Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malone Drops Football -Immediately

Collapse

Support The Site!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

    I have never understood the value proposition of D2 athletic programs. It seems to combine all of the disadvantages of D1 and D3 and none of the benefits. You shell out huge amounts for athletic scholarships AND you still play in relative obscurity. If you are going to play in obscurity, why not do that in D3? I mean once you get below D1, does the average mall shopper know the difference? And if you are committed to the concept of athletic scholarships, why not just bump your budget a few million more and go D1 and actually get some benefit from the whole thing? ( like ACU, getting a bid to the NCAA tournament and being on national network TV in primetime).
    These are great points. I contacted the AD at my alma mater a few years ago suggesting that they should drop to D3 from D2 to save money without a significant impact on either attendance or publicity(they get virtually none). He responded that I was a disgruntled alumnus and didn't know what I was talking about.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

      I saw the below regarding Stetson University and thought it was interesting considering some of the discussion we have had on here. Stetson is a D1 FL private university which is about the same size as some of the G-MAC intuitions. Due to the rising costs of athletics, they recently conducted a review to determine if they should stay D1, or drop to D2 or D3.

      https://www.stetson.edu/today/2019/0...i-institution/

      Many of us have questioned whether Malone dropping football will really save them any money. I thought the below quote from Stetson's findings was interesting:

      Stetson’s CFO noted that much of the growth in athletics’ expenditures was planned as part of the reinstatement of football, and the establishment of beach volleyball and women’s lacrosse, and that there was increased net revenue attached to the enrollment of athletes in these sports

      Even at the D1 level, Stetson found that what the student athletes paid to Stetson, compared with the associated athletic expenditures, created net revenue for the university.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

        Another hole is Malone's claimed "mathematical decision".

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

          This just about sums up every argument for doing away with athletics in college:

          "two of the Faculty Finance Committee’s four recommendations were: “(1) reduce the rapid growth in athletic expenditures, and (2) reallocate athletic funds and scholarships where possible to academics."

          Just as with any academic major, or student facility upgrade (new dorms, campus wide WIFI, new Student Union, etc) or the marching band, athletics at the DII level is an enrolment enhancer. Majors by themselves do not "make money"...facility upgrades likewise are not revenue producers nore is the marching band. The only way these three things (and many others) create revenue for the school is through the attraction of additional students who pay tuition and R&B. Athletics is the ONLY thing on a college campus were the faculty demands it actually produce direct revenue and the enrolment enhancement is never considered or even admitted to by them.
          Last edited by boatcapt; 06-06-2019, 04:30 PM.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

            Profit margin per student, location, staffing over head, sport travel budget, day to day budget, etc all play a role...

            Stetson is playing a glorified D2/D3/ Naia football at D1 label - patriot league - 60 - scholarships; 15 per year max

            They do not play a money game; nonconference Presbyterian, Louisiana college, and western New England and North Carolina wesleyan...

            basketball play in Atlantic sun with 3-6 $$$$$ money games/losses (duke, UCF, usc, etc)....

            So big difference compared to Malone

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

              Originally posted by WVIAC-F-EVER View Post
              Profit margin per student, location, staffing over head, sport travel budget, day to day budget, etc all play a role...

              Stetson is playing a glorified D2/D3/ Naia football at D1 label - patriot league - 60 - scholarships; 15 per year max

              They do not play a money game; nonconference Presbyterian, Louisiana college, and western New England and North Carolina wesleyan...

              basketball play in Atlantic sun with 3-6 $$$$$ money games/losses (duke, UCF, usc, etc)....

              So big difference compared to Malone
              I don't know how it can be that big of a difference. Malone claims that they spent $1.6M per season on football. Stetson claims to spend $1.7M. Pioneer league may be non-scholarship, but they have expenses sending their team (from FL) to San Diego, Iowa, Indiana, etc.

              Even with higher expenses, their CFO claims that the school sees a "net revenue" from their football athletes.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

                Each institution’s accounting is different depending on a variety of items...

                I can see why it works at Stetson and not at Malone...

                Malone could have controlled costs of football for sure to keep it

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately

                  Originally posted by WVIAC-F-EVER View Post
                  Malone could have controlled costs of football for sure to keep it
                  For sure.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by BlueBlood View Post
                    Re: Malone Drops Football -Immediately



                    I don't know how it can be that big of a difference. Malone claims that they spent $1.6M per season on football. Stetson claims to spend $1.7M. Pioneer league may be non-scholarship, but they have expenses sending their team (from FL) to San Diego, Iowa, Indiana, etc.

                    Even with higher expenses, their CFO claims that the school sees a "net revenue" from their football athletes.
                    Stetson being DI basketball, they share in March Madness proceeds. That's a lot of money for a small athletic department. So basically athletics at Stetson is a money maker. D2 doesn't have the same revenue sharing, so basically all spending on athletics at the D2 level is lost.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by stealth View Post

                      Stetson being DI basketball, they share in March Madness proceeds. That's a lot of money for a small athletic department. So basically athletics at Stetson is a money maker. D2 doesn't have the same revenue sharing, so basically all spending on athletics at the D2 level is lost.
                      But ALL things at DII schools are "money losers." That includes all academic majors, new dorms, campus wide free internet, etc, etc, etc. The way a school recoops the money they spend on each of these is through increased enrolment and the tuition and scolly dollars they bring to the college. At the DII level, sports is no different...if you have a football team, you entice 100 additional students to your school and these students pay tuition.

