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

[jostar1]

 

[upstater]

I'm sure. But it's a drop in the bucket. What I think @upstater misses a little is that the mix of applicants changes with sports. BC got way more applications from mid Atlantic states once they joined the ACC. The other factor is that sports does drive giving and the endowment for a lot of these big public schools.

Is it a clear, cost effective benefit? No. My daughter is at Northeastern which got the 9th most applications of any school this year. 98 thousand. That includes schools that are many times bigger and which are good schools, like Michigan. BU, NYU, also have huge numbers of applicants. The UC schools dominate overall because they are good, and cheap.

Once the rev share and paying players really kicks in, if it does, a whole lot of schools are going to question whether this is worth it. It isn't. I see a potential shift to maybe 40 schools playing football at that level, and then a new, improved 1-AA that still has some very good teams, where maybe a ND State can move up. Reduced scholarship counts, something between current FCS and FBS.

Good point about the mix of applicants changing with an athletic conference switch, but you can only do that so many times.

I do accept that schools like BC and maybe UConn and certainly Gonzaga have a huge change from sports, but for schools like UConn, that's mostly gone. We live in a world where kids apply to 20+ schools and state institutions enroll 50% out of staters, whether they have big time sports or not.

I'd have to see the increase in endowments to really gauge how big the difference is, but big endowments are mostly at schools without bigtime sports. UConn doesn't have a big endowment.

Also, there have been stories in the past (U. Texas) where donors gave millions to the Longhorn Foundation, and the vast majority didn't realize they were supporting sports at UT. They thought they were giving to the endowment. AND, what typically happens (you can see it right in the ADs budget) they count donations as athletics revenue. They do that at UT. So that money being given by the sports fans isn't actually going to any endowment. It is immediately used for expenses.

 

[upstater]

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?

The only hitch to this is how much do they owe on facilities? Like Cal-Berkeley. They don't need sports there. UC San Diego doesn't have them and they are doing just fine down there. But Cal needs a revenue stream because they owe so much money on their facilities.

Don't know about Northwestern.

 

[upstater]

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?

You're overblowing it.

You can see each school's total royalties as a line item in the ADs revenue.

Doesn't that make this argument moot? The academic side isn't making a bundle off of merchandise. This is athletics revenue.

 

[Banta55]

Except UConn doesn’t have to make this expenditure (at least for basketball). So the President and AD have already pointed this out to the legislature that you will continue to scratch our back and we will scratch yours. The expense exists to keep folks in Ct government happy and in turn the government will support the university however necessary to support the expense, which makes this a unique arrangement.

That's what people will never understand..Football will NEVER be cut so tired of reading that..

 

[upstater]

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.

The President is the head of the organization; hired to do what's best for the long-term health of the university. If the university is making bad decisions and he's worried about extending his $1m+ salary, there's a conflict there, agreed? This means that the boosters, alumni, and all those who wailed and gnashed their teeth when Boston U. got rid of football many years ago, predicting doom, well they were wrong. The President was right.

Every time a President has tried to put some reason into the mix, they've been ousted, so many of them have gotten the message. Look at West Virginia which has a massive black hole caused by pursuits outside the academic side (sports and a massive new building for an MBA program) which responded by axing many central and crucial departments (Math, English, etc.)

We've seen plenty of examples in the corporate world where the incentive to maintain high salaries and bonuses leads to very poor decisions which hurt the company in the long run. This is who the Presidents remind me of.

 

[upstater]

If kids still had to line up applications in a typewriter like I did, kids would fill out a lot fewer applications.

Im the father of a HS senior and I didn't even realize that you only fill out the particulars ONCE, then answer 1 to 5 specific questions for each school.

This is easy.

 

[JohnFSilver]

LOL I think the days of UConn having a whit of concern over whether the Mansfield goobers oppose an on-campus stadium are long gone. If the money is there, this will get done. Doesn't matter how many bellicose town meetings the locals want to stage.

The stakes are too high now for UConn and the state.

UConn is much more powerful than they used to be. I think the era of locals stopping progress in many townships is over.

 

[JohnFSilver]

UConn budget is $1.6 billion
UCOnn health, medical and dental school is $1.5 billion.

The president if the school fighting over how we account $30M in a budget shortfall can’t be something she stresses over too much.

This is an athletic department issue.

 

[CL82]

Doesn't that make this argument moot? The academic side isn't making a bundle off of merchandise. This is athletics revenue.

I would say no, when you argue that all revenue is fungible, except for the revenue that appears in the athletic side because that's only the athletic side, even though that revenue is being used to pay tuition money.

Again, you need to be consistent in your arguments.

