Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Survival of schools (Thoughts??)

Collapse

Support The Site!

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

    Not always. Fall of 2017 NW had it's lowest freshman enrollment in quite some time.
    I think that's an anomaly. I can't count the number of times I've heard about record enrollment by national champions over the last 20 years. It might not have the impact at Northwest because they have won so many recently.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Brandon View Post

      I think that's an anomaly. I can't count the number of times I've heard about record enrollment by national champions over the last 20 years. It might not have the impact at Northwest because they have won so many recently.
      D2 or D1? I think it's more prevalent in D1 because those schools are recognized on a more national basis.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Brandon View Post

        I think that's an anomaly. I can't count the number of times I've heard about record enrollment by national champions over the last 20 years. It might not have the impact at Northwest because they have won so many recently.
        lower enrollment is a national trend, isn't it?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Predatory Primates View Post

          lower enrollment is a national trend, isn't it?
          Enrollment has been up the last 2 falls since 2017 at NW. Who knows what this fall brings. FWIW, the 3 lowest freshman enrollments in the last decade at NW came in Fall 2013, Fall 2014 (FB national champion the year prior), and Fall 2017 which was the lowest of the entire decade (FB & BB national champs the prior year).

          I'm sure there are studies out there that can tell one way or another. However, I have heard that national championships drive up enrollment. I have ALSO heard that there's no money to pay players but coaches salaries keep going up and brand new state-of-the-art facilities keep being built.

          Do championships increase enrollment or is it a good talking point to justify the expenses of collegiate sports? I truly don't know but from the small lens of NW, the idea that it increases enrollment doesn't hold true (at least not every time).

          With this pandemic and steep declines in high school graduates through the next 10 years, it may not matter either way.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

            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.
            Last edited by northwest missouri state; 05-24-2020, 01:08 PM.
            Go Bearcats!
            M-I-Z-Z-O-U!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by northwest missouri state View Post

              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.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                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.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                  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.
                  Go Bronchos!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                      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.


                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                        (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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by NWHoops View Post

                            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.
                            Luck is where Preparation meets Opportunity

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Brandon View Post

                                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?

                                Comment

                                Ad3

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X