Fixing this

[BringBackStutzriem]

It's time the BOT learns that Athletics are the front porch of a University. No doubt there are staff and alumni who believe direct investment in academics is priority number one, and to an extent it is, however, it's also time for them to recognize the reality of the ROI on positive brand-building and brand-image. Over the long term, investment in brand (and the brand starts with Athletics, primarily Football and Men's Basketball) will return as much, if not more than direct investment in academics.

Not even close. The "front porch" of a university is its academic reputation and performance. That's what attracts good students and faculty, who attract more good faculty and students, etc.

Entertainment is nice, and entertainment gives some alums a nice way to connect with their old university, but it's the guest bedroom, not the front porch.

Not today. It's all about brand. Do you really think Boise's academics would have come this far without football? Do you really think UNLV would have a law school today if it wasn't for basketball?

Sorry, but that's Wyoming thirty-years-behind-the-times thinking you're practicing.

Totally agree. The Flutie Effect does work. If Florida Gulf Coast never won a game in the 2013 NCAA Tournament, would anyone even knew there is a Florida Gulf Coast University? Or if Boise State never upset OU in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, would ESPN even give a shit about Boise...at all?

People want to attend universities where the athletics is good because people love winners not academics.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: No. Just no. Boise State already had an enrollment of nearly 18,000 in 2002. 2002!! Yes, it's now up to around 23,000...you don't think that the addition of academic programs, the general burgeoning academic reputation, and the overall growth of the city of Boise had something to do with that??

 

[Wyokie]

It's time the BOT learns that Athletics are the front porch of a University. No doubt there are staff and alumni who believe direct investment in academics is priority number one, and to an extent it is, however, it's also time for them to recognize the reality of the ROI on positive brand-building and brand-image. Over the long term, investment in brand (and the brand starts with Athletics, primarily Football and Men's Basketball) will return as much, if not more than direct investment in academics.

Not even close. The "front porch" of a university is its academic reputation and performance. That's what attracts good students and faculty, who attract more good faculty and students, etc.

Entertainment is nice, and entertainment gives some alums a nice way to connect with their old university, but it's the guest bedroom, not the front porch.

Not today. It's all about brand. Do you really think Boise's academics would have come this far without football? Do you really think UNLV would have a law school today if it wasn't for basketball?

Sorry, but that's Wyoming thirty-years-behind-the-times thinking you're practicing.

Totally agree. The Flutie Effect does work. If Florida Gulf Coast never won a game in the 2013 NCAA Tournament, would anyone even knew there is a Florida Gulf Coast University? Or if Boise State never upset OU in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, would ESPN even give a shit about Boise...at all?

People want to attend universities where the athletics is good because people love winners not academics.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: No. Just no.

O.K. smarty...why not?

 

[BringBackStutzriem]

It's time the BOT learns that Athletics are the front porch of a University. No doubt there are staff and alumni who believe direct investment in academics is priority number one, and to an extent it is, however, it's also time for them to recognize the reality of the ROI on positive brand-building and brand-image. Over the long term, investment in brand (and the brand starts with Athletics, primarily Football and Men's Basketball) will return as much, if not more than direct investment in academics.

Not even close. The "front porch" of a university is its academic reputation and performance. That's what attracts good students and faculty, who attract more good faculty and students, etc.

Entertainment is nice, and entertainment gives some alums a nice way to connect with their old university, but it's the guest bedroom, not the front porch.

Not today. It's all about brand. Do you really think Boise's academics would have come this far without football? Do you really think UNLV would have a law school today if it wasn't for basketball?

Sorry, but that's Wyoming thirty-years-behind-the-times thinking you're practicing.

Totally agree. The Flutie Effect does work. If Florida Gulf Coast never won a game in the 2013 NCAA Tournament, would anyone even knew there is a Florida Gulf Coast University? Or if Boise State never upset OU in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, would ESPN even give a shit about Boise...at all?

People want to attend universities where the athletics is good because people love winners not academics.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: No. Just no.

O.K. smarty...why not?

See above. Boise's enrollment was already at 18,000 before they were even good at football. Given that the city, itself, has become a pretty desirable place to live - and the academic programs have expanded immensely in that time - it's perfectly rational to see that Boise State would have grown sans any athletic success. People are pretending that Boise State was like a 3,000 person institution before they started winning games.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

The 30 second commercial on ESPN or ESPN2 during our televised games is more exposure for UW than anything else we do.

If we were BSU-like in football and had a damn good bball team, our enrollment from Front Range students would increase. Read. There are numerous studies that show increased athletic success increases enrollment applications.

