Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[CL82]

Are you a sports franchise or a college?

Do you ever see NYU kids wearing NYU apparel? Yes. That must be because of their great basketball program. What about Yale? Ever see a Yale sweatshirt?

If you legislature only subsidizes education (and it's not enough anyway) when the basketball team wins, you've already lost the plot. It just means your school is sure to degrade.

By the way, applications are skyrocketing everywhere, at publics like Umass and Vermont, not just at UConn.

But I return to the first answer: are you an educational institution?

No one freeloads off the athletic department. It's the reverse of that 90% of the time (and that's a conservative estimate since there are only a handful of schools that are truly in the black).

We are long past the day when sports was the necessary attraction for students. Not now when non-sports schools are getting as many students and when state institutions have chopped the # of spots for state residents. We're at the end here.

I thought we were talking about inter department chargebacks. Shouldn't they be consistent with everyone being charged for imputed benefits, or no one being charged?

As you frequently point out, universities are a business, yet somehow the academic side thinks that it should be entitled to the considerable marketing in lobbying benefits that it gets from the athletic department free of charge, while charging the athletic department artificially high deemed tuition costs. Does that seem disingenuous to you? You can't have it both ways, and have an intellectually consistent position.

 

[uconn_jack]

Supposedly, any Peacock games are just going to be simultaneous broadcast of games on TNT. if that's the case, then I have no objection to it.

Oh that's fine then. What's really annoyed if I had to get a peacock subscription to watch UConn games.

 

[CTFAN4LIFE]

Are you a sports franchise or a college?

Do you ever see NYU kids wearing NYU apparel? Yes. That must be because of their great basketball program. What about Yale? Ever see a Yale sweatshirt?

If you legislature only subsidizes education (and it's not enough anyway) when the basketball team wins, you've already lost the plot. It just means your school is sure to degrade.

By the way, applications are skyrocketing everywhere, at publics like Umass and Vermont, not just at UConn.

But I return to the first answer: are you an educational institution?

No one freeloads off the athletic department. It's the reverse of that 90% of the time (and that's a conservative estimate since there are only a handful of schools that are truly in the black).

We are long past the day when sports was the necessary attraction for students. Not now when non-sports schools are getting as many students and when state institutions have chopped the # of spots for state residents. We're at the end here.

Why is it that you're playing athletics off of academics? There's no reason to not be world class in both at the same time. We can walk and chew gum. And, we're doing it right now.

 

[upstater]

Why is it that you're playing athletics off of academics? There's no reason to not be world class in both at the same time. We can walk and chew gum. And, we're doing it right now.

Not only are athletics being pitted against academics in today's world, but so are academics. University life today is a fight to the death.

 

[upstater]

I thought we were talking about inter department chargebacks. Shouldn't they be consistent with everyone being charged for imputed benefits, or no one being charged?

As you frequently point out, universities are a business, yet somehow the academic side thinks that it should be entitled to the considerable marketing in lobbying benefits that it gets from the athletic department free of charge, while charging the athletic department artificially high deemed tuition costs. Does that seem disingenuous to you? You can't have it both ways, and have an intellectually consistent position.

What marketing?

Be specific.

I specifically answered a question about where the money goes.

All you talked about was an imputed benefit of marketing. How does the History department benefit from that marketing?

The athletic department is being charged for the true cost of each athlete. Nothing is artificially high about it. I can give countless examples to explain why it's not artificial. For instance, when departments count as majors a preponderance of kids who are in-state and (god forbid) have tuition defrayed by state tuition programs (like Excelsior in New York) those kids are held against the departments. The ones who are more in favor are those who have more majors for international students and sometimes those who enroll more out-of-staters (for whatever reason). So they're not only counting heads, but they are also paying attention to demographics. That's what running it as a business is all about. Kids aren't traveling from India to major in History.

 

[hank970]

Why do so many of you hang your hats on UConn's rather modest football accomplishments, all of them in the ever-more-distant past? Do you really think such fleeting achievements assure future success? That's the mindset that ushered in the RE2 era. You'd better hope that the folks making the pitch to the B12 are more creative than that. Yormark may crave a basketball presence in the Northeast, and UConn has proved itself more than worthy in that regard, but he has to convince at least 12 members of the B12 and its media partners that UConn is also capable of quickly building a competitive football program in a more rigorous environment.

