Survival of schools (Thoughts??)

[Predatory Primates]

I'll trust that this is accurate and if so then that rising tide of athletics that was mentioned by another poster isn't lifting the boats at NW. At best NW is 8th in the conference in endowment with the most combined success in the two most visible sports over the last 10-20 years.

They were 2017/2018 numbers that I googled a while back for another thread.

[NWHoops]

Pitt State has the smallest endowment of the KS schools. 70 some mill, ESU is in the mid 80's, Hays in the 90's, and WU is at 158.

MoSo is at 37 mil


MO schools seem to have smaller endowments altogether. NW at 27 mil, MW at 34, UCM at 43

I'll trust that this is accurate and if so then that rising tide of athletics that was mentioned by another poster isn't lifting the boats at NW. At best NW is 8th in the conference in endowment with the most combined success in the two most visible sports over the last 10-20 years.

[NWHoops]

I began at Northwest in the fall of '69. At that time they had so many students enrolled and no place to house them. They opened up and filled the old Quads. Three were filled with students and one with a fraternity. I was housed in Caufield Hall. They then filled the College Park with trailers and then used them as housing for the students. I imagine that is similar to what they might do today. Phillips Hall has been empty the last couple of years.

I think NW and higher education in general look vastly different now than they did at that time. You also have to consider food services, classroom sizes, etc. Get too many students you have to have new dorms, food facilities, classrooms/classroom buildings, faculty, etc. There is a point of diminishing returns there as well. If anything, NW has been accepting/enrolling more students who don't meet admissions criteria than they had in previous years and will continue to do so (it's been fairly common for all institutions in the state for the last couple years). I don't think turning away students has been in the plans for any institution in the last few years or in the coming years.

Phillips is a no go. Only reason it is still standing is it is too expensive to tear down. It is not functional to have anyone living there. I've heard the amount to make it livable would essentially be the same cost as a new dorm or at least close enough in cost to make the new dorm the better option.

[Predatory Primates]

I saw a reference to endowments. Washburn's endowment is one of the largest if not the largest in the MIAA's at over $150M. A big percentage of that is due to the law school at Washburn. However, athletics is probably the next biggest reason for Washburn's fairly sizable endowment. Most universities in the MIAA don't have the luxury of a med school or a law school. Washburn if fortunate that they have the law school.

Pitt State has the smallest endowment of the KS schools. 70 some mill, ESU is in the mid 80's, Hays in the 90's, and WU is at 158.

MoSo is at 37 mil


MO schools seem to have smaller endowments altogether. NW at 27 mil, MW at 34, UCM at 43

[Predatory Primates]

It happens even in D2 but it's hard to use Northwest as an example, outside of 98/99, because the championships have happened so frequently. Plus, don't dismiss internal factors keeping enrollment lower than it could have been.

I wonder if alabama has seen anything similar with their large NC count?

[Btech#3]

I saw a reference to endowments. Washburn's endowment is one of the largest if not the largest in the MIAA's at over $150M. A big percentage of that is due to the law school at Washburn. However, athletics is probably the next biggest reason for Washburn's fairly sizable endowment. Most universities in the MIAA don't have the luxury of a med school or a law school. Washburn if fortunate that they have the law school.

[voicefromthestands]

I think every University has a cap on what they can do for enrollment based on services/space available. NW hasn't met it but I'm sure would love to be in the position to turn students away because they're "too full".

I agree on the art professor comment because that happened at NW a few years ago when they did away with certain programs that didn't make money and look at what just happened at Western as well. That trend is now happening in athletic departments as schools are closing different programs.

I began at Northwest in the fall of '69. At that time they had so many students enrolled and no place to house them. They opened up and filled the old Quads. Three were filled with students and one with a fraternity. I was housed in Caufield Hall. They then filled the College Park with trailers and then used them as housing for the students. I imagine that is similar to what they might do today. Phillips Hall has been empty the last couple of years.

[Brandon]

I think every University has a cap on what they can do for enrollment based on services/space available. NW hasn't met it but I'm sure would love to be in the position to turn students away because they're "too full".

