Value Football can bring to a school

[WestWYOPoke]

I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir here, but found an interesting article talking about Temple University and the exposure their football team had in the 2016 season.

In fact, Temple hired a media tracking firm to count the equivalent dollar value of every piece of media exposure related to Owls football over just the 2016 football season — from broadcasts on ABC and ESPN to local broadcasts in, say, Orlando after a Temple-UCF game — and found Temple University would have to spend $38 million to garner such a reach.

Football Equals Exposure

$38 million!!! The proposed budget in 2016 for the ENTIRE Temple athletic department was only $26.6 million.

The next time you see anyone spouting off about how athletics don't do anything for the University, tell them about this.

 

[laxwyo]

Just think of all the times Josh Allen from Wyoming is getting thrown around too. Recruits have to be hearing it and if he's an early 1st round , that would be almost priceless exposure for school and recruiting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZapPoke]

I believe I recall that Uche Nsonwu-Amadi wrote his master's thesis on the general recruiting value of successful college sports programs.

 

[ZapPoke]

Remember this? I am pretty sure the same could be said for basketball. There are those who question paying a lot for a good coach. As the article above pointed out, the “free” exposure can more than offset the cost. (Linder - hint hint)

 

[cowboyz]

Analyzing those metrics might not be helping Temple on the field as much as they'd like, but it must be helping them get quality recruits. They have the most NFL players from any G5 program.

 

[ragtimejoe1]

I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir here, but found an interesting article talking about Temple University and the exposure their football team had in the 2016 season.

In fact, Temple hired a media tracking firm to count the equivalent dollar value of every piece of media exposure related to Owls football over just the 2016 football season — from broadcasts on ABC and ESPN to local broadcasts in, say, Orlando after a Temple-UCF game — and found Temple University would have to spend $38 million to garner such a reach.

Football Equals Exposure

$38 million!!! The proposed budget in 2016 for the ENTIRE Temple athletic department was only $26.6 million.

The next time you see anyone spouting off about how athletics don't do anything for the University, tell them about this.

The problem is that it doesn't report on the impact of those dollars spent. It simply compares the cost of football to the would be cost of gaining "exposure" on various TV platforms.

In the case of UW, has enrollment gone up because of football? Has recruiting class rankings gone up after Josh Allen? Has non-state revenue increased because of football or after Josh Allen.

I love football and fully supportive of college football; however, I also feel the "value" is greatly overestimated especially at smaller schools. Direct institutional support, student fees, state appropriations, etc. should not be counted in revenues. Ticket sales, apparel, sponsorships, donations, NCAA appropriations, game payments, etc. are all that should count. Actual appreciable and measurable metrics should be used to show benefit of exposure (increased enrollment, others?).

 

[OrediggerPoke]

I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir here, but found an interesting article talking about Temple University and the exposure their football team had in the 2016 season.

In fact, Temple hired a media tracking firm to count the equivalent dollar value of every piece of media exposure related to Owls football over just the 2016 football season — from broadcasts on ABC and ESPN to local broadcasts in, say, Orlando after a Temple-UCF game — and found Temple University would have to spend $38 million to garner such a reach.

Football Equals Exposure

$38 million!!! The proposed budget in 2016 for the ENTIRE Temple athletic department was only $26.6 million.

The next time you see anyone spouting off about how athletics don't do anything for the University, tell them about this.

The problem is that it doesn't report on the impact of those dollars spent. It simply compares the cost of football to the would be cost of gaining "exposure" on various TV platforms.

In the case of UW, has enrollment gone up because of football? Has recruiting class rankings gone up after Josh Allen? Has non-state revenue increased because of football or after Josh Allen.

I love football and fully supportive of college football; however, I also feel the "value" is greatly overestimated especially at smaller schools. Direct institutional support, student fees, state appropriations, etc. should not be counted in revenues. Ticket sales, apparel, sponsorships, donations, NCAA appropriations, game payments, etc. are all that should count. Actual appreciable and measurable metrics should be used to show benefit of exposure (increased enrollment, others?).

I agree completely.

As stated - Temple may have had to spend $38 million for such national advertising but it would have never spent such $38 million because the increase in revenues from such marketing would not match the marketing costs themselves.

 

[bullbugle307]

This ^^^

 

[bullbugle307]

All this "value" conversation really tells us is that buying advertising in media is REALLY expensive.

Other than that, people are really grasping at straws trying to justify the fact that sports are a financial loser for many, many schools.

Oh, but the VALUE! It's like the classic sale tactic of telling you how much you "saved" while you actually spent 20 times that.

 

[ZapPoke]

I wish I could find it, but I remember reading once that Uche wrote a masters thesis on increased enrollment corresponding to success in sports. My memory isn’t that good so I could be mistaken.

 

[jessejames02]

Oh boy those studies are hard to unpack.

Maybe the paid equivalent of that media exposure costs X amount, but there’s no comparable for the exposure. We can’t compare 30 minutes of revenue generating airtime to an equivalent 30 minutes of advertising (an expense) surrounding the entertainment that creates the draw to make the commercials effective.

All exposure isn’t equal. A $1M budget on billboards placed near large out of state high schools, or direct mailers to students who select engineering or rural or small universities to share their ACT score with will have a significantly larger impact on revenue generation at the school than a $10M budget for advertising on ESPN.

The temple spend equivalent has a negative cost to profit if it actually has to be a spend. That in turn drastically decreases the value of the exposure which reduces the cost equivalent.

Long story short, when comparing media coverage to paid advertising cost equivalent, they’re pulling those numbers out of their ass.