davidnark Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I put together a summary of several good articles and studies relating to the impact of athletic success on a school. http://billikenbasketball.blogspot.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Latsch Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nark, Interesting stuff. One of the reasons I started thinking about the subject was because I experienced a similar situation at Penn State in the mid-1990s. I went to some orientation the year after the Nittany Lions football team went undefeated, and an administrator there talked about the increased number of applicants due to the football team's success. Going back to my original thread on the subject, I've been thinking about changing the original theory. I think if you look at it with less money involved — say, $1,000,000 a year for a coach — you could still attract plenty of candidates that could turn the program around. If you threw a ton of money at a bigger-name coach, you would gain instant credibility and excitement for the program. But if you kept the salary lower, you could lessen the economic risk involved but still bring in a high-caliber coach who could build a program. - Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 again, this is a great topic. All of my points here are meant with all due respect, and I am sort of playing devil's advocate in posing them, so back off of the personal attacks. just to repeat a few points from the other threads (we are summarizing now): 1) I wonder how valuable it really is to get increased applications. I say that for many reasons--students today over apply, with several fallbacks and no intentions of enrolling in many cases; etc. My point here is that everyone is getting more applications if they are a good school; and that the whole application game has radically changed. There have been good articles recently about this weirdo process, btw, in the Atlantic, US News, and other periodicals. 2) more applications may or may not mean better applications, though it might. it also might mean just getting more applications from less prepared students, rather than more. question: did a kid apply to Marquette simply because of good basketball teams? if so, what does that say about the kid? honestly, think about that question--if a kid applies solely for that reason. Because the logic of this argument suggests that he did apply for that reason--it was the decisive factor. I would strongly doubt that logic, to be honest. 3) who cares if we get more applications? that is, as long as we are getting a better class every year (which we are), and as long as our freshmen enrollment is pretty much capped (which it is)? I guess I would like some more concrete evidence that sports success really helps the schools, that all. 4) finally, from another thread a few weeks back: given our administration's unwillingness to actually pony up the $$$--why are we even talking about this with regard to SLU? aint gonna happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I would delete the stuff about Georgetown. My sister is a professor there and I got to tell there is not lack of applications there, and no lack of outstadning applications there. Remember where it is.....just a hop skip and a jump from working for some politician(pick your flavor). certainly not an example of a comparable instituition. The other problem that I have with this on a "study" stand point, is there is not control. Moreover no school would release information about how the did horribly when they hired a great coach who underperformed and applications dropped. One might argue that applications at SLU during the time period of Marquette did not change and test scores and admission classes were similar, so would Marquette have done that anyway? Or is this the effect of a down Marquette (market) cycle "rebounding", like the stock that rebounds after tanking for a year. Not sure enrollment and applications are the true end point but rather what should draw a jesuits attention is the increase in active alumni. Lastly the Flutie situation was not so much a decision to go out and spend money on sports as it was the story of an undersized underrecruited QB (BC only DI school to offer) who went to school in the town he went to high school in to do well on a national stage. Moreover, he had the exceptional game which was on national TV and epic event, which I bet people who watched it still remember where they watched it and with who. In a sense it was a fluke, who do you plan for a Fluke, I bet if you do you do not recruit the Flutie, you have him walk on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 > >again, this is a great topic. All of my points here are >meant with all due respect, and I am sort of playing devil's >advocate in posing them, so back off of the personal >attacks. > >just to repeat a few points from the other threads (we are >summarizing now): > >1) I wonder how valuable it really is to get increased >applications. I say that for many reasons--students today >over apply, with several fallbacks and no intentions of >enrolling in many cases; etc. My point here is that >everyone is getting more applications if they are a good >school; and that the whole application game has radically >changed. There have been good articles recently about this >weirdo process, btw, in the Atlantic, US News, and other >periodicals. > >2) more applications may or may not mean better >applications, though it might. it also might mean just >getting more applications from less prepared students, >rather than more. question: did a kid apply to Marquette >simply because of good basketball teams? if so, what does >that say about the kid? honestly, think about that >question--if a kid applies solely for that reason. Because >the logic of this argument suggests that he did apply for >that reason--it was the decisive factor. I would strongly >doubt that logic, to be honest. > >3) who cares if we get more applications? that is, as long >as we are getting a better class every year (which we are), >and as long as our freshmen enrollment is pretty much capped >(which it is)? I guess I would like some more concrete >evidence that sports success really helps the schools, that >all. > >4) finally, from another thread a few weeks back: given >our administration's unwillingness to actually pony up the >$$$--why are we even talking about this with regard to SLU? >aint gonna happen. 