A really good football team doesn't hurt but the causality is not well understood.

Its more the football team is a reflection of a school which is on the rise. That is what UCF is, a school on the rise. Big campus growth complete with a new stadium. Rising conference status.

Secondly the marketing value of TV to the school isn't tied to more applicants. Its simply more people in general which have heard of the school.

Third there is a difference between a budget number an expenses when it comes to college balance sheets. People on here are looking at numbers like UConn's 83 million dollar budget inferring UConn spent 83 million dollars. That is not how it works.

(07-14-2018 06:34 PM)panama Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 02:55 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 01:07 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-12-2018 12:21 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  Most of the that squandered money is for other sports most likely. Football and basketball are the only sports really that have any way of bringing any kind of revenue stream into college athletics. So really you're arguing that if you don't have a football program capable of supporting all of your other sports then you should just drop athletics altogether? ODU used about 28.7 million in student fees last year. Football's deficit was about 2.8 million.

That's a pretty steep deficit. I wonder what the deficit for women's softball at ODU is?

What I am saying is that in the long run, intercollegiate athletics has to be self-supporting to be justifiable. Doesn't matter how you break it down, but if the athletic department is spending more than it brings in, then cuts have to be made. And no, "brings in" can't include self-soaking of students.

Any athletic department - my USF included - that is currently soaking its students to pay for athletics should have a 5-year, at most 10-year, plan to become self-sufficient, at the end of which time the student fees are eliminated and the athletic department has to exist on the real revenue generated by tickets, parking, etc. only.

Why? Why is it unjustifiable? Because you don't like it?

OK - Money is being lost, students are paying fees to benefit other students, who travel around playing sporting events.

So what's the justification?

Marketing

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

But ... if McDonalds spends money on a marketing campaign for a new burger, they have metrics showing the ROI of the campaign. Where is the evidence that wasting money on football helps market a low profile college in a way that exceeds the costs?

(07-14-2018 10:29 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I think the Flutie effect is over-stated.
I think that the whole "think what a similar ad would cost" argument is overblown because the value of that "ad" is over-stated.

Northeastern has seen a similar Boston College type rise and they recently dropped football.

What do they have in common? They both are located in Boston. Urban schools have done well since the 70's with gentrification.

For BC its been economic factors not football that has driven improvement. Having power conference membership since the 80's has helped athletics but that is about it.

Athletics is always one of the last priorities so if a school feels comfortable about opening their wallets for it they must be in a growth cycle.

(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:  

(07-13-2018 09:12 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(07-13-2018 07:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  You're wrong in a number of ways here. First, I didn't say that the G5 were the only offenders in terms of wasting money on intercollegiate athletics, nor did i say that football is the only sport that squanders money. But, this conversation focused on G5 and football, so that's what I addressed. There aren't many people around here interested in talking about FCS schools that don't sponsor football.

But FWIW, obviously my position applies to them as well - any school, FBS, P5, G5, FCS, with football or without football that is soaking its students with fees should adopt my target of 5 to 10 years to make their athletics self-sufficient or then cut their budgets to fit within the revenue generated by athletics.

Second, nobody has pointed out any "tangible or intangible" benefits of athletics. A few, like yourself, have parroted they typical party line of administrators, namely you assert the existence of these benefits without evidence that they exist.

As I said, I'm open to new evidence - if there are studies that show that schools that soak their students with $20m a year in fees in order to fund athletics, particularly football, actually do receive tangential benefits that exceed those costs - such as increased alumni donations, increased student enrollment, etc., meaning the football team actually does provide a net benefit to the school, then by all means post links to them.

You sound like an obstinate football fan who is willing to spend other people's money to have that team regardless of the cost to them. Maybe it irks you that other schools in your area, like VT and UVA and the Carolina schools, have big athletic programs and you feel small by comparison and yearn for the day when ODU stands proudly beside them with a big program of its own and are willing to squander tens of millions a year chasing that dream? But maybe I'm wrong and you know something about benefits that I don't?

Not much research done on the subject but this guy tackled it and found that the "Flutie Effect" was real and significant.

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%...05a399.pdf

So clearly the benefits exist.


Now you'll likely say that this applies to highly successful programs and everyone is wasting money trying to catch lightning in a bottle year after year. And I won't argue that there's a point where you're throwing good money after bad but your assertion that athletic departments need to be self sufficient is ludicrous. So let's look at ODU and see if there's any "Flutie Effect" from starting football for just a successful program but not with any real national acclaim.


Of course the administration and anyone close to the University can tell you that the change to the campus atmosphere is palpable since starting football. Here's a quote from former Senior Associate Athletic Director Debbie White:

"I have been at the University for over 30 years and there has been no greater change than adding football. It's incredible and it has brought the entire campus together, including students, alumni, faculty and the surrounding community."

You'd be hard pressed to find someone that would disagree with that statement. And since according to UCLA's annual freshman survey (link below), 40% of freshman rated "College has a good reputation for social activities" as a "very important" influence in choosing a college (6th highest factor), we should be able to see some results.
https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/c...ege-choice

So in 2002, a few years before the decision to bring back football was made we boasted our second largest number of freshman applicants at 6300 with the highest being 13 years prior in 1989 of 6,600. So it had remained fairly static.
https://www.odu.edu/news/news-archive/20...0imIPZFyUk

Now we have over 11,000 annually. https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/coll...3D1614&rct

Our enrollment has increased significantly as well so selectivity has not changed as much. But if you look at Virginia Tech with their football success you can see the academic profile having skyrocketed. An idea you scoffed at when I brought it up earlier in the thread but according the research I posted earlier drawing a line between the two is not only feasible but very likely.

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 football performance, an interesting finding as it means 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.

(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:  

(07-13-2018 09:12 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Not much research done on the subject but this guy tackled it and found that the "Flutie Effect" was real and significant.

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%...05a399.pdf

So clearly the benefits exist.


Now you'll likely say that this applies to highly successful programs and everyone is wasting money trying to catch lightning in a bottle year after year. And I won't argue that there's a point where you're throwing good money after bad but your assertion that athletic departments need to be self sufficient is ludicrous. So let's look at ODU and see if there's any "Flutie Effect" from starting football for just a successful program but not with any real national acclaim.


Of course the administration and anyone close to the University can tell you that the change to the campus atmosphere is palpable since starting football. Here's a quote from former Senior Associate Athletic Director Debbie White:

"I have been at the University for over 30 years and there has been no greater change than adding football. It's incredible and it has brought the entire campus together, including students, alumni, faculty and the surrounding community."

You'd be hard pressed to find someone that would disagree with that statement. And since according to UCLA's annual freshman survey (link below), 40% of freshman rated "College has a good reputation for social activities" as a "very important" influence in choosing a college (6th highest factor), we should be able to see some results.
https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/c...ege-choice

So in 2002, a few years before the decision to bring back football was made we boasted our second largest number of freshman applicants at 6300 with the highest being 13 years prior in 1989 of 6,600. So it had remained fairly static.
https://www.odu.edu/news/news-archive/20...0imIPZFyUk

Now we have over 11,000 annually. https://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/coll...3D1614&rct

Our enrollment has increased significantly as well so selectivity has not changed as much. But if you look at Virginia Tech with their football success you can see the academic profile having skyrocketed. An idea you scoffed at when I brought it up earlier in the thread but according the research I posted earlier drawing a line between the two is not only feasible but very likely.

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.

(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.