pros worked. He didn't have total control. As I said...Ego.

That is why he was also named GM for the the Boston Wildcats.

 

[Waquoit]

You're like a 2 year old child

Is that all you got?

It's all you're worth.

 

[upstater]

It's all you're worth.

Apparently, I'm worth a lot more, given your interest in my posts.

 

[UConnDan97]

No, I am addressing the marketing aspect only. I'm of the firm conviction that athletic success ALWAYS leads to monetary loss and less health. I also am not referring to top 50 academic transformations. I was comparing two similar schools, say Oregon or Arizona and UCSD, and wondering why schools that are very alike were not hurt or helped.

Well no need to wonder any further. The Ivy League schools abandoned big-time sports because they thought it would affect them scholastically and they already had enough money in endowments (both statements are true, by the way). But to believe that the reason Yale and Harvard have 19 billion and 24 billion dollar endowments respectively has nothing to do with their sports (specifically football) over the years is to not tell the truth.

You can compare Oregon with UCSD (and I would compare UCSD with Yale and Harvard), but what you are really supposed to be doing is comparing Oregon to Oregon. There is no doubt that they are better off due to the big-time sports...

 

[upstater]

Well no need to wonder any further. The Ivy League schools abandoned big-time sports because they thought it would affect them scholastically and they already had enough money in endowments (both statements are true, by the way). But to believe that the reason Yale and Harvard have 19 billion and 24 billion dollar endowments respectively has nothing to do with their sports (specifically football) over the years is to not tell the truth.

You can compare Oregon with UCSD (and I would compare UCSD with Yale and Harvard), but what you are really supposed to be doing is comparing Oregon to Oregon. There is no doubt that they are better off due to the big-time sports...

Oregon has Nike. What about Arizona. I'm telling you, this is a big resource suck in a way that it isn't for D1AA or D2. URI for instance loses about $4 or $5 million on football. That's acceptable. Most of D1 however loses tens of millions.

I'm not referring to the Ivies in the top 50. There are many other schools like Emory, NYU and the UCs.

UCSD is not in the Ivy range either. It is much more like Cal-Berkeley. Is Cal-Berkeley made by sports?

And how is the Ivy endowment helped by big-time sports, again?

Having looked at these budgets internally, and having seen the wars, and knowing the depth (or shallowness) of administrators on these issues, I'm fairly convinced that it's a money suck.

 

[John Greene]

College presidents are judged by how successful they are at providing 3 things:
1 A safe place for undergraduates to drink and have sex.
2 Convenient parking for senior faculty.
3 Football for the Alumni. ( At UK, IU, NC, Duke, UConn, and a couple of others substitute BB for FB)

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Where is Cleveland State today?

Good point! Cleveland and Fort Myers Florida??? Virtually one and the same, right. So why kids weren't flocking to Cleveland State, we'll never know.

 

[UConnDan97]

Oregon has Nike. What about Arizona. I'm telling you, this is a big resource suck in a way that it isn't for D1AA or D2. URI for instance loses about $4 or $5 million on football. That's acceptable. Most of D1 however loses tens of millions.

I'm not referring to the Ivies in the top 50. There are many other schools like Emory, NYU and the UCs.

UCSD is not in the Ivy range either. It is much more like Cal-Berkeley. Is Cal-Berkeley made by sports?

And how is the Ivy endowment helped by big-time sports, again?

Having looked at these budgets internally, and having seen the wars, and knowing the depth (or shallowness) of administrators on these issues, I'm fairly convinced that it's a money suck.

1) Are you trying to tell me that Arizona doesn't make a net-positive on their athletics?
2) Are you trying to compare successful athletics with the 1-AA football team of URI?
3) Do you not believe that Cal-Berkeley has had a positive outcome due to sports??? (everyone and their grandmother knows about the last second play against Stanford)

Football is a money-suck, but only for those that don't have contracts that support it. Cal and Arizona are not two of them. As for FGCU, I don't believe they have to worry about that, and even if they do, the basketball performance will help them, not hurt them. Finally, nobody else in administrations seems to calculate the increases in other areas like applications, donations, etc. I'm sorry, but there is no way that I'm going to agree with you on this one...

 

[upstater]

1) Are you trying to tell me that Arizona doesn't make a net-positive on their athletics?
2) Are you trying to compare successful athletics with the 1-AA football team of URI?
3) Do you not believe that Cal-Berkeley has had a positive outcome due to sports??? (everyone and their grandmother knows about the last second play against Stanford)

Football is a money-suck, but only for those that don't have contracts that support it. Cal and Arizona are not two of them. As for FGCU, I don't believe they have to worry about that, and even if they do, the basketball performance will help them, not hurt them. Finally, nobody else in administrations seems to calculate the increases in other areas like applications, donations, etc. I'm sorry, but there is no way that I'm going to agree with you on this one...

