knapplc Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you think that because Boise State gets headlines in football that it really draws students in that they wouldn't get otherwise or a better class of student (that aren't just better athletes)? Probably any department offering brings in a few million dollars. If you have 100 students and $10,000 a year in tuition you've already hit that mark. The money they bring in usually goes directly to the AD and gets turned around into other sports teams. We just saw the other day that 20/120 FBS schools athletic departments actually made a profit last year, about 10 of those athletic departments still were being partially funded by taxpayers and student fees. I don't think tax-payers and non-athletic students should be forced into subsidizing college athletics. I think the professors in that organization have a very good point about that, even as a huge football fan. Yes, I do think that BSU's headlines help draws students. It can't not - it's free advertising for the university. Quote Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you think that because Boise State gets headlines in football that it really draws students in that they wouldn't get otherwise or a better class of student (that aren't just better athletes)? Yes Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in. I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue. Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money). For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally. 1 Quote Link to comment
NoKoolAidForME Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you think that because Boise State gets headlines in football that it really draws students in that they wouldn't get otherwise or a better class of student (that aren't just better athletes)? Yes Double yes The article and link below discusses a study that was done showing the correlation between athletic team success and an increase in college applications to those athletically successful programs. Athletic success leads to admissions influx Friday, March, 28, 2008 by Caleb Fleming, CT news reporter http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you think that because Boise State gets headlines in football that it really draws students in that they wouldn't get otherwise or a better class of student (that aren't just better athletes)? Probably any department offering brings in a few million dollars. If you have 100 students and $10,000 a year in tuition you've already hit that mark. Absolutely they do. Before 2006, the ONLY time I had ever heard of BSU was because my cousin liked playing on their blue field in the NCAA games. I'm just one example, but I'd argue many college football fans either didn't know or just didn't care about Boise State until they started being successful this last decade. Ask the same question about Nebraska - do you think we get students or better athletes we wouldn't otherwise get because of our football program? Umm..yes. Quote Link to comment
redblooded Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you think that because Boise State gets headlines in football that it really draws students in that they wouldn't get otherwise or a better class of student (that aren't just better athletes)? Yes Double yes The article and link below discusses a study that was done showing the correlation between athletic team success and an increase in college applications to those athletically successful programs. Athletic success leads to admissions influx Friday, March, 28, 2008 by Caleb Fleming, CT news reporter http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx Okay, yeah its name recognition. Also I did a small amount of wikipedia browsing after I posed the question earlier and it looks like Boise State is at record attendance levels even while making big budget cuts. But the majority of the students they are getting appear to be siphoned off of the other Idaho universities, who's attendance numbers are down. So it probably does make a difference for in state students more then anything. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in. I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue. Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money). For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally. Revenue is still key, and in that area Texas is king. Profit is just determined by the way a program is managed. Oregon doesn't have to invest a single dollar in ifrastructure improvements because Phil pays for everything. Same with Okie State. The only thing you can determine from Texas not being higher on this list is that they invest 2 times more money into their athletics than Nebraska. Would you feel better about that if Nebraska had a higher proffit margin? Hell no. What's the point of profitability in college athletics? There's no CEO to pay a fat bonus to, or investors to pay out dividends too. The point of making money in college athletics is so you can spend more on college athletics. If you think it's to contribute to the academic side...well, we know that isn't the case. Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in. I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue. Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money). For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally. Revenue is still key, and in that area Texas is king. Profit is just determined by the way a program is managed. Oregon doesn't have to invest a single dollar in ifrastructure improvements because Phil pays for everything. Same with Okie State. The only thing you can determine from Texas not being higher on this list is that they invest 2 times more money into their athletics than Nebraska. Would you feel better about that if Nebraska had a higher proffit margin? Hell no. What's the point of profitability in college athletics? There's no CEO to pay a fat bonus to, or investors to pay out dividends too. The point of making money in college athletics is so you can spend more on college athletics. If you think it's to contribute to the academic side...well, we know that isn't the case. Good points there. I think we all know that athletics doesn't directly contribute to academics. However, indirectly, we know that Nebraska has contributed (donations of old buildings for academic purposes), and it's better to be revenue neutral or generating than it is to be in the hole (and thus siphoning money from academics and/or taxpayers). Quote Link to comment
