Fixing this

[ragtimejoe1]

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.

I think you just have to offer similar in things like scholarships, recruiting budget, etc., but things like salaries are not included which is why we spend nearly 3x as much on men's sports than women's (over 12 mill for men and over 5 mill for women...13 mill spent but not designated to either).

This is why we need to attack our football woes from a coaching salary perspective. Not subject to Title IX.

What I was getting at above was that the losses in revenue in women's sports can't all be pinned on the football team and the football revenue still overcomes the women's financial deficit.

 

[joshvanklomp]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Wyovanian]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're going to anger a lot of "fans" with all this fact that runs counter to thirty-year-old conventional wisdom. Next thing, you'll be telling people that being computer literate is important to career-seekers in agriculture.

 

[BringBackStutzriem]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Flutie Effect" is founded on the extremely fuzzy premises that more students means a better university (it doesn't) and that massive initial spikes in applications and enrollment due to an anomaly triumph in sports will also A.) sustain themselves and B.) improve the overall university. Once again, not so fast. You can cite TONS of examples of universities that grew exponentially, EXPONENTIALLY more than any of the ones you just referenced and athletics had very little to do with any of that.

For example: you want to see real, rapid growth? Central Florida had 11,000 students in 1978, 18,000 in 1989, and now has nearly 60,000 students - more than Ohio State. You know how much the athletic prestige of Central Florida contributed to that growth? Dick. And furthermore, who gives a shit how many students Central Florida attracts if the quality of education isn't good. For the record, I don't know whether or not the quality of education at UCF is or not, but I'm pointing towards its national rankings and seeing it at 178th nationally, 98th among public institutions, etc.

The real points here are A.) Wyoming will NEVER find itself in the position of Boise State, Utah, BYU, or TCU. The window for that is closed. Don't kid yourselves. We share far more in common from an athletic perspective in the year 2015 with New Mexico State or Idaho than we do with any of the other four institutions cited above. Laramie is a 30,000 person town in the least populated state in the country. It's not Boise, it's not Salt Lake City, it's not Provo, it's not Fort Worth, it's not even Fort Collins. Predicating the growth of your university on triumphant, sustained athletic success is the stupidest risk venture you could embark upon, simply because the return is not going to be there. We're not ever going to go 12-0 and play in a BCS game. It's not going to happen. In basketball, the odds of a potential deep run into the NCAA Tournament are higher, but still infinitesimal.

So, why not thrust all of our state coffers into athletics so that we can compete? Well, we're already struggling to retain our upper-tier academic staff to begin with. They're grossly underpaid and their incentive for hanging around isn't very high. The new hiring freeze at UW is only going to further diminish that. Diverting money from other university programs towards athletics also diminishes scholarship opportunities for actual students (not just student athletes who we pay to come play for us, who receive the free education, and who rarely even settle in Wyoming after they graduate - if they do) who are potential contributors to Wyoming's work-force, its state economy, etc.

As Orediggerpoke has, time and time, reemphasized in several different threads - there are some serious financial logistics that the State of Wyoming is going to have to face in years moving forward. And they're not the same logistical problems Wyoming has faced in the past. Under the Clean Power Plan, coal revenues can't just be depended upon as they have been in the past. While the overall outlook for the energy sector isn't doomed, it's going to require some innovative thinking and planning - and innovative young minds from within the state to execute a forward-thinking energy strategy. Furthermore, the economy cannot be nearly as dependent upon energy as it has in the past. We need more young professionals to settle here, we need to further develop other sectors of economy, and we need to retain our educated workforce.

How do you do this? Well, you definitely focus your finances on providing a quality education that helps lead young folks towards successful career trajectories that retain them in Wyoming. Trying to pump millions upon millions into the crap-shoot premise of football success for a program that, quite frankly, still probably wouldn't succeed at the level that you all are thinking (as far as generating university growth) is NOT the way to do that.

And finally, once again, unless you have a vested interest in the fiscal success of a university (as in, you're making money from it), I don't understand how its enrollment really matters that much - especially if there isn't funding available for making its academics more successful than its athletics. And, in the case of Wyoming, that's what we really need to be concerned about.

