(07-15-2018 09:59 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(07-15-2018 08:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 10:18 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 07:57 AM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(07-14-2018 07:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Kudos for posting the study, though it doesn't support your contention. Yes, it shows a Flutie effect, when a school has a dramatic increase in athletic success, applications rise about 18%, but the reverse is also true - big losing hurts applications the same way, and of course results on the field aren't guaranteed.

As for VT, I already showed that enrollment went up significantly well before Beamer brought their football program to prominence, and has risen only normally since then. I also showed the same to be true of USF and UCF - both experienced big enrollment growth before adding football.

There's just no evidence that soaking students and running athletic deficits to fund football programs that the students and alumni cannot support with their ticket purchases and donations creates tangible or intangible benefits that outweigh those very real costs.

But I'll keep an open mind for such evidence, while continuing to remark about how amazing it is that administrators of *universities*, places that are supposed to be paragons of scientific knowledge, rely on anecdotes and gut feelings when justifying their throwing good money after bad into their athletics.

As a UMass fan, I've seen almost every argument against moving to FBS and I've never heard losing hurts applications, they don't make you go to athletic events.

As for VT, I care enough to look it up, but enrollment could stay the same but applications can increase, selectivity increases and the acceptance rate may have decreased. It would still improve the university profile. They can say we have more kids in the top 10% of their graduating class than we used to.

Yeah the guys reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be on point either that or he just ignores that which doesn’t support his position. I specifically made the point that VTs academic profile increased in the ways you pointed out. Also the study shows a slight decrease in applicants with poorer performance. Not to the extent that winning improves it.

Your fever for ODU's nascent football program seems to have made it difficult for your brain to function. As i correctly noted, there is a decrease in applicants with poorer performance, an interesting finding as it meams there is also somewhat of a reverse Flutie effect as well.

Second, your previous comments about VT's academic profile improving after Beamer were noted, but given that you have provided zero evidence that football success had anything to do with that, what is there to say about it? Heck, if anything this study suggests against that, as it indicates that the Flutie Effect attracts more new low-end applicants than higher quality ones, which cause overall average SAT scores to decline not rise.

I get it, you have Football Fever. You have The Dream of ODU rising from the football muck to challenge VT, UVA, etc.. who knows? Maybe ODU can one day play an Auburn in the Peach Bowl like UCF did. You want to have a football player who is more famous than Nancy Lieberman. The sky's the limit! But as of now, there is no evidence that squandering 10s of millions on football at G5 level is worth the cost.

UMass has been bad at football, but I've got an email from the alumni association saying we've had a record number of applicants every year.

Eastern Michigan grew during a time it was so horrible at football they were the go to "doesn't belong in FBS" example between their poor performance and ghost town attendance.

Simply being FBS didn't spur the gains or all FBS should be out-performing.

Being in a state with population growth when that state is among the best performing in the country at producing academically prepared high school students is going to produce enrollment growth.