How important are sports to universities?

[Carl Spackler]

See - those academics, it's so easy to press their buttons. LOL. The truth is that , guys like Zimbalist, are no different than chemistry and physics profs that are looking for the next great invention, or the lawyer, looking for that one HUGE case.......and waquoit nailed it - he found his niche, and he's economically secure now, as a writer, because of it.

Upstater, you want to fix the problem? You're barking up the wrong tree. Subsidized college athletics, is no different than living with credit card debit.

THe issue is that intercollegiate athletics operates under the farce of amateurism. All kinds of incredible accounting gymnastics are accepted across the board at major institutions, billion dollar instititutions, are allowed to do accounting magic, becuase of the farce of amateurism.

I've made no secret in the past that I like the Naval Academy. The Academy is a unique institution, and could be and should be a model, if people are really serious about addressing how athletics fits into the mission of a higher education institution. The naval academy athletic department, is a business entity that is entirely separate and distinct from the academic institution that is the USNA. I personally, am not aware of any other 1-A football school in the country, that is subsidized by taxpayer money, that follows the same model. The NAAA is classified as a 501-C non-profit, and therefore has to do it's accounting that way, and takes ZERO tax payer dollars to run their athletic department. All taxpayer dollars going to the USNA - are directed to the academic institution. It would be really easy to file the paperwork and make it no longer amateur.

Now - how many athletic departments around the country - at 1-A football schools, upstater, could sever all ties with taxpayer money, and still have a viable academic and athletic entities? That's the kind of question that would make for a very interesting economic study on academics and athletics at the 1-A level.

Not too many Ph.D's in universities though, that are going to look at that though, and what you do get is constant reiterations of that paper I cited from WMU.

 

[upstater]

See - those academics, it's so easy to press their buttons. LOL. The truth is that , guys like Zimbalist, are no different than chemistry and physics profs that are looking for the next great invention, or the lawyer, looking for that one HUGE case.......and waquoit nailed it - he found his niche, and he's economically secure now, as a writer, because of it.

Upstater, you want to fix the problem? You're barking up the wrong tree. Subsidized college athletics, is no different than living with credit card debit.

THe issue is that intercollegiate athletics operates under the farce of amateurism. All kinds of incredible accounting gymnastics are accepted across the board at major institutions, billion dollar instititutions, are allowed to do accounting magic, becuase of the farce of amateurism.

I've made no secret in the past that I like the Naval Academy. The Academy is a unique institution, and could be and should be a model, if people are really serious about addressing how athletics fits into the mission of a higher education institution. The naval academy athletic department, is a business entity that is entirely separate and distinct from the academic institution that is the USNA. I personally, am not aware of any other 1-A football school in the country, that is subsidized by taxpayer money, that follows the same model. The NAAA is classified as a 501-C non-profit, and therefore has to do it's accounting that way, and takes ZERO tax payer dollars to run their athletic department. All taxpayer dollars going to the USNA - are directed to the academic institution. It would be really easy to file the paperwork and make it no longer amateur.

Now - how many athletic departments around the country - at 1-A football schools, upstater, could sever all ties with taxpayer money, and still have a viable academic and athletic entities? That's the kind of question that would make for a very interesting economic study on academics and athletics at the 1-A level.

Not too many Ph.D's in universities though, that are going to look at that though, and what you do get is constant reiterations of that paper I cited from WMU.

So, people like Orzsag find their little niche?

That's the best you've got?

Orszag ran OMB. He's now a Chairman at Citigroup.

Just a little guy with a niche, eh?

It's fine if you want to remove taxpayer money from higher education. If that's what kind of country you want.

Countries with no investment though quickly sink. Countries with malinvestment sink too.

 

[Carl Spackler]

You're really worked up arent you? Never mind.

The point is - the question is: What effect does the athletic side of an institution have on the academic side? That's really the root ...no?

The reality is that the academic side of an institution, has very little to do with the success of athletic side of the institution. THe academic side of an institution has direct effect on how easy or difficult it can be to have athletic success, sure, but other than influencing how easy or hard it is to recruit, there's really no other effect that academics has on athletics.

But the other way around, athletic influence on academics, are many, and easily measured.

THe difficulty, that you've not yet once touched on, is that athletics is a purely profit oriented business endeavor. Yet in the intercollegiate world, it cannot be so. Because college athletes are amateurs. THe easiest way to hide the fact, that athletics generate profit, is to have athletics consistently showing deficit in budgets.