 

[Wyovanian]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Flutie Effect" is founded on the extremely fuzzy premises that more students means a better university (it doesn't) and that massive initial spikes in applications and enrollment due to an anomaly triumph in sports will also A.) sustain themselves and B.) improve the overall university. Once again, not so fast. You can cite TONS of examples of universities that grew exponentially, EXPONENTIALLY more than any of the ones you just referenced and athletics had very little to do with any of that.

For example: you want to see real, rapid growth? Central Florida had 11,000 students in 1978, 18,000 in 1989, and now has nearly 60,000 students - more than Ohio State. You know how much the athletic prestige of Central Florida contributed to that growth? Dick. And furthermore, who gives a shit how many students Central Florida attracts if the quality of education isn't good. For the record, I don't know whether or not the quality of education at UCF is or not, but I'm pointing towards its national rankings and seeing it at 178th nationally, 98th among public institutions, etc.

The real points here are A.) Wyoming will NEVER find itself in the position of Boise State, Utah, BYU, or TCU. The window for that is closed. Don't kid yourselves. We share far more in common from an athletic perspective in the year 2015 with New Mexico State or Idaho than we do with any of the other four institutions cited above. Laramie is a 30,000 person town in the least populated state in the country. It's not Boise, it's not Salt Lake City, it's not Provo, it's not Fort Worth, it's not even Fort Collins. Predicating the growth of your university on triumphant, sustained athletic success is the stupidest risk venture you could embark upon, simply because the return is not going to be there. We're not ever going to go 12-0 and play in a BCS game. It's not going to happen. In basketball, the odds of a potential deep run into the NCAA Tournament are higher, but still infinitesimal.

So, why not thrust all of our state coffers into athletics so that we can compete? Well, we're already struggling to retain our upper-tier academic staff to begin with. They're grossly underpaid and their incentive for hanging around isn't very high. The new hiring freeze at UW is only going to further diminish that. Diverting money from other university programs towards athletics also diminishes scholarship opportunities for actual students (not just student athletes who we pay to come play for us, who receive the free education, and who rarely even settle in Wyoming after they graduate - if they do) who are potential contributors to Wyoming's work-force, its state economy, etc.

As Orediggerpoke has, time and time, reemphasized in several different threads - there are some serious financial logistics that the State of Wyoming is going to have to face in years moving forward. And they're not the same logistical problems Wyoming has faced in the past. Under the Clean Power Plan, coal revenues can't just be depended upon as they have been in the past. While the overall outlook for the energy sector isn't doomed, it's going to require some innovative thinking and planning - and innovative young minds from within the state to execute a forward-thinking energy strategy. Furthermore, the economy cannot be nearly as dependent upon energy as it has in the past. We need more young professionals to settle here, we need to further develop other sectors of economy, and we need to retain our educated workforce.

How do you do this? Well, you definitely focus your finances on providing a quality education that helps lead young folks towards successful career trajectories that retain them in Wyoming. Trying to pump millions upon millions into the crap-shoot premise of football success for a program that, quite frankly, still probably wouldn't succeed at the level that you all are thinking (as far as generating university growth) is NOT the way to do that.

And finally, once again, unless you have a vested interest in the fiscal success of a university (as in, you're making money from it), I don't understand how its enrollment really matters that much - especially if there isn't funding available for making its academics more successful than its athletics. And, in the case of Wyoming, that's what we really need to be concerned about.

Funny you use Central Florida to argue against investing in athletics when their enrollment has coincided with the growth of their athletics.

So, despite tons of evidence supporting the notion of higher investment in athletics boosting a school across all categories, you're content with status quo and elimination of football? Because, based on your logic, that's the only thing one can extrapolate from your "conclusions".

 

[BringBackStutzriem]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Flutie Effect" is founded on the extremely fuzzy premises that more students means a better university (it doesn't) and that massive initial spikes in applications and enrollment due to an anomaly triumph in sports will also A.) sustain themselves and B.) improve the overall university. Once again, not so fast. You can cite TONS of examples of universities that grew exponentially, EXPONENTIALLY more than any of the ones you just referenced and athletics had very little to do with any of that.

For example: you want to see real, rapid growth? Central Florida had 11,000 students in 1978, 18,000 in 1989, and now has nearly 60,000 students - more than Ohio State. You know how much the athletic prestige of Central Florida contributed to that growth? Dick. And furthermore, who gives a shit how many students Central Florida attracts if the quality of education isn't good. For the record, I don't know whether or not the quality of education at UCF is or not, but I'm pointing towards its national rankings and seeing it at 178th nationally, 98th among public institutions, etc.

