or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Are college athletics good or bad?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are college athletics good or bad? - Page 14

post #196 of 240
"As seen in Figure 4A, across all sports, net revenue from athletics tends to be
negative, with the median annual net revenue for Division I-A schools just greater
than -$4 million and the 75th percentile just greater than -$1 million."

Keep in mind that's D-I.

"In our previous reports we found no evidence to establish a pattern, positive or negative
between athletic expenditures and academic quality."

"Since we would expect any causal relationship between expenditures and alumni giving
to show up (at least partially) with a lag, we do not consider the observed statistical
relationship between athletic expenditures and alumni giving to be robust enough to
suggest a causal relationship."

http://web1.ncaa.org/web_files/DI_MC...al_Effects.pdf
post #197 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedLantern View Post
I believe I've cited your poasts, is that not sufficient?

yeah, and that was good, but i just didn't feel like some of the stuff you accused me of being/doing followed from those cited posts.

at best i could give it to you that i didn't take the time to articulate my points better, but that isn't really a personal knock on me, more of a "try a little bit harder, knucklehead" kind of thing.
post #198 of 240
Anyone who suggests that large portion of donations at a major sports school aren't made because of the sports is off their rocker (not that you're suggesting that). It creates school pride that doesn't exist for non-athletic schools. And when you're talking about very large schools, 1 million for all the advertising being on sportscenter/tv/newspapers/etc. gets you as well as the extra drawing power for students that may not consider them is easily worth it. Let's face it, a million bucks is chump change for these schools.
post #199 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by was385 View Post
Anyone who suggests that large portion of donations at a major sports school aren't made because of the sports is off their rocker

Hmm not exactly a good comparison but I'd be willing to be the combined endowments of the Ivies plus say NYU, Johns Hopkins, Emory and a couple others would exceed that of the BCS schools.
post #200 of 240
Thread Starter 
besides, that's off the table. no one ever contested the idea that most contributions come in thanks to the athletics. we can all agree on that.
post #201 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
besides, that's off the table. no one ever contested the idea that most contributions come in thanks to the athletics. we can all agree on that.

Considering universities (and I guess colleges) are able to expand and improve because of a growth in their endowment, and endowments grow with an increase in contributions (and sound financial planning), and college athletics increases donations, will you now say that having athletics is a good thing for a school?
post #202 of 240
Four universities in the Dakotas have recently made the move from D-II sports to D-I. In each case administrators at the schools said the move up in athletics would increase the respective school's research funding and enrollment. I don't have statistics handy here (and I'm not intrigued enough by the question to look for them) but in North Dakota, at least, both have occurred: enrollments and research funding are up pretty substantially.
post #203 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post
Considering universities (and I guess colleges) are able to expand and improve because of a growth in their endowment, and endowments grow with an increase in contributions (and sound financial planning), and college athletics increases donations, will you now say that having athletics is a good thing for a school?

it's absolutely clear that athletics bring in tons of money for schools to fund all kinds of things. that obviously cannot even be debated. that's just a fact. all of what you said is true, even perhaps that it's a "good thing."

i was merely getting at the "what if" question of: ultimately, without athletics, donations would go down -- but since athletics are gone and now the university doesn't have to fund them any longer, would completely removing athletics from the institution improve or hurt the institution? the ramifications are pretty much impossible to predict.

that's an extremely hard question answer. no one has a crystal ball.

certainly there are arguments for keeping athletics, but perhaps there are some decent arguments against them.
post #204 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
i was merely getting at the "what if" question of: ultimately, without athletics, donations would go down -- but since athletics are gone and now the university doesn't have to fund them any longer, would completely removing athletics from the institution improve or hurt the institution? the ramifications are pretty much impossible to predict.

No it isn't. Vandy eliminated their athletic department, Boston U eliminated football in the past 30 years or so so you can look at those schools. People are still pissed about no football in BU and Vandy is too soon to tell.
post #205 of 240
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post
No it isn't. Vandy eliminated their athletic department, Boston U eliminated football in the past 30 years or so so you can look at those schools. People are still pissed about no football in BU and Vandy is too soon to tell.

there's a difference between that situation and a hypothetical situation where ALL schools drop their programs. we'd have to consider the academic ramifications, too. did vandy/bostun u improve academically? is there even a way to tell?

and does it even matter considering the scenario really isn't the same since my hypothetical was that ALL athletics dropped off the face of the earth?
post #206 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by edinatlanta View Post
Hmm not exactly a good comparison but I'd be willing to be the combined endowments of the Ivies plus say NYU, Johns Hopkins, Emory and a couple others would exceed that of the BCS schools.

okay.... I'm trying to figure out how that has anything to do with what I said.
post #207 of 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjakapeanut View Post
it's absolutely clear that athletics bring in tons of money for schools to fund all kinds of things. that obviously cannot even be debated. that's just a fact. all of what you said is true, even perhaps that it's a "good thing."

i was merely getting at the "what if" question of: ultimately, without athletics, donations would go down -- but since athletics are gone and now the university doesn't have to fund them any longer, would completely removing athletics from the institution improve or hurt the institution? the ramifications are pretty much impossible to predict.

that's an extremely hard question answer. no one has a crystal ball.

certainly there are arguments for keeping athletics, but perhaps there are some decent arguments against them.

So let me get this straight, and please do correct me if I'm wrong... You started this thread to say you hate college athletics -- football especially -- because it loses the school money and all that money could be used for academic programs. In this last post you're admitting that athletics brings in tons of money. BCS conference schools make up just about half of all D-1A and are generally the highest grossing and based upon the link above, the median at the fiftieth percentile is $-3.8m, easily surpassed by donations (so overall the university has a net gain). And since your animosity is directed towards football, that same link has a chart showing net revenue from football/basketball at D-1A schools with the 50th percentile bringing in $2.3m, the 75th percentile bringing in $13.5m and the 90th at a cool $22.1m. Maybe you should instead direct your hatred towards the less appreciated, less covered sports because they're what really suck up the money.
post #208 of 240
Thread Starter 
yes, sports bring in tons of money. which is necessary because they COST tons of money. and most institutions end up losing money all together on the whole deal ;/. that's the issue that was raised.
post #209 of 240
But most MAJOR programs probably make up most if not all of that cost just from their alumni professional athletes and then have a gain when you take into account other donations... And the very top (SEC schools, some big ten I'm sure) make money before you take into account any reputation increase, shared research grants, donations, providing students with what they want. If you're talking about very low end D-1 and lower then I think you have an argument but as far as the BCS conferences -- the teams America actually cares about -- you're way off base here.
post #210 of 240
Thread Starter 
very small amount of major programs end up in the black. and this thread isn't about just D-1. it's a week argument. a handful of teams make their money. teams like ohio state do a good job of that, and i commend them for that. but so many other teams -- most teams -- lose. and this discussion was never about the teams "America cares about", it's about all of these universities.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Are college athletics good or bad?