Successful athletics would greatly expand our market penetration along the Front Range.

 

[cali2wyo]

I'm not sure what side of the fence to be on this one... On one hand, increased spending on athletics (specifically football in this case) may lead to success and increased exposure, fundraising, etc. But on the other end, it sure seems unethical to increase spending on a poor football team when academic faculty are under a seemingly eternal pay freeze and academic programs or other athletics teams may be at risk (see Maryland 2011 and Florida 2012). I think increased athletic success makes universities more successful/desirable, but it seems wrong to put extra money into athletics and tell the academic faculty/programs that there is none...

 

[Wyovanian]

It's time the BOT learns that Athletics are the front porch of a University. No doubt there are staff and alumni who believe direct investment in academics is priority number one, and to an extent it is, however, it's also time for them to recognize the reality of the ROI on positive brand-building and brand-image. Over the long term, investment in brand (and the brand starts with Athletics, primarily Football and Men's Basketball) will return as much, if not more than direct investment in academics.

Not even close. The "front porch" of a university is its academic reputation and performance. That's what attracts good students and faculty, who attract more good faculty and students, etc.

Entertainment is nice, and entertainment gives some alums a nice way to connect with their old university, but it's the guest bedroom, not the front porch.

Not today. It's all about brand. Do you really think Boise's academics would have come this far without football? Do you really think UNLV would have a law school today if it wasn't for basketball?

Sorry, but that's Wyoming thirty-years-behind-the-times thinking you're practicing.

Totally agree. The Flutie Effect does work. If Florida Gulf Coast never won a game in the 2013 NCAA Tournament, would anyone even knew there is a Florida Gulf Coast University? Or if Boise State never upset OU in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, would ESPN even give a shit about Boise...at all?

People want to attend universities where the athletics is good because people love winners not academics.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: No. Just no.

O.K. smarty...why not?

See above. Boise's enrollment was already at 18,000 before they were even good at football. Given that the city, itself, has become a pretty desirable place to live - and the academic programs have expanded immensely in that time - it's perfectly rational to see that Boise State would have grown sans any athletic success. People are pretending that Boise State was like a 3,000 person institution before they started winning games.

Boise State wasn't attracting nearly as many students from out of state, nor did they have as many degree programs prior to their becoming a D1 football school. They were mostly a regional bachelor's college prior to the 90's.

 

[Wyovanian]

I'm not sure what side of the fence to be on this one... On one hand, increased spending on athletics (specifically football in this case) may lead to success and increased exposure, fundraising, etc. But on the other end, it sure seems unethical to increase spending on a poor football team when academic faculty are under a seemingly eternal pay freeze and academic programs or other athletics teams may be at risk (see Maryland 2011 and Florida 2012). I think increased athletic success makes universities more successful/desirable, but it seems wrong to put extra money into athletics and tell the academic faculty/programs that there is none...

No one's telling them there is none, they need to understand that priorities have shifted in the world of NCAA Athletics institutions. Failure by Wyoming to invest in D1 Athletics to a level comparable to peer institutions will only mean less academic stature down the road. You don't build a city where there is no road to it- you build the road to build the city.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I'm not sure what side of the fence to be on this one... On one hand, increased spending on athletics (specifically football in this case) may lead to success and increased exposure, fundraising, etc. But on the other end, it sure seems unethical to increase spending on a poor football team when academic faculty are under a seemingly eternal pay freeze and academic programs or other athletics teams may be at risk (see Maryland 2011 and Florida 2012). I think increased athletic success makes universities more successful/desirable, but it seems wrong to put extra money into athletics and tell the academic faculty/programs that there is none...

According to UW figures, the football team generates a little over $2mill in revenue. The bball team is about break even but will likely make over $1 mill in the coming years because of NCAA revenue and increased attendance.

For the football example alone, that 2 million could go a long ways on salaries. It isn't adding more to football, it is taking less from it to subsidize the other sports. A money game a year would be an additional 1 mill. Instantly we have 3 mill more in the football budget. Each game on big networks is another $500K so not unrealistic to have another 1-2 mill there (if we start winning). The budget for football could grow from its own self generated revenue.

Buildings are another matter. Sure some other additions or renovations would be nice, but we have enough infrastructure to win. Winning will bring more fans and revenue than any more additions or renovations.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I'm not sure what side of the fence to be on this one... On one hand, increased spending on athletics (specifically football in this case) may lead to success and increased exposure, fundraising, etc. But on the other end, it sure seems unethical to increase spending on a poor football team when academic faculty are under a seemingly eternal pay freeze and academic programs or other athletics teams may be at risk (see Maryland 2011 and Florida 2012). I think increased athletic success makes universities more successful/desirable, but it seems wrong to put extra money into athletics and tell the academic faculty/programs that there is none...