The real points here are A.) Wyoming will NEVER find itself in the position of Boise State, Utah, BYU, or TCU. The window for that is closed. Don't kid yourselves. We share far more in common from an athletic perspective in the year 2015 with New Mexico State or Idaho than we do with any of the other four institutions cited above. Laramie is a 30,000 person town in the least populated state in the country. It's not Boise, it's not Salt Lake City, it's not Provo, it's not Fort Worth, it's not even Fort Collins. Predicating the growth of your university on triumphant, sustained athletic success is the stupidest risk venture you could embark upon, simply because the return is not going to be there. We're not ever going to go 12-0 and play in a BCS game. It's not going to happen. In basketball, the odds of a potential deep run into the NCAA Tournament are higher, but still infinitesimal.

So, why not thrust all of our state coffers into athletics so that we can compete? Well, we're already struggling to retain our upper-tier academic staff to begin with. They're grossly underpaid and their incentive for hanging around isn't very high. The new hiring freeze at UW is only going to further diminish that. Diverting money from other university programs towards athletics also diminishes scholarship opportunities for actual students (not just student athletes who we pay to come play for us, who receive the free education, and who rarely even settle in Wyoming after they graduate - if they do) who are potential contributors to Wyoming's work-force, its state economy, etc.

As Orediggerpoke has, time and time, reemphasized in several different threads - there are some serious financial logistics that the State of Wyoming is going to have to face in years moving forward. And they're not the same logistical problems Wyoming has faced in the past. Under the Clean Power Plan, coal revenues can't just be depended upon as they have been in the past. While the overall outlook for the energy sector isn't doomed, it's going to require some innovative thinking and planning - and innovative young minds from within the state to execute a forward-thinking energy strategy. Furthermore, the economy cannot be nearly as dependent upon energy as it has in the past. We need more young professionals to settle here, we need to further develop other sectors of economy, and we need to retain our educated workforce.

How do you do this? Well, you definitely focus your finances on providing a quality education that helps lead young folks towards successful career trajectories that retain them in Wyoming. Trying to pump millions upon millions into the crap-shoot premise of football success for a program that, quite frankly, still probably wouldn't succeed at the level that you all are thinking (as far as generating university growth) is NOT the way to do that.

And finally, once again, unless you have a vested interest in the fiscal success of a university (as in, you're making money from it), I don't understand how its enrollment really matters that much - especially if there isn't funding available for making its academics more successful than its athletics. And, in the case of Wyoming, that's what we really need to be concerned about.

Funny you use Central Florida to argue against investing in athletics when their enrollment has coincided with the growth of their athletics.

So, despite tons of evidence supporting the notion of higher investment in athletics boosting a school across all categories, you're content with status quo and elimination of football? Because, based on your logic, that's the only thing one can extrapolate from your "conclusions".

Central Florida's growth in athletics has coincided with the growth of the university. It's not the other way around. Central Florida hasn't done shit in athletics as far as success on a national scale. You think that extremely average football and basketball programs are attributable for a 40,000 person rise in enrollment?? No fucking way. Not even close.

And yes, I'm questioning that because Wyoming is not Ohio State, it's not Utah, it's not Boise State, and it's not even Central Florida. Again, from an athletics standpoint, it's analogous to New Mexico State or Idaho, not an established, major program.

So, to answer your question, rather than pouring millions into propping a failing program with hopes that it might somehow prop up a university facing severe funding issues moving forward...yes, if it came down to it, I'd be in favor of just funding the university itself on academic merit.

You know why people get up in arms about this stuff? Because, in a time when we're faced with a statewide budget crisis, in a time when staff are being paid 60% of average wages for the rest of the country...we're not only offering full-ride scholarships, but actually paying stipends, to quarterbacks who can't even hit five-yard dump off passes and defenders who can't even gang-tackle mediocre running backs in the open field. So, yes, people are getting pissed about this when you're telling me that a good professor doesn't deserve a fair wage but a poorly performing football team of "student" athletes - the majority of whom won't ever settle in Wyoming after their time is up - deserves to be further propped up. THAT is why people are starting to get pissed about the possibility of Wyoming going 0-12 this season, and ensuing calls arguing to divert more funding towards athletics.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Bohl has his work cut out for him.