Athletic departments are like any other business, the successful ones flourish, the unsuccessful ones, like Maryland and Rutgers, start going into the crapper, cutting programs left and right, and will take any government handout they can get.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'll leave upstater alone now. I wonder if his real name is Andrew Z......, or maybe he knows him. LOL.

In answer to the question:

How important are sports to univesities? The answer is they are as important to the university, and the overall mission of the university makes them. There is no commonality to found across the board, it's a case by case basis specific to every university.

 

[upstater]

You're really worked up arent you? Never mind.

The point is - the question is: What effect does the athletic side of an institution have on the academic side? That's really the root ...no?

The reality is that the academic side of an institution, has very little to do with the success of athletic side of the institution. THe academic side of an institution has direct effect on how easy or difficult it can be to have athletic success, sure, but other than influencing how easy or hard it is to recruit, there's really no other effect that academics has on athletics.

But the other way around, athletic influence on academics, are many, and easily measured.

THe difficulty, that you've not yet once touched on, is that athletics is a purely profit oriented business endeavor. Yet in the intercollegiate world, it cannot be so. Because college athletes are amateurs. THe easiest way to hide the fact, that athletics generate profit, is to have athletics consistently showing deficit in budgets.

Athletic departments are like any other business, the successful ones flourish, the unsuccessful ones, like Maryland and Rutgers, start going into the crapper, cutting programs left and right, and will take any government handout they can get.

Hilarious stuff. They show profits!! Not deficits. How? By including direct subsidy and having the buidling loans paid by the academic side. Remove the direct subsidy and the student fees, where are you? Nowhere. The myth is that these profits are real. They are not. Show me a private business or corporation in America that makes the same amount of revenues as expenditures year after year for a decade. That never ever happens. Why does it happen at the university level? Because they are trying to hide the money suck. Every single school in America loses money on athletics except perhaps Oregon with Knight's donations--but I actually have never looked into that. I don't know the extent.

Yes, the impact of athletics are easily measurable, and Zimbalist and Orszag and money others have measured it and come to the same conclusion. Again, there is no shame in losing millions for sports yearly. That's fine. It may be good for campus spirit (though many campuses don't care). The problem is losing tens of millions yearly in an era when you're jacking up tuition and cutting classes and programs so regular students can't graduate. That's when you've lost your marbles and made a cowardly calculation because you want to keep your high-paying job: that sadly describes many presidents.

 

[UConnNick]

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.

Regarding the comment that "Most of D1 loses tens of millions", I conducted a study a few years ago of the DIA schools, all 120 of them. The top 15 moneymakers made anywhere from 15 million on up to as high as 40 million or more from football. Those numbers have escalated in the past few seasons.

At the time of my study, about 50 of the 120 DIA schools made a profit from football. From 51-70 the schools in that range either made a small profit (1-2 million) or treaded water, coming out about even on expenses vs. revenue. Schools from 71-120 lost money, in some cases quite a bit, but certainly nowhere near "tens of millions."

If you're including all of the DI schools, whether A (FBS) or AA (FCS) then yes, almost all of the I-AA schools lose money on football, some of them quite a bit, but again not "tens of millions."

The above stated money being made at the top level is why so many schools in recent years have upgraded to DIA. They do it just for the potential that they might be able to turn their FB program into a money making enterprise, or at the very least, so that they don't lose money at the same rate they were in DI-AA. For some schools it has worked out that way but for others it hasn't.

The numbers from my study came from the early 2000's. They are always a few years behind in being reported.

 

[upstater]

Regarding the comment that "Most of D1 loses tens of millions", I conducted a study a few years ago of the DIA schools, all 120 of them. The top 15 moneymakers made anywhere from 15 million on up to as high as 40 million or more from football. Those numbers have escalated in the past few seasons.

At the time of my study, about 50 of the 120 DIA schools made a profit from football. From 51-70 the schools in that range either made a small profit (1-2 million) or treaded water, coming out about even on expenses vs. revenue. Schools from 71-120 lost money, in some cases quite a bit, but certainly nowhere near "tens of millions."

If you're including all of the DI schools, whether A (FBS) or AA (FCS) then yes, almost all of the I-AA schools lose money on football, some of them quite a bit, but again not "tens of millions."

The above stated money being made at the top level is why so many schools in recent years have upgraded to DIA. They do it just for the potential that they might be able to turn their FB program into a money making enterprise, or at the very least, so that they don't lose money at the same rate they were in DI-AA. For some schools it has worked out that way but for others it hasn't.

The numbers from my study came from the early 2000's. They are always a few years behind in being reported.

Are you counting direct student fees and direct institutional support and debt service for facilities?

The numbers are available in the database. It's not a mystery. Nominally, up until last year, all but 14 D1 schools lost money. Then it jumped to 21 as being profitable.

