Let's keep cutting men's sports. Hey.... it's the economy now, not Title IX.
I find this reasoning amusing.
John Smith
=======================================
NCAA's Brand: Don't fault Title IX for Future Cuts
Author: ASA News
Blog URL: allstudentathletes.com/.../ncaabrandtitleix
Description:
Brand expects some schools to drop men's teams in coming months because
of the economic downturn. He is urging them in advance to cite the
economy, not the law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving
federal funds.
Chris:
At one point I looked up the schools with the top apparel sales and it was pretty much the cream of the university sport's crop, with our own beloved school consistently in the top 5. This link may show it as well:
www.clc.com/.../The Collegiate Licensing Company Names Top Selling Universities and Manufacturers
These deals bring in huge money for schools. I suspect, but can't prove, that success in sports gets you more exposure which drives more sales. Plus, we know when a school wins a championship the first thing everyone wants is a t-shirt. If it's officially licensed, a portion of that sale goes right back to the school.
I have no doubt that success in sports increases and adds revenue streams, but I think these are generally fairly easy to measure.
What I am talking about are the nebulous claims connecting (specifically) football and alum giving. There are two comon ones:
-- just HAVING a football team, even a bad one, increases alum donations. This is used as an argument against eliminating uncompetitive football programs, especially at small schools (an idea that was floated by the former president of U of Richmond...which is a small part of the reason he is the *former* president).
-- success in football increases alum donations.
I just don't like how both of these statements are often just ASSUMED to be true.
In theory, if the information is available, it shouldn't be terribly hard to design experiments to test these assertions. For example, one can try to correlate football W-L record with alum giving rate and amounts. Or one could look at giving rates over time at schools that either cut or institute a football program.
And maybe such studies have been done. My friend Dave Holland, who was a college swim coach at one time, once told me that he saw a study which showed that football had no impact on giving. But I didn't see the study myself, and I may be misremembering what he said.
I wonder sometimes if football (and other high-profile sports) is used as something of a crutch by lazy Development Offices. I can see how it is useful -- bringing alums to campus for homecoming or tailgate parties, for example. But increasing donations is all about instilling school pride/spirit and there are a LOT of ways to go about that.
I haven't been proud of the UNC football program...well, ever, really. And as much as I love UNC bball, I think the economy has a far bigger effect on my giving rate than their W-L record does.
Chris:
At one point I looked up the schools with the top apparel sales and it was pretty much the cream of the university sport's crop, with our own beloved school consistently in the top 5. This link may show it as well:
www.clc.com/.../The Collegiate Licensing Company Names Top Selling Universities and Manufacturers
These deals bring in huge money for schools. I suspect, but can't prove, that success in sports gets you more exposure which drives more sales. Plus, we know when a school wins a championship the first thing everyone wants is a t-shirt. If it's officially licensed, a portion of that sale goes right back to the school.
I have no doubt that success in sports increases and adds revenue streams, but I think these are generally fairly easy to measure.
What I am talking about are the nebulous claims connecting (specifically) football and alum giving. There are two comon ones:
-- just HAVING a football team, even a bad one, increases alum donations. This is used as an argument against eliminating uncompetitive football programs, especially at small schools (an idea that was floated by the former president of U of Richmond...which is a small part of the reason he is the *former* president).
-- success in football increases alum donations.
I just don't like how both of these statements are often just ASSUMED to be true.
In theory, if the information is available, it shouldn't be terribly hard to design experiments to test these assertions. For example, one can try to correlate football W-L record with alum giving rate and amounts. Or one could look at giving rates over time at schools that either cut or institute a football program.
And maybe such studies have been done. My friend Dave Holland, who was a college swim coach at one time, once told me that he saw a study which showed that football had no impact on giving. But I didn't see the study myself, and I may be misremembering what he said.
I wonder sometimes if football (and other high-profile sports) is used as something of a crutch by lazy Development Offices. I can see how it is useful -- bringing alums to campus for homecoming or tailgate parties, for example. But increasing donations is all about instilling school pride/spirit and there are a LOT of ways to go about that.
I haven't been proud of the UNC football program...well, ever, really. And as much as I love UNC bball, I think the economy has a far bigger effect on my giving rate than their W-L record does.