The accepting of mediocrity culture has nearly sucked every last ounce of life from this program and has squashed enthusiasm among fans. It has indoctrinated fans to be like it; to accept it; to recite it; and to accept no other reality. I'm not sure if we ever overcome it.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

You know why people get up in arms about this stuff? Because, in a time when we're faced with a statewide budget crisis, in a time when staff are being paid 60% of average wages for the rest of the country...we're not only offering full-ride scholarships, but actually paying stipends, to quarterbacks who can't even hit five-yard dump off passes and defenders who can't even gang-tackle mediocre running backs in the open field. So, yes, people are getting pissed about this when you're telling me that a good professor doesn't deserve a fair wage but a poorly performing football team of "student" athletes - the majority of whom won't ever settle in Wyoming after their time is up - deserves to be further propped up. THAT is why people are starting to get pissed about the possibility of Wyoming going 0-12 this season, and ensuing calls arguing to divert more funding towards athletics.

Except football makes millions; I'm just asking that they get to keep it.

 

[Wyovanian]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Flutie Effect" is founded on the extremely fuzzy premises that more students means a better university (it doesn't) and that massive initial spikes in applications and enrollment due to an anomaly triumph in sports will also A.) sustain themselves and B.) improve the overall university. Once again, not so fast. You can cite TONS of examples of universities that grew exponentially, EXPONENTIALLY more than any of the ones you just referenced and athletics had very little to do with any of that.

For example: you want to see real, rapid growth? Central Florida had 11,000 students in 1978, 18,000 in 1989, and now has nearly 60,000 students - more than Ohio State. You know how much the athletic prestige of Central Florida contributed to that growth? Dick. And furthermore, who gives a shit how many students Central Florida attracts if the quality of education isn't good. For the record, I don't know whether or not the quality of education at UCF is or not, but I'm pointing towards its national rankings and seeing it at 178th nationally, 98th among public institutions, etc.

The real points here are A.) Wyoming will NEVER find itself in the position of Boise State, Utah, BYU, or TCU. The window for that is closed. Don't kid yourselves. We share far more in common from an athletic perspective in the year 2015 with New Mexico State or Idaho than we do with any of the other four institutions cited above. Laramie is a 30,000 person town in the least populated state in the country. It's not Boise, it's not Salt Lake City, it's not Provo, it's not Fort Worth, it's not even Fort Collins. Predicating the growth of your university on triumphant, sustained athletic success is the stupidest risk venture you could embark upon, simply because the return is not going to be there. We're not ever going to go 12-0 and play in a BCS game. It's not going to happen. In basketball, the odds of a potential deep run into the NCAA Tournament are higher, but still infinitesimal.

So, why not thrust all of our state coffers into athletics so that we can compete? Well, we're already struggling to retain our upper-tier academic staff to begin with. They're grossly underpaid and their incentive for hanging around isn't very high. The new hiring freeze at UW is only going to further diminish that. Diverting money from other university programs towards athletics also diminishes scholarship opportunities for actual students (not just student athletes who we pay to come play for us, who receive the free education, and who rarely even settle in Wyoming after they graduate - if they do) who are potential contributors to Wyoming's work-force, its state economy, etc.

As Orediggerpoke has, time and time, reemphasized in several different threads - there are some serious financial logistics that the State of Wyoming is going to have to face in years moving forward. And they're not the same logistical problems Wyoming has faced in the past. Under the Clean Power Plan, coal revenues can't just be depended upon as they have been in the past. While the overall outlook for the energy sector isn't doomed, it's going to require some innovative thinking and planning - and innovative young minds from within the state to execute a forward-thinking energy strategy. Furthermore, the economy cannot be nearly as dependent upon energy as it has in the past. We need more young professionals to settle here, we need to further develop other sectors of economy, and we need to retain our educated workforce.

How do you do this? Well, you definitely focus your finances on providing a quality education that helps lead young folks towards successful career trajectories that retain them in Wyoming. Trying to pump millions upon millions into the crap-shoot premise of football success for a program that, quite frankly, still probably wouldn't succeed at the level that you all are thinking (as far as generating university growth) is NOT the way to do that.