1) Are we really back to point one? How many examples do you need doc of drastic percentage increase? Marquette. Northwestern football in the mid 90's, George Mason last year, Gonzaga, and so on....do you really want to go with the ...well more kids are looking for for more fall back schools? It's one thing to play devil's advocate, and another to reach for the stars. 2) Doc, you were the one that came here and said we'd all be surprised at the reasons basketball players choose schools(though I wouldn't, I've been there) ...and now that idea is doubtful for anyone not putting a leather ball through an iron hoop.(Barbary Hershey). Success in athletics can raise the profile of the school dramatically, where kids who aren't even interested in basketball become more aware of that school because of that school's now higher profile. You also greatly underestimate what successful athletics does to the spirit of the campus, the buzz of the campus, the sense of community. Your example was Marquette. Over 4100 student season tickets. It's more than half of their undergraduate population. I guarantee you, some of those kids were not big basketball fans previously. More applications doesn't always mean better applications, but it definitely means more to choose from. And I have yet to find that the increased applications were weaker candidates who merely liked basketball but weren't qualified to get in. 3) Freshman enrollment is capped at other places too Doc. Scores and numbers are going up at other places Doc. Diversity in application is being increased to Doc. Overall quality of applicant is being increased too Doc. Applications have surged a great deal at these examples. Long term Doc, it is up to the school to increase the quality of their academics, or maintain it if already at a high level. The athletic success is a several year surge in number of applicants and quality of applicants at many places. One would also have to study alumni participation and donor levels from periods of athletic success at schools. And other things. 4) Many things in life begin with discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 courtside; I appreciate your passion on this topic but you might try actually addressing some of my points. I think I am raising some legitimate questions. on point 1, for example -- you ask: "Are we really back to point one? How many examples do you need doc of drastic percentage increase?" Your response is called a red herring-- you completely avoid my question, courtside....I grant that the numbers go up. they are going up everywhere. DUH. But you never really explain why increasing applications is so important to you. Again, so what? Yous eem to be saying that the increase alone somehow translates to a bettrer incoming class and a better school. I am just asking how someone would provide evidence for that. This is an honest, and innocent question, You call it reaching for the stars, whatever that means. on point 2, look at your own response: "More applications doesn't always mean better applications, but it definitely means more to choose from." That's my point, actually. You seem to claim more means better, though here you admit we have no way of knowing if more means better. If we get 10,000 cows or snails to apply, is that a plus, in your opinion? Again, it may mean better; or it may just mean more fruitless and bureaucratic work for our admissions staff. on point 3, you say: "Freshman enrollment is capped at other places too Doc. Scores and numbers are going up at other places Doc. Diversity in application is being increased to Doc. Overall quality of applicant is being increased too Doc." I may be mistaken but I think that is precisely my point. All those things are going up at SLU, and at most places that provide a good education, with or without sports success. Harvard, Yale, Brown, DePauw, Northwestern, and Wash U all have dramatic rises in applications, diversity, scores, etc., with little or no sports success. They all cap enrollment. You mention Northwestern spiking during their time of limited football success. How do you explain the trend continuing after their football team went in the tank? Oddly, your own words support my doubts; they do not really support your argument at all. Evidently you are unaware of how your own screeds against my points actually support some of my points. I am fairly open to your basic premise, but some real logic and evidence would help to convince me. Frankly, I am actually pretty sympathetic to your view, but I have this thing about reasoning and evidence, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 I just read the whole thread previously and whenever Bonwich asked Courtside for sepcific data, nothing was presented. A great deal of conjecture assumptions and opinions but no data. Data once posted about test scores, had no year or citation. David as for the "data" you posted in the blog, it is one story from years ago, i expected more perhaps that is just my scientific background Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 >I just read the whole thread previously and whenever Bonwich >asked Courtside for sepcific data, nothing was presented. A >great deal of conjecture assumptions and opinions but no >data. Data once posted about test scores, had no year or >citation. > >David as for the "data" you posted in the blog, it is one >story from years ago, i expected more perhaps that is just >my scientific background Actually that is incorrect. I supplied the data and also referred him to the Saint Louis University Admissions office. But good try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 >courtside; > >I appreciate your passion on this topic but you might try >actually addressing some of my points. I think I am raising >some legitimate questions. > >on point 1, for example -- you ask: "Are we really back to >point one? How many examples do you need doc of drastic >percentage increase?" Your response is called a