I submit you can't look at football solely when everyone calculates expenses differently. Texas, for instance, includes Longhorn Foundation donations as football revenue. How can you possibly compare them to A&M which doesn't?

The only real way to do it is to take total expenses for the AD and compare to revenues, and then consider how much debt service the school is paying for facilities.

This board has links to a variety of sources and studies already. Zimbalist, Orzsag, etc. I don't know why we treat this as a mystery.

 

[huskymedic]

Just sharing...

Kristi Dosh (@SportsBizMiss)
3/29/13, 2:25 PM
Could FGCU make millions off its NCAA tournament run? My new piece:

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollars/post/_/id/3222/how-fgcus-run-can-benefit-admissions

Remains to be seen if FGCU can sustain it over the longer term.

“@darrenrovell: Florida Gulf Coast’s website only had 72,000 unique visitors yesterday, lowest since start of tourney. Need win tonight for another bump.”

 

[whaler11]

Yes the value of winning tonight is hits on their website. The navel gazing on the internet is approaching insanity.

 

[upstater]

Yes the value of winning tonight is hits on their website. The navel gazing on the internet is approaching insanity.

Those hits are worth at least $3 billion, according to the advertising guys.

 

[CAHUSKY]

Those hits are worth at least $3 billion, according to the advertising guys.

I don't think anyone suggested the hits, in and of themselves, have value but to discount the value of the media coverage seems a bit silly. Figuring out advertising equivalencies is relatively simple ( see study on butler) and that exposure is worth millions. You can poo poo marketing /ad folks all you want but the reality is the free advertising FCGU is getting would cost millions to purchase.

 

[upstater]

I don't think anyone suggested the hits, in and of themselves, have value but to discount the value of the media coverage seems a bit silly. Figuring out advertising equivalencies is relatively simple ( see study on butler) and that exposure is worth millions. You can poo poo marketing /ad folks all you want but the reality is the free advertising FCGU is getting would cost millions to purchase.

I was in the biz. Snake oil.

 

[CAHUSKY]

I was in the biz. Snake oil.

You may not believe the exposure is valuable but the free advertising does have value and its in the millions. That's just the reality.

 

[noeynox]

I mean none of us here heard of this school before. Now we all know,they have a beach on campus. That has to be mean and be worth something. I wasn't suggesting they were going to be competing against Yale for students with the op.

 

[whaler11]

You may not believe the exposure is valuable but the free advertising does have value and its in the millions. That's just the reality.

Can someone explain to what end this is valuable?

Assuming they go back to the beach and we never hear from them again...

What is the actual impact to the university?

More people apply? Well the sort of student who applies to a school because it has a beach is probably not going to improve your academics.

It's a public school - the fact that more people know you exist doesn't much change anything for them. Many public schools aren't even looking to really improve their academic standing anyway. States need universities to provide an education to a broad spectrum of students.

It would defeat the purpose for a school like say Central to be hell bent on improving their academics anyway. The state needs them to educate the type of students they currently enroll.

 

[upstater]

You may not believe the exposure is valuable but the free advertising does have value and its in the millions. That's just the reality.

I don't think it's anywhere near as valuable as people are assuming. When you spend, you expect a return in value. Otherwise you're making a bad investment. We started this discussion by my saying this whole run was good for FGCU (I'd never heard of it before) but that it wasn't huge for them. I also said some schools have surely benefited hugely. Like Boise and BCU and likely UConn. But for the vast majority, I don't think you get value back. This Miss Sports Biz person is glorifying her position at ESPN. When someone declares themselves a Biz Analyst and their credentials are questionable, you have to wonder.

 

[upstater]

I mean none of us here heard of this school before. Now we all know,they have a beach on campus. That has to be mean and be worth something. I wasn't suggesting they were going to be competing against Yale for students with the op.

Nor was I. The question is, how does this make the school any different from the other Florida schools like USF and UCF and FIU and FAU? Put it this way, if I were a student who only cared about sports and sun and fun, I think I'd rather go to FIU and FAU. And the next question is, why would schools want students like that? And, finally, we are talking about a low major here, low majors rarely make the same splash twice.

 

[huskymedic]

Can someone explain to what end this is valuable?

Assuming they go back to the beach and we never hear from them again...

What is the actual impact to the university?

More people apply? Well the sort of student who applies to a school because it has a beach is probably not going to improve your academics.

It's a public school - the fact that more people know you exist doesn't much change anything for them. Many public schools aren't even looking to really improve their academic standing anyway. States need universities to provide an education to a broad spectrum of students.