And finally, once again, unless you have a vested interest in the fiscal success of a university (as in, you're making money from it), I don't understand how its enrollment really matters that much - especially if there isn't funding available for making its academics more successful than its athletics. And, in the case of Wyoming, that's what we really need to be concerned about.

Funny you use Central Florida to argue against investing in athletics when their enrollment has coincided with the growth of their athletics.

So, despite tons of evidence supporting the notion of higher investment in athletics boosting a school across all categories, you're content with status quo and elimination of football? Because, based on your logic, that's the only thing one can extrapolate from your "conclusions".

Central Florida's growth in athletics has coincided with the growth of the university. It's not the other way around. Central Florida hasn't done shit in athletics as far as success on a national scale. You think that extremely average football and basketball programs are attributable for a 40,000 person rise in enrollment?? No fucking way. Not even close.

And yes, I'm questioning that because Wyoming is not Ohio State, it's not Utah, it's not Boise State, and it's not even Central Florida. Again, from an athletics standpoint, it's analogous to New Mexico State or Idaho, not an established, major program.

So, to answer your question, rather than pouring millions into propping a failing program with hopes that it might somehow prop up a university facing severe funding issues moving forward...yes, if it came down to it, I'd be in favor of just funding the university itself on academic merit.

You know why people get up in arms about this stuff? Because, in a time when we're faced with a statewide budget crisis, in a time when staff are being paid 60% of average wages for the rest of the country...we're not only offering full-ride scholarships, but actually paying stipends, to quarterbacks who can't even hit five-yard dump off passes and defenders who can't even gang-tackle mediocre running backs in the open field. So, yes, people are getting pissed about this when you're telling me that a good professor doesn't deserve a fair wage but a poorly performing football team of "student" athletes - the majority of whom won't ever settle in Wyoming after their time is up - deserves to be further propped up. THAT is why people are starting to get pissed about the possibility of Wyoming going 0-12 this season, and ensuing calls arguing to divert more funding towards athletics.

When enrollment drops along with donor money, that professor will be wishing for that 60%. Central Florida's football program has been on the national stage. They've played in one of the big bowls. They became an attractive alternative to other Florida schools by virtue of improving athletics. Same reason FIU and FAU are investing heavily in athletics. You raise all the boats by putting more water in the harbor. The boats are academics, research, and small athletics, the harbor is football and men's basketball. It's how it's done now. Do away with football and Wyoming, as an institution, in every facet, will diminish.

JHC, you remind me of Hudson from Aliens. You're a whiner and a quitter. You are the problem with Wyoming. "We can't do it, because we're Wyoming. We have too many limitations."

You're the guy who spends a fortune to get to base camp on Everest, then takes the first flight to Australia, walks up Mt. Cook then is satisfied he climbed the tallest peak on the continent. Our fan base could use some serious purging. We don't need Hudsons who just want to wave the white flag and hope the monsters don't eat us. You must've been a French major...

 

[Yabadabadoo]

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.

Correct.

FGCU has seen an unprecedented surge in freshmen applications, a 35.4 percent year-over-year spike that President Wilson Bradshaw would like to think is a result of surging academic prestige. He knows that’s not the sole reason, though.
“Our visibility in basketball certainly didn’t hurt,” Bradshaw said. “We have to acknowledge that.”

In 2006, a George Mason professor published a study claiming the Final Four-qualifying Patriots had received roughly $677 million in free advertising; its enrollment spiked by 350 percent. In 2010, after Butler’s inches-away loss to Duke in the national title game, the university estimated it received about $410 million in free exposure. It received a 41 percent increase in admissions applications. And in 2012, BYU professors discovered that successful runs in football and basketball correlated with steadier, more sustainable increases in interest.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/92235/fgcus-enrollment-did-exactly-what-youd-expect" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Flutie Effect" is founded on the extremely fuzzy premises that more students means a better university (it doesn't) and that massive initial spikes in applications and enrollment due to an anomaly triumph in sports will also A.) sustain themselves and B.) improve the overall university. Once again, not so fast. You can cite TONS of examples of universities that grew exponentially, EXPONENTIALLY more than any of the ones you just referenced and athletics had very little to do with any of that.