red >herring-- you completely avoid my question, courtside....I >grant that the numbers go up. they are going up everywhere. > DUH. But you never really explain why increasing >applications is so important to you. Again, so what? Yous >eem to be saying that the increase alone somehow translates >to a bettrer incoming class and a better school. I am just >asking how someone would provide evidence for that. This is >an honest, and innocent question, You call it reaching for >the stars, whatever that means. > >on point 2, look at your own response: "More applications >doesn't always mean better applications, but it definitely >means more to choose from." That's my point, actually. You >seem to claim more means better, though here you admit we >have no way of knowing if more means better. If we get >10,000 cows or snails to apply, is that a plus, in your >opinion? Again, it may mean better; or it may just mean >more fruitless and bureaucratic work for our admissions >staff. > >on point 3, you say: "Freshman enrollment is capped at >other places too Doc. Scores and numbers are going up at >other places Doc. Diversity in application is being >increased to Doc. Overall quality of applicant is being >increased too Doc." I may be mistaken but I think that is >precisely my point. All those things are going up at SLU, >and at most places that provide a good education, with or >without sports success. Harvard, Yale, Brown, DePauw, >Northwestern, and Wash U all have dramatic rises in >applications, diversity, scores, etc., with little or no >sports success. They all cap enrollment. You mention >Northwestern spiking during their time of limited football >success. How do you explain the trend continuing after >their football team went in the tank? > >Oddly, your own words support my doubts; they do not really >support your argument at all. Evidently you are unaware of >how your own screeds against my points actually support some >of my points. I am fairly open to your basic premise, but >some real logic and evidence would help to convince me. >Frankly, I am actually pretty sympathetic to your view, but >I have this thing about reasoning and evidence, sorry. 1) Doc applications do NOT go up at the same percentages. SLU's applications are DOWN this year. George Mason's applications went up over 20% last year...these types of percentages are inconsistent with gradual increases at say a SLU. I also provided in the other thread where test scores, merely one small aspect of an applicant's application increased at greater rates than say a SLU during the same time period. 2) See point one. 3) Not at the same percentages. If scores and quality are up, and 13,000 people apply vs 8,000 it is in fact more competitive to obtain admittance. The President's of these schools have said so. Donna Shalaya at Miami and formerly U of Wisconsin said so recently as well regarding her days at Wisconsin before and after the success of the athletic teams. Quality of applicants increased as well as number of applicants. Earlier this year in Kiplinger's, University of North Carolina President praised the men's basketball teams for its academic success. Fr. Wild at Marquette commented on the same topic regarding applicant quality and number. As did many others. Do some homework doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Interesting stuff. You need to edit the blog to spell the Human Typo's (first and last) name correctly. Lots of data supporting the hypothesis. The UK study makes my eyes water; I remember why I dropped out of the Ph.D. program in economics. My seat-of-the-pants criticism would be that it doesn't normalize against the universe of *all* schools to determine the baseline for increased applications (i.e., as with DocB's point, isn't it possible that freshmen who used to apply, on average, to 4 schools now apply to 5 or 6?). Now, I realize one data point doesn't disprove an overall theory, but how do you explain SIU? P.S. Here's another data point I just dug up, straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak: http://bcm.bc.edu/issues/spring_2003/ll_phenomenology.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 interesting technique asking the person you are having a discussion with to prove your own point. Next time just ask them to post for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 >interesting technique asking the person you are having a >discussion with to prove your own point. Next time just ask >them to post for you. I gave statistics, gave references....perhaps I should hold the written information up in the air and turn the pages for you too and hold a light up and read to you out loud? Or perhaps I should dial the admissions office number for you and put the phone up to your ear and hold it there for you too? Perhaps I can read some of the information presented in braille? Always willing to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Good article.......seems fair to say that while the "Flutie Factor" has become dogma, the facts presented in this article do not support that it is The reason....... ps thanks for not asking me to find the article myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives...2/colleges.html Here you go Basketbill...instead of simply posting statistical facts and references to each and everything I post....I will also post every sinlge article as well...lol.... North Carolina makes a lot of money on University licensed products, #1 nationally as a matter of fact....due to its athletic programs success. All of that money is distributed to need based na dmerit based scholarships to the school. I can get someone to help you click on the link and read it you as well if you need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Rutgers http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2006-1...1-29.1644284301 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 http://theuniversityfaculty.cornell.edu/fo...ionsanswers.pdf The Cornell study. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Nice job Courtside of laying out several articles supporting your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 6, 2007 Share Posted April 6, 2007 Not an academic point of view, but I would think it is like advertising. The more a company is seen on TV and heard about, perception becomes that it is a better company or has a better product. Many people associate name recognition with quality. So my assumption would be that getting SLU's name out there and in the news by having success in athletics could increase applications and probably the quality of those applications. Also I believe there are kids that are going to a certain school because they grew up loving that school due to athletic success. If you need anything to back up my opinion, I have done and office poll. 100% of those polled think I am right. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H Waldman Official Sponser of the Stemmler and Ahearn could and would have helped club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 There are a variety of ways of impact. Direct licensing dollars that go back to non-athletic budgets, to need and merit based scholarships for high quality academic applicants. Studies have shown that alumni who associate their college experience with successful athletics, contribute at higher rates to their school, and again, not to the athletic dept, to other academic aspects of the University. Some people downplay or underestimate the value of that exposure and name recognition. It isn't just for Joe sports fan to consider xyz school. The exposure of a school because of athletics also reaches quality students of which have little to no interest in the athletics at xyz school. Athletics just helps with exposing that said type of student to that school. As I mentioned with the other example...Marquette now has 4100 student season basketball tickets...does anyone honestly think that more than half of their student body chose market for the basketball team? But I sure bet those students would say they have an increased quality of life while in school than if they didn't have that program the way it currently exists. It's up to schools to invest in the students educations for the long term. By definition having strong athletics doesn't guarantee strong scademics...however it helps academics in a wide variety of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 >David as for the "data" you posted in the blog, it is one >story from years ago, i expected more perhaps that is just >my scientific background I posted links to six separate articles on the topic and included stats relating to admissions, applications, and/or funding changes at six different universities. I researched, summarized, and published this information in about an hour. What exactly are you looking for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 The Post recently ran an article about how Carbondale's enrollment was dwindling and Edwardsville can't build fast enough to keep up with the demand. SIUE is D2. Based on the line of thinking in this thread Carbondale's applications and enrollment should be on the rise. How do we explain this? I can see where some athletic success can lead to more awareness and, therefore, more applications. At some point though the school will either be consistently good and the applications will level out or the school will have less success and the applications will also level out. Exposure is the key, and SLU has lousy TV coverage and is on a radio station with a signal so weak you can't hear it going under bridge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 David no offense intended, you highlighted the word "Data", it was a newspaper article, I was expecting from that link multiple charts and tables etc.... more like one of the other links you provided. I have since perused the other links you did provide as well as the ones Bonwich provided and those Courtside provided. I do not come to the same strong conclusion you do, but agree there would be a beneficial effect just not sure how quantifiable it would be. Semantics I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 There has been a debate on this board whether increased applications help the university. I have taken a number of probability and stats classes in my day, and a basic tenant of the subject is that the larger the sample size, the more likely you will have a greater diversity and a greater number of positive outliers in your resulting population. Based on this tenant, one can only assume that the significant increase in college applications BC, Georgetown, Gonzaga, Marquette, and George Mason received following their major athletic success translated into a higher caliber student due to the larger number of higher-caliber applications. An increase in the caliber of student increases the university's academic reputation, academic culture, national recognition, etc. For this reason alone, I think a large investment in athletics is a very good investment. In today's competitive college culture, there is probably no better way to obtain instant name-recognition and respect among high school students and their parents througout the nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 7, 2007 Author Share Posted April 7, 2007 If you are by charter a directional state school, then I am not sure that it matters nationally. But for a very good academic national research institution like SLU (or Marquette) whose biggest struggle is recognition and appeal on the two costs, the impact can be enormous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted April 7, 2007 Share Posted April 7, 2007 I would agree with that premise, ie the more applicants the greater chance there would be more outstanding applicants etc... but the "Flutie" Factor makes the large leap of faith, in my view that it is the sports success that generates that increase. Bonwich's article actaully questions that, a BC article itself, by siting that after an 0-11 season their application pool increased substantially also. I do think that investment in the physical plant, grounds and student activities in general would good investments, as improving the quality of life, will benefit students. ps Poor Phelan he scored the touchdown a no win situation he drops the pass it becomes Phelan's Phlubb, if he catches it is the Flutie Factor:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.