It would defeat the purpose for a school like say Central to be hell bent on improving their academics anyway. The state needs them to educate the type of students they currently enroll.

From the Kristi Dosh article above:

>>Economists and brothers Devin and Jaren Pope have studied the impact sports can have on university admissions. Their study titled “Understanding College Application Decisions: Why College Sports Success Matters,” concluded by saying, ““While a sports victory for a given school may not change the awareness of in-state students regarding its existence, the sports victory may present a significant shock in attention/awareness for out-of-state students.” This has certainly been true for VCU. In the fall of 2008, 92 percent of first-time freshmen were from the state of Virginia. However, by the fall of 2012 that number had decreased to 85 percent.

Why are out-of-state students so important? For the 2012-13 school year, out-of-state students at VCU paid $13,415 more than in-state students. The difference between having just 8 percent out-of-state students (as VCU did in 2008) and 15 percent (as VCU did in 2012) could amount to $3.4 million based on VCU’s fall 2012 enrollment and tuition rates.

FGCU has plenty of room to grow when it comes to attracting out-of-state students. In the fall of 2011, 91 percent of first-time freshmen at FGCU were from the state of Florida. Like VCU, there’s a sizeable difference between FGCU’s in-state and out-of-state tuition rates: $634.79 per credit hour, to be exact.<<

We can pick it apart for days and the impact other than increased apparel sales won't be known for a few years (and we will have all moved onto something else equally important) but past history has shown tangible benefits. Magnitude can be argued but there is clearly a positive impact.

 

[upstater]

From the Kristi Dosh article above:

>>Economists and brothers Devin and Jaren Pope have studied the impact sports can have on university admissions. Their study titled “Understanding College Application Decisions: Why College Sports Success Matters,” concluded by saying, ““While a sports victory for a given school may not change the awareness of in-state students regarding its existence, the sports victory may present a significant shock in attention/awareness for out-of-state students.” This has certainly been true for VCU. In the fall of 2008, 92 percent of first-time freshmen were from the state of Virginia. However, by the fall of 2012 that number had decreased to 85 percent.

Why are out-of-state students so important? For the 2012-13 school year, out-of-state students at VCU paid $13,415 more than in-state students. The difference between having just 8 percent out-of-state students (as VCU did in 2008) and 15 percent (as VCU did in 2012) could amount to $3.4 million based on VCU’s fall 2012 enrollment and tuition rates.

FGCU has plenty of room to grow when it comes to attracting out-of-state students. In the fall of 2011, 91 percent of first-time freshmen at FGCU were from the state of Florida. Like VCU, there’s a sizeable difference between FGCU’s in-state and out-of-state tuition rates: $634.79 per credit hour, to be exact.<<

We can pick it apart for days and the impact other than increased apparel sales won't be known for a few years (and we will have all moved onto something else equally important) but past history has shown tangible benefits. Magnitude can be argued but there is clearly a positive impact.

The same study she cites goes on to look at in depth studies by formidable people like the Orzag's and Zimbalist among others refuting all of this. It's linked in this very thread. You have to disambiguate admission applications from like schools with similar numbers to explain the difference. We're in an era where gov'ts are slashing school funding year by year and schools are responding by admitting more international students and out-of-staters. EVERYWHERE. The way to increase your numbers of out of staters is to DROP standards. Which is happening. So, call this picking apart, but I'd say it's people like Dosh who are doing the lazy cherry-picking. Tell her to read the Orszag report and then come back to me. I doubt she has.

 

[husky91]

Not as much when you're in a crap conference

 

[huskymedic]

"disambiguate admission applications"???

Okay.

 

[upstater]

"disambiguate admission applications"???

Okay.

It's a statistic term. In this case, it means how do you know the rise in applications is due to last year's sweet 16 appearance--especially in a time when everyone's out-of-state apps are rising?

 

[huskymedic]

It's a statistic term. In this case, it means how do you know the rise in applications is due to last year's sweet 16 appearance--especially in a time when everyone's out-of-state apps are rising?

Academics.... Yeesh.

Can we agree that any publicity is good publicity?

 

[upstater]

Academics.... Yeesh.

Can we agree that any publicity is good publicity?

Eh.

In FGCU's case, this week, yes. Just don't think it matters much.

 

[J187Money]

Yeah - like my son the high school junior baseball player. (btw - to my surprise, they have a top 30 baseball program). Mom shut that down.

darren rovell (@darrenrovell)
3/24/13, 11:14 PM
Florida Gulf Coast University Google Search Chart

View attachment 2581

She didn't want you going down there to visit him.