For example: you want to see real, rapid growth? Central Florida had 11,000 students in 1978, 18,000 in 1989, and now has nearly 60,000 students - more than Ohio State. You know how much the athletic prestige of Central Florida contributed to that growth? Dick. And furthermore, who gives a shit how many students Central Florida attracts if the quality of education isn't good. For the record, I don't know whether or not the quality of education at UCF is or not, but I'm pointing towards its national rankings and seeing it at 178th nationally, 98th among public institutions, etc.

The real points here are A.) Wyoming will NEVER find itself in the position of Boise State, Utah, BYU, or TCU. The window for that is closed. Don't kid yourselves. We share far more in common from an athletic perspective in the year 2015 with New Mexico State or Idaho than we do with any of the other four institutions cited above. Laramie is a 30,000 person town in the least populated state in the country. It's not Boise, it's not Salt Lake City, it's not Provo, it's not Fort Worth, it's not even Fort Collins. Predicating the growth of your university on triumphant, sustained athletic success is the stupidest risk venture you could embark upon, simply because the return is not going to be there. We're not ever going to go 12-0 and play in a BCS game. It's not going to happen. In basketball, the odds of a potential deep run into the NCAA Tournament are higher, but still infinitesimal.

So, why not thrust all of our state coffers into athletics so that we can compete? Well, we're already struggling to retain our upper-tier academic staff to begin with. They're grossly underpaid and their incentive for hanging around isn't very high. The new hiring freeze at UW is only going to further diminish that. Diverting money from other university programs towards athletics also diminishes scholarship opportunities for actual students (not just student athletes who we pay to come play for us, who receive the free education, and who rarely even settle in Wyoming after they graduate - if they do) who are potential contributors to Wyoming's work-force, its state economy, etc.

As Orediggerpoke has, time and time, reemphasized in several different threads - there are some serious financial logistics that the State of Wyoming is going to have to face in years moving forward. And they're not the same logistical problems Wyoming has faced in the past. Under the Clean Power Plan, coal revenues can't just be depended upon as they have been in the past. While the overall outlook for the energy sector isn't doomed, it's going to require some innovative thinking and planning - and innovative young minds from within the state to execute a forward-thinking energy strategy. Furthermore, the economy cannot be nearly as dependent upon energy as it has in the past. We need more young professionals to settle here, we need to further develop other sectors of economy, and we need to retain our educated workforce.

How do you do this? Well, you definitely focus your finances on providing a quality education that helps lead young folks towards successful career trajectories that retain them in Wyoming. Trying to pump millions upon millions into the crap-shoot premise of football success for a program that, quite frankly, still probably wouldn't succeed at the level that you all are thinking (as far as generating university growth) is NOT the way to do that.

And finally, once again, unless you have a vested interest in the fiscal success of a university (as in, you're making money from it), I don't understand how its enrollment really matters that much - especially if there isn't funding available for making its academics more successful than its athletics. And, in the case of Wyoming, that's what we really need to be concerned about.

Funny you use Central Florida to argue against investing in athletics when their enrollment has coincided with the growth of their athletics.

So, despite tons of evidence supporting the notion of higher investment in athletics boosting a school across all categories, you're content with status quo and elimination of football? Because, based on your logic, that's the only thing one can extrapolate from your "conclusions".

Central Florida's growth in athletics has coincided with the growth of the university. It's not the other way around. Central Florida hasn't done shit in athletics as far as success on a national scale. You think that extremely average football and basketball programs are attributable for a 40,000 person rise in enrollment?? No fucking way. Not even close.

And yes, I'm questioning that because Wyoming is not Ohio State, it's not Utah, it's not Boise State, and it's not even Central Florida. Again, from an athletics standpoint, it's analogous to New Mexico State or Idaho, not an established, major program.

So, to answer your question, rather than pouring millions into propping a failing program with hopes that it might somehow prop up a university facing severe funding issues moving forward...yes, if it came down to it, I'd be in favor of just funding the university itself on academic merit.

You know why people get up in arms about this stuff? Because, in a time when we're faced with a statewide budget crisis, in a time when staff are being paid 60% of average wages for the rest of the country...we're not only offering full-ride scholarships, but actually paying stipends, to quarterbacks who can't even hit five-yard dump off passes and defenders who can't even gang-tackle mediocre running backs in the open field. So, yes, people are getting pissed about this when you're telling me that a good professor doesn't deserve a fair wage but a poorly performing football team of "student" athletes - the majority of whom won't ever settle in Wyoming after their time is up - deserves to be further propped up. THAT is why people are starting to get pissed about the possibility of Wyoming going 0-12 this season, and ensuing calls arguing to divert more funding towards athletics.