 

[noeynox]

Why do so many of you hang your hats on UConn's rather modest football accomplishments, all of them in the ever-more-distant past? Do you really think such fleeting achievements assure future success? That's the mindset that ushered in the RE2 era. You'd better hope that the folks making the pitch to the B12 are more creative than that. Yormark may crave a basketball presence in the Northeast, and UConn has proved itself more than worthy in that regard, but he has to convince at least 12 members of the B12 and its media partners that UConn is also capable of quickly building a competitive football program in a more rigorous environment.

Ehhh, shut up!

 

[BlueMAB]

Why do so many of you hang your hats on UConn's rather modest football accomplishments, all of them in the ever-more-distant past? Do you really think such fleeting achievements assure future success? That's the mindset that ushered in the RE2 era. You'd better hope that the folks making the pitch to the B12 are more creative than that. Yormark may crave a basketball presence in the Northeast, and UConn has proved itself more than worthy in that regard, but he has to convince at least 12 members of the B12 and its media partners that UConn is also capable of quickly building a competitive football program in a more rigorous environment.

Thank you for your interest in UConn football.

 

[ZooCougar]

Are you a sports franchise or a college?

Do you ever see NYU kids wearing NYU apparel? Yes. That must be because of their great basketball program. What about Yale? Ever see a Yale sweatshirt?

If you legislature only subsidizes education (and it's not enough anyway) when the basketball team wins, you've already lost the plot. It just means your school is sure to degrade.

By the way, applications are skyrocketing everywhere, at publics like Umass and Vermont, not just at UConn.

But I return to the first answer: are you an educational institution?

No one freeloads off the athletic department. It's the reverse of that 90% of the time (and that's a conservative estimate since there are only a handful of schools that are truly in the black).

We are long past the day when sports was the necessary attraction for students. Not now when non-sports schools are getting as many students and when state institutions have chopped the # of spots for state residents. We're at the end here.

Realistically, you are both a college and a sports franchise.

 

[UConnDan97]

Ehhh, shut up!

Don't feed the trolls...

 

[John]

Why do so many of you hang your hats on UConn's rather modest football accomplishments, all of them in the ever-more-distant past? Do you really think such fleeting achievements assure future success? That's the mindset that ushered in the RE2 era. You'd better hope that the folks making the pitch to the B12 are more creative than that. Yormark may crave a basketball presence in the Northeast, and UConn has proved itself more than worthy in that regard, but he has to convince at least 12 members of the B12 and its media partners that UConn is also capable of quickly building a competitive football program in a more rigorous environment.

you have silly ideas about distant past.

 

[BlueHen]

Realistically, you are both a college and a sports franchise.

Schrodinger’s franchise.

 

[KryHavok]

Don't feed the trolls...

It amazes me how they come back espousing inflammatory rhetoric as if wanting some sort of validation of their existence. Really reminds me of the bit that Shawn Michaels did a long while ago when he said that Owen Hart was like a "little nugget that just wont go away after you flush". Trolls are like that little nugget.

Sorry I don't actually have a key tweet, just wanted to support my uni.

 

[jostar1]

Don't feed the trolls...

There are at least two BC fans (that I know of) that post incognito on this board. One pretends to be a UConn fan.

 

[upstater]

Realistically, you are both a college and a sports franchise.

Now you are. Agree.

I'm just saying there's this idea out there that the money the state puts into it can continue indefinitely. It's a curious idea when they are slashing and burning at the same time people are saying that.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Are the other departments charged for the marketing/brand awareness that athletics bring? Are they charged a lobbyist fee because good athletic years tend to be followed by a generous legislature? If they aren't, and they aren't, are they "freeloading" off of the athletic department?

Are the other departments charged for the marketing/brand awareness that athletics bring? Are they charged a lobbyist fee because good athletic years tend to be followed by a generous legislature? If they aren't, and they aren't, are they "freeloading" off of the athletic department?

this is always a good discussion. What does it cost to sit another person in a class? Does having that person I. Class prevent another non-athletic member from paying for the class?

In a cost basis, I would say we can argue the actual cost pretty clearly. Like, if that player wasn’t enrolled in UConn does that open up another paying spot?

They said, how the program is funded does depend heavily on enrollment. How do you adequately budget and allocate?

 

[CL82]

What marketing?

Be specific.

Brand awareness. Are you familiar with that concept? There is value in having people see your name. That's pretty common regarding sporting events. By way of example, why do you think the CDRA is able to sell the naming rights for the former Hartford Civic Center? Do you think it's just disinterested generosity by XL? Similarly, why do companies sponsor bowls do you think that they see value in getting repeated exposures of their name?

All you talked about was an imputed benefit of marketing. How does the History department benefit from that marketing?