Every single university in the nation, including Michigan and Texas, loses money on sports.

As for URI, I was just using an example of acceptable losses, rather than losses that impact the universities main mission, which is where most universities are at.

And, no, absolutely not about Cal-Berkeley. This is a school whose Chancellor announced to incoming students, "You will pay more for a lesser education than your predecessors have." At the same time, the school devoted resources to a new stadium. It was unconscionable and a show that he really didn't give a about the university's mission.

 

[upstater]

Good point! Cleveland and Fort Myers Florida??? Virtually one and the same, right. So why kids weren't flocking to Cleveland State, we'll never know.

You obviously missed the point. Cleveland State had a sweet 16 run that put them on the map. Most sports fans knew who they were, they knew about Rollie. Then they were totally forgotten. That's the point.

As for FGCU grabbing students from northern states (I think that's what you're implying), how is that any different than UCF and USF and all the other Florida schools like FIU and FAU? Personally, if I'm looking for sun & fun, I am now heading to spread out and relatively dead Ft Meyers/Naples. I think I'd head to FIU and FAU near Miami.

 

[UConnDan97]

Every single university in the nation, including Michigan and Texas, loses money on sports.

As for URI, I was just using an example of acceptable losses, rather than losses that impact the universities main mission, which is where most universities are at.

And, no, absolutely not about Cal-Berkeley. This is a school whose Chancellor announced to incoming students, "You will pay more for a lesser education than your predecessors have." At the same time, the school devoted resources to a new stadium. It was unconscionable and a show that he really didn't give a about the university's mission.

So then how do you explain articles like this:

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/19/who-is-atop-the-big-east-in-basketball-revenue/

I know that it is a little outdated (2009-2010), but here it says:

"When you factor in men’s basketball expenses, Louisville and Syracuse are the only 2 schools that earned profits in excess of $10 M, and only 3 other schools (Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Marquette) earned profits above $5 M.
The average men’s basketball profits reported was $3.5 M, the median profits was $1.45 M, and the only school reporting losses (albeit minimal losses) was Notre Dame."

And that's just the basketball part. Yeah, again, we aren't going to agree on this, my friend...

 

[upstater]

So then how do you explain articles like this:

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/05/19/who-is-atop-the-big-east-in-basketball-revenue/

I know that it is a little outdated (2009-2010), but here it says:

"When you factor in men’s basketball expenses, Louisville and Syracuse are the only 2 schools that earned profits in excess of $10 M, and only 3 other schools (Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Marquette) earned profits above $5 M.
The average men’s basketball profits reported was $3.5 M, the median profits was $1.45 M, and the only school reporting losses (albeit minimal losses) was Notre Dame."

And that's just the basketball part. Yeah, again, we aren't going to agree on this, my friend...

Err, that's people who don't know how to count?

I mean, when you have direct institutional subsidy's an student fees, how is that a profit?

That's like me taking money from my Dad from my lemonade stand and counting it as revenue. It can't work that way.

Look at the AD budgets over at the USA Today database and break them down. They do not make money. One of the tricks that Louisville, for instance, likes to use is to count expenditures (support staff, etc.) as AD expenditures while adding contributions and licensing to basketball specific revenues.

I've posted this numerous times.

I used to have a link to the Texas situation but it's done now, all I seem to have the screen grab article here:

www.dailytexanonline.com/university/the-real-relationship-between-ut-s-academic-and-athletic-budgets-1.2140563+texas+mack+brown+"david+hillis"+trademark+donations

I'll post part of the text:

Many outside UT seem to think that we also receive positive net income from intercollegiate athletics, since the gross income from this source seems enormous (e.g., gross income for intercollegiate athletics was $105,230,260 in 2008-2009, the latest figures available, or a little less than 5 percent of UT’s total income from all sources). But athletics expenses (e.g., $107, 283,744 in 2008-2009) are even higher than income. To make up the difference, UT has to “transfer in” general revenue funds such as Trademark Income. In addition, because Intercollegiate Athletics has run up an enormous debt ($222,488,000 by 2008-2009), we have to transfer even larger sums from general revenue sources to the Athletics Operations Cash reserves, so that we have enough reserves to pay our debt obligations from athletics. This is necessary because even the large “transfers in” to athletics from general revenues are not enough to cover our athletic department debt.