 

[CL82]

The President is the head of the organization; hired to do what's best for the long-term health of the university. If the university is making bad decisions and he's worried about extending his $1m+ salary, there's a conflict there, agreed? This means that the boosters, alumni, and all those who wailed and gnashed their teeth when Boston U. got rid of football many years ago, predicting doom, well they were wrong. The President was right.

Every time a President has tried to put some reason into the mix, they've been ousted, so many of them have gotten the message. Look at West Virginia which has a massive black hole caused by pursuits outside the academic side (sports and a massive new building for an MBA program) which responded by axing many central and crucial departments (Math, English, etc.)

We've seen plenty of examples in the corporate world where the incentive to maintain high salaries and bonuses leads to very poor decisions which hurt the company in the long run. This is who the Presidents remind me of.

Again, the argument that athletics somehow victimizes academia as a whole isn't reality based. The athletic Director isn't superior to the president. You seem to believe that the president is held hostage by other interested parties, I would suggest a far more reasonable interpretation is merely that there is economic value in athletics. Certainly, some of that value is that it is a bad idea not to listen to your customers and your stakeholders. That's not just true in academia that's true everywhere.

 

[Bongo Fury]

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.

Seems like the time is right now. I don’t recall having this much support. Who knows what the future brings.

 

[Chin Diesel]

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.

A mean average for tuition seems fairly simple. Take total tuition and divide by total students.
Apply that value to the scholarship players.

 

[Eavesdrop]

Here are the 2023 numbers. 50 Most Applied to Colleges in 2023 I did say the UC system dominated.

I don't doubt that @bendm is right about the common app. Also, the Covid era changed the whole application process, from 5-6 schools to 12-15 schools. NEU is getting a boost from Co-op and perception that college needs to lead to employment.

The point is about sports. Do schools need sports to drive applications? In the absence of something else, maybe. But if you have that something else, whether great academics, a great campus, location like Boston, affordability, a fun granola vibe in a cool small city (UVM), you don't need football.

Penn State University Park, Texas, aTm and Ohio State not ranking in the top 50 makes me wonder about that list.

And only Florida State made the list from sunshine state? That also seems unlikely. (I believe little FAU had 37000 first year applicants in 2023, which should be put it at 30th.)

 

[upstater]

A mean average for tuition seems fairly simple. Take total tuition and divide by total students.
Apply that value to the scholarship players.

But this doesn't take costs into account, while the bean counters DO take costs into account. If the average is well below expenses, you've effectively de-incentivized departments to take athletes as students. Because the bosses will surely hold that against departments when it comes to the metrics.

 

[upstater]

Again, the argument that athletics somehow victimizes academia as a whole isn't reality based. The athletic Director isn't superior to the president. You seem to believe that the president is held hostage by other interested parties, I would suggest a far more reasonable interpretation is merely that there is economic value in athletics. Certainly, some of that value is that it is a bad idea not to listen to your customers and your stakeholders. That's not just true in academia that's true everywhere.

The Athletic Director at Texas A&M went to the board and got the President fired a few years ago for telling him he could not have another $30m budget mistake.

The stakeholders in West Virginia and many other places have already shown they don't much care for the health of the university. I'm not sure how many examples you need before you realize that boosters are nuts.

 

[upstater]

I would say no, when you argue that all revenue is fungible, except for the revenue that appears in the athletic side because that's only the athletic side, even though that revenue is being used to pay tuition money.

Again, you need to be consistent in your arguments.

Spell out what you're trying to say here.

People have argued that the merchandise sales, as meager as they are, benefit academic departments. I said those are counted as athletic revenue, not academic departments.

Let me give you an example of the kind of thinking that goes on inside universities now: it used to be the energies were put into attracting as many majors as possible to signal the health of the department. But just like private universities who measure health by how many full payers there are, public university departments are now also looking at the demographics. Because the administration has stated flat out that it loses money on every student who isn't a full payer. And they show this in the metrics. If some of these universities could, they would bar any kid whose state tuition is defrayed by a state program.

I'm not sure what they are doing in admissions but I suspect they are making things harder on such students. This is the only way they can justify letting in all the out of staters and internationals.

So, the point is, if you're dropping the tuition reimbursment to in-state, the bean counters are simply going to point out that the rest of the cost, which is subsidized by the university, will be billed to the departments. They are de-incentivizing departments who may want to attract athletes, kids on Pell Grants, etc.

 

[CL82]

The Athletic Director at Texas A&M went to the board and got the President fired a few years ago for telling him he could not have another $30m budget mistake.
.