The history department benefits from marketing in the same way every other department benefits from it. The University of Connecticut his name awareness, largely because of it's athletics. That isn't to say that that's the only thing the university has going for it, but it is an enormous thing. so, if I a history, major thinking about schools, and I read the phrase University of Connecticut, it is a immediately familiar name to me. That has value. Further, if I am a future history major, I might also want to attend a university that has compelling social aspects. One of those might well be the fact that it sponsors major athletics which are tremendously fun,, and a bonding experience which creates additional loyalty to the institution among students. All of that is value that is not being accounted for, and, in all likelihood, exceeds the value of students tuition. If we are going to "impute" one, we should impute the other, just to be logically consistent.

The athletic department is being charged for the true cost of each athlete. Nothing is artificially high about it

Many student athletes are economically disadvantaged and would be entitled to need scholarships, but for the fact that they are attending under an athletic scholarship. Thus, the same student would not be paying full freight for their tuition, yet, the chargeback is free and does not take account, the economic status of the student. That results in an artificially high tuition charge being charged against the athletic department.

I nite that you didn't question the notion that the academic side isn't getting a chargeback for lobbying. As we've seen athletic success yields considerable large ass by the state legislature. Does UConn 2000 happen without the 1995 and 1999 championships? Why do you think the school parades athletes in front of the legislature at the annual UConn day? Is it because the athletes so enjoy interacting with state legislators? Or, perhaps, the university sees a benefit in reminding the largest supplier of their income of the enjoyment that they had in watching those athletes perform with the name UConn in emblazoned across their chests? Many people in organizations become fabulously, wealthy, lobbying politicians, yet, the academic side of the university doesn't give a single dollar of credit back to the athletic department.

You and I have chatted about this from time to time over the years. I suspect we will always disagree that the academic side is somehow being victimized by athletics and that athletics are a bad investment for the university. If that were in fact the case, then the university wouldn't do it.

 

[CL82]

In a cost basis, I would say we can argue the actual cost pretty clearly. Like, if that player wasn’t enrolled in UConn does that open up another paying spot?

I don't think it's all that clear. You have to make a determination is the hypothetical student in state or out of state. Would the hypothetical student be entitled to merit tuition relief? Would hypothetical student be entitled to need based tuition relief? Unless you were looking at the specific individuals who turned down, I think that becomes challenging to quantify.

Perhaps, best practices might be to take a survey of the student population and come up with an average student profile, in essence defining what the average student pays versus "sticker price." That isn't a perfect metric, of course, but it is a reasonable one and far less than charging the athletic department the full cost of undiscounted tuition.

 

[baggerbob]

Are you a sports franchise or a college?

Do you ever see NYU kids wearing NYU apparel? Yes. That must be because of their great basketball program. What about Yale? Ever see a Yale sweatshirt?

If you legislature only subsidizes education (and it's not enough anyway) when the basketball team wins, you've already lost the plot. It just means your school is sure to degrade.

By the way, applications are skyrocketing everywhere, at publics like Umass and Vermont, not just at UConn.

But I return to the first answer: are you an educational institution?

No one freeloads off the athletic department. It's the reverse of that 90% of the time (and that's a conservative estimate since there are only a handful of schools that are truly in the black).

We are long past the day when sports was the necessary attraction for students. Not now when non-sports schools are getting as many students and when state institutions have chopped the # of spots for state residents. We're at the end here.

What you don't take into account is merchandising that all your college's have.
Shirts, cups and other merchandise that is sold. It's not because of the great academics, it because people relate to the sports programs.

 

[upstater]

Brand awareness. Are you familiar with that concept? There is value in having people see your name. That's pretty common regarding sporting events. By way of example, why do you think the CDRA is able to sell the naming rights for the former Hartford Civic Center? Do you think it's just disinterested generosity by XL? Similarly, why do companies sponsor bowls do you think that they see value in getting repeated exposures of their name?

The history department benefits from marketing in the same way every other department benefits from it. The University of Connecticut his name awareness, largely because of it's athletics. That isn't to say that that's the only thing the university has going for it, but it is an enormous thing. so, if I a history, major thinking about schools, and I read the phrase University of Connecticut, it is a immediately familiar name to me. That has value. Further, if I am a future history major, I might also want to attend a university that has compelling social aspects. One of those might well be the fact that it sponsors major athletics which are tremendously fun,, and a bonding experience which creates additional loyalty to the institution among students. All of that is value that is not being accounted for, and, in all likelihood, exceeds the value of students tuition. If we are going to "impute" one, we should impute the other, just to be logically consistent.