                      The academic side of the house always talks about the cost of athletics but never talks about the increased tuition that the student athletes pay to the school that they benefit from. Likewise, they never seem to be wiling to even consider cutting underperforming academic programs that cater to a small number of students and therefore, bring very few tuition dollars to the school.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

                        But ALL things at DII schools are "money losers." That includes all academic majors, new dorms, campus wide free internet, etc, etc, etc. The way a school recoops the money they spend on each of these is through increased enrolment and the tuition and scolly dollars they bring to the college. At the DII level, sports is no different...if you have a football team, you entice 100 additional students to your school and these students pay tuition.

                        The academic side of the house always talks about the cost of athletics but never talks about the increased tuition that the student athletes pay to the school that they benefit from. Likewise, they never seem to be wiling to even consider cutting underperforming academic programs that cater to a small number of students and therefore, bring very few tuition dollars to the school.
                        Actually, dorms are money makers for colleges because they can require them to be filled, and as long as, they can make the mortgage pmt, they are adding to the dollars available in the general fund.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by stealth View Post

                          Actually, dorms are money makers for colleges because they can require them to be filled, and as long as, they can make the mortgage pmt, they are adding to the dollars available in the general fund.
                          Touche...You are correct.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

                            The academic side of the house always talks about the cost of athletics but never talks about the increased tuition that the student athletes pay to the school that they benefit from. Likewise, they never seem to be wiling to even consider cutting underperforming academic programs that cater to a small number of students and therefore, bring very few tuition dollars to the school.
                            In my experience, higher education faculty typically believe that they operate outside of the laws of economics because they are not a "for-profit business." This mindset, in my opinion, contributes to a lot of wasteful spending by universities to promote money-pit majors over spending to enhance profitable ones. In fact, I've even noticed a lot of infighting between departments (usually STEM vs. Liberal Arts) over resource allocation. Most (public) universities shouldn't be offering philosophy degrees because they can't afford to do so, yet they still continue to fund them despite maybe graduating 5-6 students a year.

                            I once took a quasi-required class, the jist of which is that the external world is anti-higher education and is actively working to bring it down, for reasons that were not clearly explained. I took the opposite stance and said it's a university's job to be fiscally-responsible and find ways to be self-sustaining, even if that means cutting under-performing Liberal Arts majors like Art or Gender Studies. The professor didn't like what I had to say most of the time, that's for sure. I even had to explain to the professor the difference between "for-profit" and "non-profit."

                            The only reason I can come up with is that many of those working in academia have massive egos. They can't fathom "their" major being cut or scaled back in favor of someone else's, or even worse, "non-intellectual" pursuits like football - despite the fact that they may not have a job at all if the football team at a small university gets cut.

                            That's just my opinion I suppose.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by SW_Mustang View Post

                              In my experience, higher education faculty typically believe that they operate outside of the laws of economics because they are not a "for-profit business." This mindset, in my opinion, contributes to a lot of wasteful spending by universities to promote money-pit majors over spending to enhance profitable ones. In fact, I've even noticed a lot of infighting between departments (usually STEM vs. Liberal Arts) over resource allocation. Most (public) universities shouldn't be offering philosophy degrees because they can't afford to do so, yet they still continue to fund them despite maybe graduating 5-6 students a year.

                              I once took a quasi-required class, the jist of which is that the external world is anti-higher education and is actively working to bring it down, for reasons that were not clearly explained. I took the opposite stance and said it's a university's job to be fiscally-responsible and find ways to be self-sustaining, even if that means cutting under-performing Liberal Arts majors like Art or Gender Studies. The professor didn't like what I had to say most of the time, that's for sure. I even had to explain to the professor the difference between "for-profit" and "non-profit."

                              The only reason I can come up with is that many of those working in academia have massive egos. They can't fathom "their" major being cut or scaled back in favor of someone else's, or even worse, "non-intellectual" pursuits like football - despite the fact that they may not have a job at all if the football team at a small university gets cut.

                              That's just my opinion I suppose.
                              Professors with egos??? Say it ain't so!!! Hahahahaha!!

                              As I recall, the worst thing a student can do is disagree with his professor! They talk a good game about the "free exchange of ideas" and how "every person has the right to express his or her ideas without judgement or ridicule" but that only seems to work if your ideas mirror the professors! We used to call disagreeing with a professor Academic Suicide.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by boatcapt View Post

                                Professors with egos??? Say it ain't so!!! Hahahahaha!!

                                As I recall, the worst thing a student can do is disagree with his professor! They talk a good game about the "free exchange of ideas" and how "every person has the right to express his or her ideas without judgement or ridicule" but that only seems to work if your ideas mirror the professors! We used to call disagreeing with a professor Academic Suicide.
                                Funny how that works, huh?

                                Given how my university needed me far more than I could ever need them, I didn't mind having a little fun with the powers that be on occasion. I don't recall it ever really impacting me academically - the most I'd get is a strongly worded email about how I knew nothing or whatever. Once, I even critiqued a professor on a graded group evaluation assignment because I didn't like how she handled the project. She was not pleased - but I sure enjoyed it.

                                This particular instance - a literature professor was teaching a summer online course. It was something to the effect of how society hates higher education and is actively working to bring it down, the reasons for such were never given. She'd tried explaining to me that a "non-profit" corporation doesn't make money on their goods/services (specifically, our book publisher). Looking back, that class was so bizarre anyway. Personally, I stopped caring about the superficiality of the college hierarchy around my junior year. Since I was paying a lot for it, I was the most important person in the room in my own mind. My grades rose quite nicely too.

                                That all being said, all of my interactions with the athletic side were the complete opposite for the most part - they understood that there is only so much money to go around and they had to use it wisely.



                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X