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

[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?

 

[buckley503]

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.

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.

 

[gioff2323]

Not in Brazil

 

[JohnFSilver]

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.

If things gi the way they are going the entire athletic department won’t be able to compete at the accustomed level.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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?

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.

 

[The Yakk]

Please, enlighten me further. How exactly are they going to delay it "in their councils". Let me get you started a bit. What municipal approvals do you believe are necessary from the communities along route 44

Also, what exactly do you anticipate happening in these communities "municipal courts"? Perhaps a vigorous issuing of traffic and parking tickets?

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.

 

[bendm]

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.

they artificially lowered their acceptance rate by only requiring the common application and no supplementary materials. all you have to do to apply to NU and BU is click a box.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

they artificially lowered their acceptance rate by only requiring the common application and no supplementary materials. all you have to do to apply to NU and BU is click a box.

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

 

[Patman]

There is no way on this earth Northeastern got the 9th most applications in the US given that the entire California State university system exists... apparently the top 10 are ALL California schools.

Now, amongst privates, maybe. NU has always been seen as more approachable than the other privates and they're in Boston

 

[HuskyHawk]

There is no way on this earth Northeastern got the 9th most applications in the US given that the entire California State university system exists... apparently the top 10 are ALL California schools.

Now, amongst privates, maybe. NU has always been seen as more approachable than the other privates and they're in Boston

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.

 

[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.