Athletics at UT is often claimed to be “self-supporting,” so does this description fit with the numbers above? It is only “self-supporting” once the transfers into athletics from general University revenue funds are added to “Income and Transfers In” account. This amounts to a huge subsidy to athletics, which comes at a cost to the rest of the University. ​

The author is David Hillis, an administrator at UT. The debt income was borne by the academic side from building out facilities.

This is how it works. They collect private money for the buildout, but instead of using it to build facilities, they include it in the athletic budget as contribution revenue. Thus, that beefs up sports profits (i.e. Texas sports contributes to the school each year--except for the year Hillis quotes in this article) while the academic side services the debt.

Here's the same dynamic at Michigan:

http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2007/09/um_professors_urge_reconsidera.html
I pulled up the athletic department budget there recently. They do contribute to the debt service for the stadium. About $2 million a year. But the annual service on the debt is $17.5 million. So, deduct that from whatever UM contributes.
I suspect in the very near future, the TV payouts will finally overtake expenditures, as long as schools don't shovel that money to the coaches.

 

[Penfield]

Just saw this article and thought it was interesting

http://deadspin.com/how-ayn-rand-led-fgcu-to-the-sweet-sixteen-sort-of-461644436

"Just how valuable is a strong showing in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament? As it happens, Butler, whose improbable run to the 2010 Final Four is still the stuff of legend, has studied this very question. Its near-championship run—it lost in the finals to Duke—generated precisely $639,273,881.82 in publicity for the university. That’s to say nothing of the increases in merchandise sales and charitable giving, or the 41 percent surge in applications."

If Schools are losing a couple million dollars each year on sports programs they might actually view it as a profit of hundreds of millions dollars.

This article probably would have been more pertinent for the other argument from a week or 2 ago but I couldnt find that.

 

[upstater]

Just saw this article and thought it was interesting

http://deadspin.com/how-ayn-rand-led-fgcu-to-the-sweet-sixteen-sort-of-461644436

"Just how valuable is a strong showing in the NCAA men’s basketball tournament? As it happens, Butler, whose improbable run to the 2010 Final Four is still the stuff of legend, has studied this very question. Its near-championship run—it lost in the finals to Duke—generated precisely $639,273,881.82 in publicity for the university. That’s to say nothing of the increases in merchandise sales and charitable giving, or the 41 percent surge in applications."

If Schools are losing a couple million dollars each year on sports programs they might actually view it as a profit of hundreds of millions dollars.

This article probably would have been more pertinent for the other argument from a week or 2 ago but I couldnt find that.

Advertisers have to sing for their supper.

 

[Carl Spackler]

A whole book! With numbers? No way! The guy created a nice niche for himself. A sports hater from Smith College has become the go-to guy for sports haters. The Connecticut experience belies his "numbers". Look what's happened at UConn since the BB teams hit big. Look what's happened to Hartford since the Whalers left.

Bravo!! Bravo!!

Here's a decent 2007 article out of Western Michigan U. If the link doesn't work: Just google: Athletic Success Legislative Largesse Donald Alexander

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...4XZwUd&sig=AHIEtbQ8Vpj0nqz-aLGWgv5gnw-Le_sXPg

The old joke is that Ph.D is short for Piled Higher and Deeper. Academic minded folks, often get so focused on their little world and their production of papers, that they lose sight of big pictures.

High profile athletics, is the fastest way to ignite and generate growth in a school. Whether it be a high school prep, private school, or a state flagship land grant university. Ignite, starting, is not the equivalent of SUSTAINING Growth though. There's a lot of other stuff that goes into sustaining growth, but there is no doubt, that athletics is the quickest way to jump start growth. Irrelevant of anything else happening. Athletic success provides a jump start from which growth of an institution can come from.

Conversely, athletic failure, by itself, is also a major impediment to growth....especially.if there are not enough other avenues that are open to sustain growth. Look at a school like Milford Academy. MIlford was THE prep school for Yale Univeristy for like a century. Yale, when football went away, didn't need a prep school anymore like that. Milford dried up, and moved to New York. THat school is 100% about football now. THere are high school prep schools all over the northeast that are constantly doing the balancing act of driving their institution success with athletics, rather than academics.

The greatest difficulty with answering the questions in this discussion, especially for large scale state institutions (1-A football state schools) is that you cannot adequately defend a position, one way or the other, regarding athletics and the role it plays in higher education, without somehow addressing the concept of amateurism in sport.