When enrollment drops along with donor money, that professor will be wishing for that 60%. Central Florida's football program has been on the national stage. They've played in one of the big bowls. They became an attractive alternative to other Florida schools by virtue of improving athletics. Same reason FIU and FAU are investing heavily in athletics. You raise all the boats by putting more water in the harbor. The boats are academics, research, and small athletics, the harbor is football and men's basketball. It's how it's done now. Do away with football and Wyoming, as an institution, in every facet, will diminish.

JHC, you remind me of Hudson from Aliens. You're a whiner and a quitter. You are the problem with Wyoming. "We can't do it, because we're Wyoming. We have too many limitations."

You're the guy who spends a fortune to get to base camp on Everest, then takes the first flight to Australia, walks up Mt. Cook then is satisfied he climbed the tallest peak on the continent. Our fan base could use some serious purging. We don't need Hudsons who just want to wave the white flag and hope the monsters don't eat us. You must've been a French major...

I like this guy...

 

[PokeOLoco]

Alot of those schools, including Boise and especially UCF are commuter schools drawing non traditional type students from their communities. In Laramie out student body is very traditional as opposed to others in larger metropolitan areas that take a class or two a semester at night. See CU Denver/Metro State versus CU Boulder. Enrollment isn't a slam dunk. Although those fees add up. Georgia State, UTSA are some other examples.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Make no mistake, our first and primary target has to be the Front Range. CSU, UNC, and University of Denver have 50K students combined.

I truly believe that if we had much better athletics and highlight our quality academics, flipping 2% of those kids is not an unreasonable goal. That would be 1000 more students. Flipping 5% of those kids alone would be an additional 2500 kids. These goals are not unattainable and that is a start!!! UW can be great and can be more than an institution serving the WYO-born students. It can serve the entire nation, the world, and in the process be that much better for WYO-born students.

I don't disagree that things are going to be tough for the State going forward, so we have to find ways to get off the state tit. Invest now to TRY SOMETHING.

Wyovania hit the nail on the head. If the Alamo were filled with UW folks, it would have fell in about 30 seconds.

 

[Cheywypoke]

Two examples of high academic schools that benefited from good athletics is the University of Miami and Georgetown. Both schools provided high academic programs that no one knew about. Along comes Howard Schnellenberger and John Thompson, respectively and suddenly everyone not only knew who the Hurricanes and Hoyas were, but every kid from gang bangers to yuppie suburbanites were sporting both schools' gear. Both schools benefited tremendously from their respective successful athletic programs.

 

[OrediggerPoke]

You're the guy who spends a fortune to get to base camp on Everest, then takes the first flight to Australia, walks up Mt. Cook then is satisfied he climbed the tallest peak on the continent. Our fan base could use some serious purging. We don't need Hudsons who just want to wave the white flag and hope the monsters don't eat us. You must've been a French major...

Each time you disagree with someone you resort to ridiculous personal attacks. Frankly this does nothing for your argument but speaks volumes.

While I disagree with Stutzriem and believe that a good investment in athletics is a good investment in the University itself and its academic programs, there is no denying that he states an opinion with evidence to support his opinion and should be respected for that.

Get over yourself.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

Let's play a game. The rule is, you use actual studies and data to support your position. I'll start...

This study uses two unique datasets to shed additional light on the indirect benefits that
sports success provides to NCAA Division I schools. Key findings include: (i) football
and basketball success significantly increase the quantity of applications to a school, with
estimates ranging from 2-8% for the top 20 football schools and the top 16 basketball
schools each year, (ii) private schools see increases in application rates after sports
success that are 2-4 times higher than public schools, (iii) the extra applications received
are composed of both low and high SAT scoring students thus providing potential for
schools to improve their admission outcomes, and (iv) schools appear to exploit these
increases in applications by improving both the number and the quality of incoming
students.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1275853" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[Coeur d' Alene]