According to UW figures, the football team generates a little over $2mill in revenue. The bball team is about break even but will likely make over $1 mill in the coming years because of NCAA revenue and increased attendance.

For the football example alone, that 2 million could go a long ways on salaries. It isn't adding more to football, it is taking less from it to subsidize the other sports. A money game a year would be an additional 1 mill. Instantly we have 3 mill more in the football budget. Each game on big networks is another $500K so not unrealistic to have another 1-2 mill there (if we start winning). The budget for football could grow from its own self generated revenue.

Buildings are another matter. Sure some other additions or renovations would be nice, but we have enough infrastructure to win. Winning will bring more fans and revenue than any more additions or renovations.

Football by its nature almost necessitates that it does subsidize other sports. This is because by the existence of a football program, we are required to add about 3-4 women's sports programs under Title IX. When we talk about how much the football program costs, we never talk about these other sports and costs of these other sports...but these costs exist due to the mere fact of having football.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Football by its nature almost necessitates that it does subsidize other sports. This is because by the existence of a football program, we are required to add about 3-4 women's sports programs under Title IX. When we talk about how much the football program costs, we never talk about these other sports and costs of these other sports...but these costs exist due to the mere fact of having football.

So dropping football and dropping several women's sports would be better for the overall budget of the University?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

. Each game on big networks is another $500K so not unrealistic to have another 1-2 mill there (if we start winning).

Actually, as stupid as it sounds, sustained winning would likely impede our chances of obtaining the $500k under the current TV deal. CBS Sports has 'first choice' of MWC games before the season, but appearances on CBS Sports does not qualify for the bonus money. Wyoming has been fairly terrible the last few years but has finished in the top few teams in terms of 'bonus' money. Conversely, CSU did not receive any bonus money last year.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Football by its nature almost necessitates that it does subsidize other sports. This is because by the existence of a football program, we are required to add about 3-4 women's sports programs under Title IX. When we talk about how much the football program costs, we never talk about these other sports and costs of these other sports...but these costs exist due to the mere fact of having football.

So dropping football and dropping several women's sports would be better for the overall budget of the University?

Where did I say that?

I was just commenting on your numbers and belief that all football money should be directed solely toward football.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

. Each game on big networks is another $500K so not unrealistic to have another 1-2 mill there (if we start winning).

Actually, as stupid as it sounds, sustained winning would likely impede our chances of obtaining the $500k under the current TV deal. CBS Sports has 'first choice' of MWC games before the season, but appearances on CBS Sports does not qualify for the bonus money. Wyoming has been fairly terrible the last few years but has finished in the top few teams in terms of 'bonus' money. Conversely, CSU did not receive any bonus money last year.

Yeah, that does make sense and is a good point plus, we only have 3 or 3.5 years left on this contract. Hard to tell what the next one will be anyway.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Football by its nature almost necessitates that it does subsidize other sports. This is because by the existence of a football program, we are required to add about 3-4 women's sports programs under Title IX. When we talk about how much the football program costs, we never talk about these other sports and costs of these other sports...but these costs exist due to the mere fact of having football.

So dropping football and dropping several women's sports would be better for the overall budget of the University?

Where did I say that?

I was just commenting on your numbers and belief that all football money should be directed solely toward football.

Point being, how many of the women's sports would exist if we dropped football? Are we carrying all of those sports purely because of football?

 

[OrediggerPoke]

Are we carrying all of those sports purely because of football?

Yes.

Honestly, Title IX created more inequities than it solved. I appreciate women's sports, but Title IX was a serious detriment to many men's programs in various sports across the country (wrestling, soccer, etc...).

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Are we carrying all of those sports purely because of football?

Yes.

Honestly, Title IX created more inequities than it solved. I appreciate women's sports, but Title IX was a serious detriment to many men's programs in various sports across the country (wrestling, soccer, etc...).

I'm not sure what sports we would offer if we dropped football, but, though I understand and appreciate your position, I disagree with it unless we can ascribe a monetary value to all of the benefit received from the football team. Advertising alone, is worth a lot.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

It's time the BOT learns that Athletics are the front porch of a University. No doubt there are staff and alumni who believe direct investment in academics is priority number one, and to an extent it is, however, it's also time for them to recognize the reality of the ROI on positive brand-building and brand-image. Over the long term, investment in brand (and the brand starts with Athletics, primarily Football and Men's Basketball) will return as much, if not more than direct investment in academics.