Many student athletes are economically disadvantaged and would be entitled to need scholarships, but for the fact that they are attending under an athletic scholarship. Thus, the same student would not be paying full freight for their tuition, yet, the chargeback is free and does not take account, the economic status of the student. That results in an artificially high tuition charge being charged against the athletic department.

I nite that you didn't question the notion that the academic side isn't getting a chargeback for lobbying. As we've seen athletic success yields considerable large ass by the state legislature. Does UConn 2000 happen without the 1995 and 1999 championships? Why do you think the school parades athletes in front of the legislature at the annual UConn day? Is it because the athletes so enjoy interacting with state legislators? Or, perhaps, the university sees a benefit in reminding the largest supplier of their income of the enjoyment that they had in watching those athletes perform with the name UConn in emblazoned across their chests? Many people in organizations become fabulously, wealthy, lobbying politicians, yet, the academic side of the university doesn't give a single dollar of credit back to the athletic department.

You and I have chatted about this from time to time over the years. I suspect we will always disagree that the academic side is somehow being victimized by athletics and that athletics are a bad investment for the university. If that were in fact the case, then the university wouldn't do it.

I already addressed everything in this discussion except the last part. I addressed them by mentioning all the other schools that are doing just as well as UConn without a sports brand. Heck, Vermont is now at well over 50% out of state and they pay exorbitant sums to go there, and their applications are through the roof. Since I already write that and you apparently don't agree, let's skip to the last part.

I can tell you this with 99.9% certainty: Presidents who get paid $1m+ a year to oversee a university (75% of their job is budgeting, a thing they fundamentally can't do themselves) are not going to upset politicians, students, alumni, athletes & the Board of Trustees in order to address something that occupies only 5% of their time on a regular basis. In other words, people who upset the breads & circuses crowd get the heave-ho from their position. We've seen this not only up north, but in the south with 2 recent examples at Texas A&M and U. Alabama Birmingham. Most of them just try to avoid discussion of it altogether.

 

[upstater]

What you don't take into account is merchandising that all your college's have.
Shirts, cups and other merchandise that is sold. It's not because of the great academics, it because people relate to the sports programs.

Even if that were true, are you saying that colleges without sports don't sell a lot of these things? Because they do. The brand income (which falls under royalties) is not at all that much different than at comparable sized institutions without big time sports.

And to top it off, royalties are listed as income for the ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT. So they are already getting all the credit for that income (though they shouldn't since at least some sweatshirts etc. would be sold without sports). In other words, the academic side is not profiting from the sales you're mentioning. That's AD income.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Now you are. Agree.

I'm just saying there's this idea out there that the money the state puts into it can continue indefinitely. It's a curious idea when they are slashing and burning at the same time people are saying that.

I think the prestige privates will be the first to bail. When football was free revenue, Vandy and Northwestern didn't have to think about it. Now football is an actual business, and they have to be asking themselves what they are doing in a minor sports league with Mississippi State and Michigan State. If you asked 1000 Northwestern students and alums would they rather be in a league with Stanford, Rice and Vanderbilt, or be a speed bump for Penn State, Ohio State and Michigan, how many are going to pick the Big 10? The prestige privates don't need the money, so what are they doing in a league with a bunch of state schools that requires them to pay players millions of dollars?

 

[CL82]

I can tell you this with 99.9% certainty: Presidents who get paid $1m+ a year to oversee a university (75% of their job is budgeting, a thing they fundamentally can't do themselves) are not going to upset politicians, students, alumni, athletes & the Board of Trustees in order to address something that occupies only 5% of their time on a regular basis. In other words, people who upset the breads & circuses crowd get the heave-ho from their position

You note that, absent athletics, by your statement, there would be "upset politicians, students, alumni, athletes, and the board of trustees. not having those upset individuals is, in end of itself, is a value proposition. And yet, you seem to view it as having zero value. As a real world proposition, it is enormously valuable. Certainly, worth more than the value of athletes, tuition, otherwise there would be no scholarships for athletes. That's a point that you just can't seem to wrap your mind around, but it's irrefutable.

 

[Ha Who]

 

[CL82]

Even if that were true, are you saying that colleges without sports don't sell a lot of these things? Because they do. The brand income (which falls under royalties) is not at all that much different than at comparable sized institutions without big time sports.

I'm sure they do sell some merchandise. I'm also extraordinarily confident that the dollar value of those sales don't even vaguely approach the dollar value of the sales of schools that participate in sports, particularly at a high-level. But you already knew that right?