Gonzaga is the example some were searching for here. 15-20 years ago they played in a high school size gym and you could show up halfway through and walk down and sit court side. Now they sell out every game and it's the hottest ticket in Spokane. But that isn't all their basketball success did. It went from a "little church school" to expanding their entire campus and facilities both academically and athletic. I don't know the numbers but applications to enroll expanded by thousand percentage points or more

Athletics makes a huge impact on the image of a university. Like it or not. And yes the academics should be and are more important, but those not understanding the importance of Athletics in keeping alumni and boosters and money involved w the university are being naive. And those thinking that the difference wouldn't matter between d1 and 2 are being even more naive. Actually that view shouldn't be called naive, just plain ignorant

 

[SDPokeFan]

You're the guy who spends a fortune to get to base camp on Everest, then takes the first flight to Australia, walks up Mt. Cook then is satisfied he climbed the tallest peak on the continent. Our fan base could use some serious purging. We don't need Hudsons who just want to wave the white flag and hope the monsters don't eat us. You must've been a French major...

Each time you disagree with someone you resort to ridiculous personal attacks. Frankly this does nothing for your argument but speaks volumes.

While I disagree with Stutzriem and believe that a good investment in athletics is a good investment in the University itself and its academic programs, there is no denying that he states an opinion with evidence to support his opinion and should be respected for that.

Get over yourself.

You haven't truly gotten to him until he dedicates his signature line to you. You guys haven't even scratched the surface of what I've accomplished in his "world of men."

 

[Cuttslam]

Gonzaga is the example some were searching for here. 15-20 years ago they played in a high school size gym and you could show up halfway through and walk down and sit court side. Now they sell out every game and it's the hottest ticket in Spokane. But that isn't all their basketball success did. It went from a "little church school" to expanding their entire campus and facilities both academically and athletic. I don't know the numbers but applications to enroll expanded by thousand percentage points or more

Athletics makes a huge impact on the image of a university. Like it or not. And yes the academics should be and are more important, but those not understanding the importance of Athletics in keeping alumni and boosters and money involved w the university are being naive. And those thinking that the difference wouldn't matter between d1 and 2 are being even more naive. Actually that view shouldn't be called naive, just plain ignorant

Grand Canyon University is doing the same thing and its working.

 

[Wyovanian]

You're the guy who spends a fortune to get to base camp on Everest, then takes the first flight to Australia, walks up Mt. Cook then is satisfied he climbed the tallest peak on the continent. Our fan base could use some serious purging. We don't need Hudsons who just want to wave the white flag and hope the monsters don't eat us. You must've been a French major...

Each time you disagree with someone you resort to ridiculous personal attacks. Frankly this does nothing for your argument but speaks volumes.

While I disagree with Stutzriem and believe that a good investment in athletics is a good investment in the University itself and its academic programs, there is no denying that he states an opinion with evidence to support his opinion and should be respected for that.

Get over yourself.

Enough with the "must respect everyone's opinions" bullsh-t. This isn't court, or some sort of academic, Socratic forum. Some opinions are simply not helpful, nor very well thought out, and, are in fact, exemplar of the very root of Wyoming's problem. This guy and SDFan are two of the worst "fans" I've ever encountered.

Sorry, but people who think of themselves as "fans" whose opinions clearly run counter to how a fan would think need to be called out. If they're made to not feel welcome any longer, so much the better. It's time to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Anyway, that's my opinion, so, to borrow your POV, you should respect it, no?

 

[Wyovanian]

You're the guy who spends a fortune to get to base camp on Everest, then takes the first flight to Australia, walks up Mt. Cook then is satisfied he climbed the tallest peak on the continent. Our fan base could use some serious purging. We don't need Hudsons who just want to wave the white flag and hope the monsters don't eat us. You must've been a French major...

Each time you disagree with someone you resort to ridiculous personal attacks. Frankly this does nothing for your argument but speaks volumes.

While I disagree with Stutzriem and believe that a good investment in athletics is a good investment in the University itself and its academic programs, there is no denying that he states an opinion with evidence to support his opinion and should be respected for that.

Get over yourself.

You haven't truly gotten to him until he dedicates his signature line to you. You guys haven't even scratched the surface of what I've accomplished in his "world of men."

FYI, most "men" are over five feet tall and no longer attend high school. I think you need some clarification on that...