AD didn't fire him right? He made his case to the board who apparently agreed. Isn't that the way corporate structure works? Or do you think presidents of universities should be answerable to no one?

The stakeholders in West Virginia and many other places have already shown they don't much care for the health of the university. I'm not sure how many examples you need before you realize that boosters are nuts.

Why are they nuts? Because the have a different worldview than you? Apparently, you envision boosters donating to a university without athletics. I think the board may find that having boosters support the university justifies the expensive athletics again, no one's being victimized. It's just people making reasonably intelligent and informed decisions.

 

[UConn Dan]

 

[upstater]

UConn budget is $1.6 billion
UCOnn health, medical and dental school is $1.5 billion.

The president if the school fighting over how we account $30M in a budget shortfall can’t be something she stresses over too much.

This is an athletic department issue.

Most of the budget is spoken for. It's not fungible. It's not like you can turn the heat off in the dorms during the winter to save some money.

At a university with a similar budget to UConn, the entire College of Arts and Sciences operates on $14m a year. This doesn't include salaries and benefits of workers which are contractual. A $2m deficit in a $1.5b university caused wholesale slashing of events, programs, travel, hiring. When the deficit for UConn was $90m, the President of the university said each department would have to cut 15% of its salaried workforce as a retrenchment measure. This is killer. The state gave UConn $60m more, so now it has a $30m deficit. That is not nothings. $100m deficit at West Virginia caused them to shutter 13 departments.

 

[superjohn]

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.

Sure. Lolz

 

[superjohn]

Gonna disagree with you here.

As a new Michigan State dad (2 weeks since drop off) of an out of state student, I have never seen so much Green and White of everything on everyone, everywhere. From my short stay, I would rank the merchandising reasons as school pride, regional tradition, and then sports.

Lolz, it's all about sports.

 

[CL82]

Spell out what you're trying to say here.

People have argued that the merchandise sales, as meager as they are, benefit academic departments. I said those are counted as athletic revenue, not academic departments.

Let me give you an example of the kind of thinking that goes on inside universities now: it used to be the energies were put into attracting as many majors as possible to signal the health of the department. But just like private universities who measure health by how many full payers there are, public university departments are now also looking at the demographics. Because the administration has stated flat out that it loses money on every student who isn't a full payer. And they show this in the metrics. If some of these universities could, they would bar any kid whose state tuition is defrayed by a state program.

I'm not sure what they are doing in admissions but I suspect they are making things harder on such students. This is the only way they can justify letting in all the out of staters and internationals.

So, the point is, if you're dropping the tuition reimbursment to in-state, the bean counters are simply going to point out that the rest of the cost, which is subsidized by the university, will be billed to the departments. They are de-incentivizing departments who may want to attract athletes, kids on Pell Grants, etc.

Yeah, this one really meandered. You seem to be reduced to tossing around red herrings.

In summary, I don't find the notion that academics are somehow victimized by athletics, particularly persuasive. Nor do I find it particularly persuasive that every president of any university participating athletics is somehow being extorted into doing it. A far less tortured explanation is that decision-makers at universities realize that athletics bring value to the university in excess of their cost.

As Occam postulated, the simplest answer is the most likely to be the correct one.

 

[JohnFSilver]

Most of the budget is spoken for. It's not fungible. It's not like you can turn the heat off in the dorms during the winter to save some money.

At a university with a similar budget to UConn, the entire College of Arts and Sciences operates on $14m a year. This doesn't include salaries and benefits of workers which are contractual. A $2m deficit in a $1.5b university caused wholesale slashing of events, programs, travel, hiring. When the deficit for UConn was $90m, the President of the university said each department would have to cut 15% of its salaried workforce as a retrenchment measure. This is killer. The state gave UConn $60m more, so now it has a $30m deficit. That is not nothings. $100m deficit at West Virginia caused them to shutter 13 departments.

UConn provides the support. It isn’t like they are expecting the athletics to break even. They know what their numbers are and it is budgeted. It depends if they come under or over that number that matters.

The money UConn gets from the school in institutional support is part of the athletic dept budget. So, in essence, their books are balancerd.

I am sure they knew when they made an $80M budget that revenues would only make up about half. Benedict doesn’t make his budget expecting $80m in revenue to cover expenses. He knows there is gonna be a huge support. His goal is to not have to ask for more support every year, not expect zero support.

If you eliminate football, all the scholarships. It still leaves the school $20-$25m short and absolutely no ability to expand revenue dramatically.

Folks, football revenue is vastly underperforming. Basketball, women’s hoops, it’s about maxed out.

 

[gioff2323]

Can we get a Really,Really Key Tweets thread going - nothing but tweets that are key to our fit in the realignment game