THe philosophic concept of amateurism in intercollegiate athletics, is what makes it possible for a guy like Zimbalist, to write a book he did in 1999, and for a guy like upstater to hold it up like some kind of gold standard, and for people like the WMU profs I just cited, to write an article like that - which clearly states that division 1-A state institutions playing football, across the board, get higher funding from their state legislatures, than non 1-A schools, yet somehow it's not a good idea to subsidize athletic budget deficits.

What gets academics really riled up about the whole thing, is the concept of athletics drawing money for expenses that academics want for themselves.

My response to the academics, is that in that case, rather than sitting in their labs and offices and writing and reading papers, for each other, they should actually produce something that is valueable in the business world, and create some kind of product or service that provides the necessary spark, to begin to work to sustain growth.

Because that's that athletics does - it provides the spark, by which productive people can fan into a fire.

 

[upstater]

Bravo!! Bravo!!

Here's a decent 2007 article out of Western Michigan U. If the link doesn't work: Just google: Athletic Success Legislative Largesse Donald Alexander

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:s4rBJcpX9tUJ:www.shsu.edu/~eco_www/resources/documents/DoesAthleticSuccessLeadtoPoliticalInfluence.doc &hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjzubzd38Qmh6KLLIGKNbqYc8QCYFipnQLBoHhN3EA1xmbKQO7X44nhY0lzwPdTji3l2AbgBspMFb7gYM7hXoypEnI-hf2Cs6kzyfGuBq1gN2AYkMRa_84neMWpelM32Z4XZwUd&sig=AHIEtbQ8Vpj0nqz-aLGWgv5gnw-Le_sXPg

The old joke is that Ph.D is short for Piled Higher and Deeper. Academic minded folks, often get so focused on their little world and their production of papers, that they lose sight of big pictures.

High profile athletics, is the fastest way to ignite and generate growth in a school. Whether it be a high school prep, private school, or a state flagship land grant university. Ignite, starting, is not the equivalent of SUSTAINING Growth though. There's a lot of other stuff that goes into sustaining growth, but there is no doubt, that athletics is the quickest way to jump start growth. Irrelevant of anything else happening. Athletic success provides a jump start from which growth of an institution can come from.

Conversely, athletic failure, by itself, is also a major impediment to growth....especially.if there are not enough other avenues that are open to sustain growth. Look at a school like Milford Academy. MIlford was THE prep school for Yale Univeristy for like a century. Yale, when football went away, didn't need a prep school anymore like that. Milford dried up, and moved to New York. THat school is 100% about football now. THere are high school prep schools all over the northeast that are constantly doing the balancing act of driving their institution success with athletics, rather than academics.

The greatest difficulty with answering the questions in this discussion, especially for large scale state institutions (1-A football state schools) is that you cannot adequately defend a position, one way or the other, regarding athletics and the role it plays in higher education, without somehow addressing the concept of amateurism in sport.

THe philosophic concept of amateurism in intercollegiate athletics, is what makes it possible for a guy like Zimbalist, to write a book he did in 1999, and for a guy like upstater to hold it up like some kind of gold standard, and for people like the WMU profs I just cited, to write an article like that - which clearly states that division 1-A state institutions playing football, across the board, get higher funding from their state legislatures, than non 1-A schools, yet somehow it's not a good idea to subsidize athletic budget deficits.

What gets academics really riled up about the whole thing, is the concept of athletics drawing money for expenses that academics want for themselves.

My response to the academics, is that in that case, rather than sitting in their labs and offices and writing and reading papers, for each other, they should actually produce something that is valueable in the business world, and create some kind of product or service that provides the necessary spark, to begin to work to sustain growth.

Because that's that athletics does - it provides the spark, by which productive people can fan into a fire.

You may think you know more than Zimbalist, but you don't.

No one wants to run the numbers. No one in the sports media, no one like Vitale who wonders why Presidents are jumping conferences for more cash and "hurting" the students. They don't care.

They just want to blow smoke and make things up with absolutely ZERO to back them up. Just go on making up.

You think state appropriations and cuts per state haven't been assessed? You can look at this on a school by school and state by state basis. For every D1 state school, you'll find SUNY's and Delaware's and UMass's and Cal San Diego's to compare this to.

Oh, and you can knock the authors of these reports, knock Orzag for instance. What does he know? After all. He's only in charge of scaling and modelling the nation's economic progress for the federal gov't. That's all. Let's listen to Tom Farrey and Dennis Dodd and Gregg Doyel and Jim Rome instead!