I agree on the art professor comment because that happened at NW a few years ago when they did away with certain programs that didn't make money and look at what just happened at Western as well. That trend is now happening in athletic departments as schools are closing different programs.

The quotes I heard about enrollment were more about culture changing than about capacity.

[NWHoops]

(1) I actually agree that increased enrollment should not be the reasoning for funding athletic success because there is a gamble that the success will occur. I think the value comes name recognition, but it's hard to place a dollar value on that. Football and men's basketball also bring more value to a university in terms of name recognition, but other sports are required to be funded by the NCAA, making the entire department more difficult to manage.

(2) And I think "benefit" to the university is a value judgement made by the individual. Does a major which results in low job placement and low salaries bring benefit to the university? If that value is one direction - toward the university - is that a moral thing to offer?

There are many positions in university administration that many people feel are unnecessary, but I bet the people filling those positions can tell us why they think they are needed. Again, that's a value judgement.

What if an arbitrary cap is put on enrollment numbers to maintain a certain culture? What if a town, Maryville for example, doesn't have the desired accommodations necessary for student attraction and retention? Those aren't the fault of athletics.

----

I am very annoyed by hypocrisy. I find it extremely annoying when some random professor talks out of one side of his mouth about the intangible benefits of an arts major (imaginary example) to justify the program's existence and their job, but becomes a hard line economist analyzing the cost/benefit of athletics (not pointing the finger at you because I know you're not doing that here).

I think the best reason for small colleges to have athletics are to advertise the school's existence, drive enrollment, and provide learning experiences for those involved. I also think they are part of the fabric of the university, giving students events to attend and adding to the quality of their experience.

I think every University has a cap on what they can do for enrollment based on services/space available. NW hasn't met it but I'm sure would love to be in the position to turn students away because they're "too full".

I agree on the art professor comment because that happened at NW a few years ago when they did away with certain programs that didn't make money and look at what just happened at Western as well. That trend is now happening in athletic departments as schools are closing different programs.

[Brandon]

That very well may be. I really do find this fascinating as a big sports fan myself. (1) However, if there are diminishing returns after the first or second national championship then the return on enrollment/fundraising may not be worth the expenses of athletic programs after that (or at least not using enrollment as a benefit of a successful athletic program). (2) And if sustained success does not continually benefit the University then at what point do university's no longer fund Athletics at the level they do (rhetorical question)? Or for how long should they fund athletics at a certain level and without enrollment gains due to the success of the programs then when do they say the ROI is not worth it (again rhetorical)?

Without studies on these types of questions I think the idea that successful athletic programs benefit universities through enrollment gains are great talking points to justify expenses with no data to support it.

(1) I actually agree that increased enrollment should not be the reasoning for funding athletic success because there is a gamble that the success will occur. I think the value comes name recognition, but it's hard to place a dollar value on that. Football and men's basketball also bring more value to a university in terms of name recognition, but other sports are required to be funded by the NCAA, making the entire department more difficult to manage.

(2) And I think "benefit" to the university is a value judgement made by the individual. Does a major which results in low job placement and low salaries bring benefit to the university? If that value is one direction - toward the university - is that a moral thing to offer?

There are many positions in university administration that many people feel are unnecessary, but I bet the people filling those positions can tell us why they think they are needed. Again, that's a value judgement.

What if an arbitrary cap is put on enrollment numbers to maintain a certain culture? What if a town, Maryville for example, doesn't have the desired accommodations necessary for student attraction and retention? Those aren't the fault of athletics.

----

I am very annoyed by hypocrisy. I find it extremely annoying when some random professor talks out of one side of his mouth about the intangible benefits of an arts major (imaginary example) to justify the program's existence and their job, but becomes a hard line economist analyzing the cost/benefit of athletics (not pointing the finger at you because I know you're not doing that here).

I think the best reason for small colleges to have athletics are to advertise the school's existence, drive enrollment, and provide learning experiences for those involved. I also think they are part of the fabric of the university, giving students events to attend and adding to the quality of their experience.

[NWHoops]

It happens even in D2 but it's hard to use Northwest as an example, outside of 98/99, because the championships have happened so frequently. Plus, don't dismiss internal factors keeping enrollment lower than it could have been.