brasky Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Didn't the University of Miami's attendance blow up after the football team started winning championships? Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Just imagine what Nebraska would be if we DIDN'T have this football program. Quote Link to comment
BOJ Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Remember that next year we will be spending more money on travel for all sports. Going to need to factor that in. I think Harvey the Wonder Chancellor intimated some time back that travel cost concerns were blown way out of proportion by the fans. Yes, they will increase--but they're not going to be eating away all our revenue. Plus, once we're fully-vested members of the B1G, add another $6-10 million (minimum) to the additional $7 million withheld this year. That puts us right up there with Michigan and Penn State and leapfrogs us over the artificially-inflated Okie Lite (with their tainted T. Boone money). For Michigan, Penn State, and (!) Iowa to have beat out Texas and Oklahoma, that should tell us that the move to the B1G is sound, fiscally. Revenue is still key, and in that area Texas is king. Profit is just determined by the way a program is managed. Oregon doesn't have to invest a single dollar in ifrastructure improvements because Phil pays for everything. Same with Okie State. The only thing you can determine from Texas not being higher on this list is that they invest 2 times more money into their athletics than Nebraska. Would you feel better about that if Nebraska had a higher proffit margin? Hell no. What's the point of profitability in college athletics? There's no CEO to pay a fat bonus to, or investors to pay out dividends too. The point of making money in college athletics is so you can spend more on college athletics. If you think it's to contribute to the academic side...well, we know that isn't the case. Same deal with OSU, while their net proft is number 20 according to that list, the revenue is among the top three. According to another list I saw the two biggest revenue schools were Texas then OSU, both schools put most of that money right back into the athletic department so profit is rather sketchy stat to measure athletic departments by (in my opinion anyways) which do not account for how many other teams need to be funded by that athletic department revenue (see my post above about OSU having the most varsity teams of any school in the country). Quote Link to comment
BOJ Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Didn't the University of Miami's attendance blow up after the football team started winning championships? Difference is (I think) Miami is actually a decent school if you buy into rankings (where as Boise State--not so much). There is no doubt a high profile football program does wonders for the academic side of a mid tier University (free advertising is always great), but schools like MIT don't need a football program to recruit top tier scholars, but for the rest of us it sure helps. Advertising is advertising and I would say in college football it is probably the only time where bad press is actually bad press. Mind you I am not disagreeing, just taking the point a little farther. Quote Link to comment
huKSer Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Do you have a source or study that actually says that? Donations to the AD vs the academic side tend to be a lot different. The professors that hate athletics have lost that battle, but they have a good point about the academic side of the university kicking tax money and student fees over to athletics. He's obviously overstating his case at viewing the success of universities based on athletics... Someone isn't going to turn down MIT or something because WSU has a better basketball team. 8 of the schools get no tax/fees (tNU included). Interesting that half of these - four of the five former Big 12 schools listed get $0 tax/fees. And OU gets $0 yet Okie lite gets $5.6 million. SEC not surprisingly is the most subsidized league. Quote Link to comment
Blackshirt316 Posted June 17, 2011 Share Posted June 17, 2011 Just imagine what Nebraska would be if we DIDN'T have this football program. I don't have to imagine it, it already exists. If the University of Nebraska didn't have such a great football program we'd be just like Iowa. Quote Link to comment
CO_hawk Posted June 18, 2011 Author Share Posted June 18, 2011 Just imagine what Nebraska would be if we DIDN'T have this football program. I don't have to imagine it, it already exists. If the University of Nebraska didn't have such a great football program we'd be just like Iowa. So if you didn't have football you would be a bigger school, more enrollment and better graduate level programs? We do this without a high profile football program, UNL is a step below the rest in the big ten when it comes to these things. Think before you speak, or get over yourself. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.