(08-10-2018 04:46 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote:  The benefits of football are often debated back and forth on this forum. Today, Dr. Rudd, Memphis Pres, talked about increasing donations by leveraging athletic visibility. He shared a story on local radio about how a donor with no connection to the school or city came into being via an interest in Memphis football. The majority of donations from this individual have gone to academics. Not sure how often this happens, but at least they're actively trying to work it.

@6:10min mark

https://929espn.radio.com/articles/audio-u-m-president-dr-m-david-rudd-jj-show-friday-81018

(08-13-2018 11:16 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  It's a mixed bag. I think when a program is big enough you do tend to get more institutional donors along with sports. But if don't reach that level, say and Eastern Michigan, there is pretty strong evidence of Cannibalism, that is donations to athletics drain money that might have gone to the University.

Overall it's hard to truly correlate. Almost all evidence is purely anecdotal and not systemically collected.

Perhaps the best comparisons can be found in the UC System and CSU system, where you can compare say UCLA or Cal to UC San Diego ... possibly UC Davis (not quite the same pedigree as the first three) where schools are pretty much identical except athletics. (It is already pretty clearly demonstrated that level of athletic program has zero impact on applications or admission quality for schools in either the UC or CSU system; so donations are a good thing to examine.)

Somebody (probably me knowing this board's work ethic when it comes to research) should look into those schools over the last decade.

(08-11-2018 10:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Xavier just wrapped up a $150 million campus expansion a few years ago. Expanded the campus by 11 acres with a new College of Business, 80,000 sq. ft. Learning Commons, a Central Utility Plant, a 535 bed dorm, and "major site infrastructure improvements."

The President of the University was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "If it wasn't for basketball, this would be a $50 million expansion.'

(08-14-2018 03:29 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(08-11-2018 10:33 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Xavier just wrapped up a $150 million campus expansion a few years ago. Expanded the campus by 11 acres with a new College of Business, 80,000 sq. ft. Learning Commons, a Central Utility Plant, a 535 bed dorm, and "major site infrastructure improvements."

The President of the University was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "If it wasn't for basketball, this would be a $50 million expansion.'

In the case of X, some success in basketball did help them rise from obscurity as a sleepy, small private school that sports commentators constantly referred to as "egg-zavier". I've heard from some who claim to be knowledgeable sources that X got out over their skis, financially, on that expansion. So the full story may not be written just yet on the real impact on the balance sheet. $150 million seems like a big bite for a small private university but it really doesn't build a lot in 2018 dollars. And what basketball generates directly, stays with athletics.

While we might all agree intuitively that high visibility in athletics leads to new academic donations, the evidence there is thin and mostly anecdotal. Those who "connect" with the University only through athletics (non-alumni) most often limit their giving to football or basketball programs. Further that giving is often linked to a specific benefit conferred upon the donor, such as club sections or preferred seating. No denying though, some success in the major sports builds visibility and exposure is generally beneficial on many levels.

(08-15-2018 08:59 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Winning sports teams make alums feel good about their school. This helps open their checkbooks when it comes time for the school to raise funds for new building and scholarships. Any ivory tower egghead who doesn't believe it is only fooling themselves.

(08-15-2018 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:59 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Winning sports teams make alums feel good about their school. This helps open their checkbooks when it comes time for the school to raise funds for new building and scholarships. Any ivory tower egghead who doesn't believe it is only fooling themselves.

But ... the 'feel good' aspect is usually proportional to the sense of achievement that *others* perceive. E.g., fans of the Philly Eagles are at 100% pride right now because they weren't just a 'winner' they won the Super Bowl, the biggest prize in football. Fans of Alabama too, because the winner of the top-level national title receives national acclaim as well.

That's why there's zero doubt that at 'big time' schools like Notre Dame and Georgia and yes, TCU, winning will drive donations to academics. Because when you guys win, you win big titles that matter - P5 conference titles, major bowl game, etc. Nobody has any doubt that football has built libraries and chemistry labs at big time schools.

The real issue is, does winning help at lower levels, where the prizes are smaller. Does a North Texas really get more academic donations because they go 10-2 vs a Sun Belt schedule nobody cares about? That they know nobody in the broader football realm respects?

This is the core issue, because these are the schools that soaking their students with fees and transfers. So that needs to be justified in terms of stuff like alumni donations.

(08-15-2018 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:59 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Winning sports teams make alums feel good about their school. This helps open their checkbooks when it comes time for the school to raise funds for new building and scholarships. Any ivory tower egghead who doesn't believe it is only fooling themselves.

But ... the 'feel good' aspect is usually proportional to the sense of achievement that *others* perceive. E.g., fans of the Philly Eagles are at 100% pride right now because they weren't just a 'winner' they won the Super Bowl, the biggest prize in football. Fans of Alabama too, because the winner of the top-level national title receives national acclaim as well.

That's why there's zero doubt that at 'big time' schools like Notre Dame and Georgia and yes, TCU, winning will drive donations to academics. Because when you guys win, you win big titles that matter - P5 conference titles, major bowl game, etc. Nobody has any doubt that football has built libraries and chemistry labs at big time schools.

The real issue is, does winning help at lower levels, where the prizes are smaller. Does a North Texas really get more academic donations because they go 10-2 vs a Sun Belt schedule nobody cares about? That they know nobody in the broader football realm respects?

This is the core issue, because these are the schools that soaking their students with fees and transfers. So that needs to be justified in terms of stuff like alumni donations.

(08-15-2018 11:51 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 09:12 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 08:59 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  Winning sports teams make alums feel good about their school. This helps open their checkbooks when it comes time for the school to raise funds for new building and scholarships. Any ivory tower egghead who doesn't believe it is only fooling themselves.

But ... the 'feel good' aspect is usually proportional to the sense of achievement that *others* perceive. E.g., fans of the Philly Eagles are at 100% pride right now because they weren't just a 'winner' they won the Super Bowl, the biggest prize in football. Fans of Alabama too, because the winner of the top-level national title receives national acclaim as well.

That's why there's zero doubt that at 'big time' schools like Notre Dame and Georgia and yes, TCU, winning will drive donations to academics. Because when you guys win, you win big titles that matter - P5 conference titles, major bowl game, etc. Nobody has any doubt that football has built libraries and chemistry labs at big time schools.

The real issue is, does winning help at lower levels, where the prizes are smaller. Does a North Texas really get more academic donations because they go 10-2 vs a Sun Belt schedule nobody cares about? That they know nobody in the broader football realm respects?

This is the core issue, because these are the schools that soaking their students with fees and transfers. So that needs to be justified in terms of stuff like alumni donations.

The point of athletics is media attention, not alumni donations. And winning at a lower level certainly helps with media attention.

Article: "The same day the triumphant '95 Lady Huskies visited the state legislature, Connecticut lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to pump $1 billion into "UConn 2000," a campus-improvement project that has since followed the initial billion with another $1.3 billion."

From the same article: Butler and George Mason both did internal studies which found they gained over $600 million in free publicity from their Final Four runs (Butler had 2 runs, so they got over $1 billion in publicity).

Not bad for a $10-$20 million subsidy.