That very well may be. I really do find this fascinating as a big sports fan myself. However, if there are diminishing returns after the first or second national championship then the return on enrollment/fundraising may not be worth the expenses of athletic programs after that (or at least not using enrollment as a benefit of a successful athletic program). And if sustained success does not continually benefit the University then at what point do university's no longer fund Athletics at the level they do (rhetorical question)? Or for how long should they fund athletics at a certain level and without enrollment gains due to the success of the programs then when do they say the ROI is not worth it (again rhetorical)?

Without studies on these types of questions I think the idea that successful athletic programs benefit universities through enrollment gains are great talking points to justify expenses with no data to support it.

[UCObluejay]

I agree on sports being the front porch of a University. It's the most visible aspect. However, no one is donating money to a University for academic scholarships for education majors because the football team is good. They're donating to the athletic dept or football team so they can feel like they're part of the winning formula.

Not sure if it was in this thread or another but someone listed endowments for a few MIAA schools. We were behind MO Southern, emporia, Pitt, and Western I believe as well. No one in the MIAA has had as much success over the last 10 years as NW when it comes to the two most visible sports, yet we're still at the bottom of the fundraising dollars. If rising tides lift all boats we would be at or near top of that list.

^^This^^

At UCO the largest donations in school history were earmarked for athletics.

[Brandon]

D2 or D1? I think it's more prevalent in D1 because those schools are recognized on a more national basis.

It happens even in D2 but it's hard to use Northwest as an example, outside of 98/99, because the championships have happened so frequently. Plus, don't dismiss internal factors keeping enrollment lower than it could have been.

[NWHoops]

you're talking about it as if it's the only factor that effects enrollment & not considering context
nwms was a fball power in 2015, 2016, 2017, etc.
one of the biggest jumps the school saw was from 98 to 99, moment of the school's flutie effect.
which can be lost as well obv.
since then they've remained a power to this day enjoying the benefits that come with the heightened notoriety & exposure
& of course it's on a smaller scale relative to d1a.
after you graduate there's really nothing to bring you back to campus beyond the link to greek life (which most ppl grow out of once their buddies are out of school & their lives get busier w/ family, etc) if you have one & sports.
they don't call it the front porch of a univ for nothing.
the last part is & isn't true. you have booster club stuff but the rising tide that comes w/ successful fball lifts all of the boats.

I agree on sports being the front porch of a University. It's the most visible aspect. However, no one is donating money to a University for academic scholarships for education majors because the football team is good. They're donating to the athletic dept or football team so they can feel like they're part of the winning formula.

Not sure if it was in this thread or another but someone listed endowments for a few MIAA schools. We were behind MO Southern, emporia, Pitt, and Western I believe as well. No one in the MIAA has had as much success over the last 10 years as NW when it comes to the two most visible sports, yet we're still at the bottom of the fundraising dollars. If rising tides lift all boats we would be at or near top of that list.

[northwest missouri state]

Not always. Fall of 2017 NW had it's lowest freshman enrollment in quite some time. That's when NW simultaneously held the BB and FB national championships. It's more prevalent to see that effect in the D1 world. Additionally, revenue sports drive donations but those donations are traditionally earmarked specifically for sports. If sports aren't in place then some donors will no longer donate but others will donate to academic pursuits.

you're talking about it as if it's the only factor that effects enrollment & not considering context
nwms was a fball power in 2015, 2016, 2017, etc.
one of the biggest jumps the school saw was from 98 to 99, moment of the school's flutie effect.
which can be lost as well obv.
since then they've remained a power to this day enjoying the benefits that come with the heightened notoriety & exposure
& of course it's on a smaller scale relative to d1a.
after you graduate there's really nothing to bring you back to campus beyond the link to greek life (which most ppl grow out of once their buddies are out of school & their lives get busier w/ family, etc) if you have one & sports.
they don't call it the front porch of a univ for nothing.
the last part is & isn't true. you have booster club stuff but the rising tide that comes w/ successful fball lifts all of the boats.