Not even close. The "front porch" of a university is its academic reputation and performance. That's what attracts good students and faculty, who attract more good faculty and students, etc.

Entertainment is nice, and entertainment gives some alums a nice way to connect with their old university, but it's the guest bedroom, not the front porch.

Not today. It's all about brand. Do you really think Boise's academics would have come this far without football? Do you really think UNLV would have a law school today if it wasn't for basketball?

Sorry, but that's Wyoming thirty-years-behind-the-times thinking you're practicing.

Totally agree. The Flutie Effect does work. If Florida Gulf Coast never won a game in the 2013 NCAA Tournament, would anyone even knew there is a Florida Gulf Coast University? Or if Boise State never upset OU in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl, would ESPN even give a shit about Boise...at all?

People want to attend universities where the athletics is good because people love winners not academics.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: No. Just no. Boise State already had an enrollment of nearly 18,000 in 2002. 2002!! Yes, it's now up to around 23,000...you don't think that the addition of academic programs, the general burgeoning academic reputation, and the overall growth of the city of Boise had something to do with that??

And what was Boise's acceptance rate in 2002 compared to today?? I bet you would find that it is a lot lower today as they get a LOT more applications than they did 15 years ago.

EDIT: Some quick research revealed that in 2006, BSU's acceptance rate was 92%, today it is down to 78%. Not in the same realm as the Ivy League schools, but that means that despite their mediocre academics, they are still turning away almost a quarter of their applicants.

For anyone that questions the athletics plays a MAJOR role today in a University's marketability and desirability, you need to do some research. As has already been mentioned, the Flutie effect plays a huge role education administration. Enough so that it is stressed in graduate/doctorate level courses in the field.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

Football by its nature almost necessitates that it does subsidize other sports. This is because by the existence of a football program, we are required to add about 3-4 women's sports programs under Title IX. When we talk about how much the football program costs, we never talk about these other sports and costs of these other sports...but these costs exist due to the mere fact of having football.

So dropping football and dropping several women's sports would be better for the overall budget of the University?

Where did I say that?

I was just commenting on your numbers and belief that all football money should be directed solely toward football.

Point being, how many of the women's sports would exist if we dropped football? Are we carrying all of those sports purely because of football?

I agree with Oredigger. If we were to drop football you could probably say goodbye to women's soccer and women's tennis at the minumum.

Just take Nebraska for example, Nebraska has 9 male sports and 13 female sports. Do you think UNL would have varsity bowling, swimming & diving and rifle if they didn't have football? No way.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I agree with Oredigger. If we were to drop football you could probably say goodbye to women's soccer and women's tennis at the minumum.

Just take Nebraska for example, Nebraska has 9 male sports and 13 female sports. Do you think UNL would have varsity bowling, swimming & diving and rifle if they didn't have football? No way.

I assume that we would be like Gonzaga which offers, pretty much the same thing only rowing instead of swimming and diving.

Besides, we certainly would offer some Women's sports without football and certainly would not save over $2 million by dropping a number of Women's sports. The entire total of all Women's sports is about $5.1 mill. They bring in close to $3.5 mill meaning all women's sports lose about $1.8 mill (looking at the actual numbers and not my estimates).

It is not fair to ascribe all of that loss to the football team let alone not giving the football team credit for things like advertising, donations for facilities, etc.

 

[WestWYOPoke]

I agree with Oredigger. If we were to drop football you could probably say goodbye to women's soccer and women's tennis at the minumum.

Just take Nebraska for example, Nebraska has 9 male sports and 13 female sports. Do you think UNL would have varsity bowling, swimming & diving and rifle if they didn't have football? No way.

I assume that we would be like Gonzaga which offers, pretty much the same thing only rowing instead of swimming and diving.

Besides, we certainly would offer some Women's sports without football and certainly would not save over $2 million by dropping a number of Women's sports. The entire total of all Women's sports is about $5.1 mill. They bring in close to $3.5 mill meaning all women's sports lose about $1.8 mill (looking at the actual numbers and not my estimates).

It is not fair to ascribe all of that loss to the football team let alone not giving the football team credit for things like advertising, donations for facilities, etc.

You have to remember that it is not just about making or losing money. The ratio of monies spent on male and female sports has to be equivalent to the gender breakdown of your student-body population. At Wyoming, the student-body is 53% female. This means athletics has to have roughly equal numbers of scholarships for men and women AND have to spend equal number of monies for both men and women.

Basically, if you were to drop football, you just lost 85 male scholarships AND a whole lot of money going to men's sports. In return, you would HAVE to drop these women's sports in order to be compliant with Title IX or add money and scholarships to other male sports.