Which d3 schools do *not* have football teams?

Forums General General Which d3 schools do *not* have football teams?

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 61 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #12353
      Low Tide
      Member

      I know Emory does not, which others? … and do you think it benefits the other sports?

    • #35397
      ajp
      Member

      Calvin. and yes.

    • #35398
      jj
      Member

      This is a common misperception that not having football helps other sports. The numbers actually indicate that schools without football have women’s programs that are significantly less funded. As a result men’s programs are less funded as well.

    • #35399
      Derek
      Member

      JJ,

      Can you back that up? So far this conversation was based around opinion, but you have introduced numbers.

    • #35400
      silentp
      Member

      @jj wrote:

      This is a common misperception that not having football helps other sports. The numbers actually indicate that schools without football have women’s programs that are significantly less funded. As a result men’s programs are less funded as well.

      I find this very hard to believe at D3 schools where the football team doesn’t make money, but loses it, a lot of it. Perhaps if a school like Florida or Michigan lost their football team, it would be a huge blow to the rest of the sports, but i doubt this is the case in D3 (for the vast majority anyhow).

    • #35401
      jj
      Member

      Yes and no, in d3 it is difficult to prove this because the numbers reported are not reported in the same way as in D1 and 2. However, the comparisons made from D1A to D1AA to D1AAA directly reflect what I am saying. In the Fulks report of Revenues and Expenses compiled for the NCAA, essentially the overall funding of an athletics department is obviously less in a program without football than with one. Because you have fewer male athletes and a smaller male athletic budget women’s teams actually suffer because their funding does not get the boost from a school having football. Now the thing that is interesting about this is that men’s basketball does get a boost on average overall, but the boost in basketball usually doesn’t trickle down to any other male sports. And because of the difference in roster sizes between football and basketball, in addition to the ability to spread this increased funding across all of the women’s budgets there is not a significant gain in the women’s budget. Without football a University will typically try to increase the overall presence of their one sport that can and will gain the attention of the alumni, so basketball becomes the football.

      Bottom line here is that one can infer that this trend in D1 and D2 does reflect the actions in D3. Not directly in the same way because of the lack of scholarships but the logic is still sound.

      The other thing that is interesting to note with this is that there are no athletic departments in D1 with football that are able to produce the revenues needed to operate independently without institutional support. Ohio State is the only one that has come close thus far and in fact topped the $100 million mark this past year but still can not operate in the black without institutional supplementation. One can argue however, that through their revenues they contribute back to the academic programs re-paying the institutional support ten-fold but it is not direct spending and therefore can not be counted as such.

      So like I said yes and no in D3 you may not be able to see it as easily as in D1 because of the way the numbers are required to be reported in D1 vs. D3.

    • #35402
      jj
      Member

      Now I can not prove this statement.. but my instincts would tell me that when you are dealing with a high caliber program that brings a lot of attention to the University that they would typically become the “football” of the University. You could point to Auburn at the D1 level but they have successful football teams as well so it would be hard to draw the comparrison of how the swim team gets their funding. Do they get it because they are successful or because football is successful?

    • #35403
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      While I can not give exact numbers – I did see a study done here in the North East that polled Athletics Departments – regarding the importance of a Football program to the particular school. I remember that the schools with programs overwhelmingly (over 95 percent) all stated that the benefit of a Football program far outweighed the negatives.

      I will see if I can dig up the file somewhere.

    • #35404
      jj
      Member

      This topic got me thinking of a couple of other things. Mirroring what oldswimnfool said, if you take a look at the economic impact studies done by schools with football programs vs. ones without you will find that a University regardless of division has a smaller economic impact on the community they are located in when the school does not have football. Football attendance even at D3 is a draw for alumni, family, students, and the community. Basketball even with a longer schedule can not draw the same type of attendance that a football game does even over the time line. In most cases it is because the gyms can not hold the same amount of fans. I know what you are thinking and I thought about it too, how can you include family, students and community in an economic impact study? The answer is that while the spending from these sources are not completely from outside revenue and they did not come into town specifically for the purposes of attending the football game, many institutions include them (especially D3) because otherwise the economic impact would be almost immeasurable. And by immeasurable I mean off by a couple of million dollars. They also include them because of promotions they run like parent’s weekend or Homecoming. So they tend to overlook this rule of conducting an economic impact study. As a result they tend to throw in the increased attendance based on the fact that if these promotions were not in place these populations would not come in that particular weekend and the amount of money spent is usually more than if they came on a regular weekend.

      However, a D1 mid-major can support an entire athletics department (minor sports) if they successfully reach the tournament consistently. In addition to revenue sharing among conferences for tournament play an athletics department can be sittin pretty well. This part is off the topic I know but it is still interesting that the same CBS package deal that supports all of the championships at our level can offset the athletic departments of a mid-major program and completely fund a sport like swimming. Keep in mind though that there are no athletics programs that do not have institutional supplementation.

      The other thing to consider is alumni giving. Schools without football tend to have lower giving rates to athletics than schools with it. This can be as much about the way funds are raised as not having football so this is hard to prove but if you ask most sport managers or sport finance/marketing professionals this is what they will tell you. I know that someone is going to say that this is not the case at Emory or another school like Emory but you have to consider that they are not the norm.

      The last thing that I will point out is that schools without football tend to have fewer alumni return to campus yearly than those that have football. This is another reason for the decreased alumni giving.

      So while football spends more than it takes in, it doesn’t… It spends more than it takes in in terms of direct spending. But include alumni giving and the economic impact in addition the indirect spending and football adds a lot to athletics departments. This is probably the most important thing to consider, remember that athletics budget are made up primarily of institutional support. That money comes almost entirely from tuition. While football may get more and spend more their athletes are contributing to the budget just like the rest of the student body. And if you read the Nicols State report below you will see that athletics at that school has been linked to an increased enrollment of over 300 students that intern support not only athletics but according to their numbers 14 faculty positions as well.

      I would not say that I am a huge football supporter, but I see its merits. It is usually the short-sighted AD’s and board of trustees that do not think through the actual cost savings when deciding to cut sports like swimming in favor of increasing spending in the remaining sports.

      If you want to read something interesting check this out

      http://www.slec.org/uploads/EconomicImpact.pdf

      While it is based off of the whole athletics department at Nichols State the under-lying meaning is that football has the largest impact and acts as the biggest draw here. If they didn’t have football their athletics department would be 2/3rds of its size and probably would not have a marching band which I don’t think is a part of their athletics department but it does account for students and students that would not be there otherwise.

    • #35405
      Derek
      Member

      So… JJ rose to the challenge. 8)

    • #35406
      trout3
      Member

      Well… let’s really have some fun with this topic. The following article was taken from The Sports Economist with the following dilemma provided by Greg Johnson from the LA Times:

      Thursday, November 30, 2006
      Perverse Incentives in College Football

      So, suppose you were the University of Nevada playing Boise St. last Saturday…

      Your 8-3 record has already locked up a bowl appearance regardless of your result against the conference leader. However, with a win, Boise St. would be 12-0 and poised to make a historic appearance in a BCS bowl game. The Western Athletic Conference (WAC) would therefore be poised to take home a $15 million paycheck, which is roughly $14 million more than it would take home if Boise St. lost and had to settle for playing in the designated WAC games: the ever prestigious Hawaii Bowl, the New Mexico Bowl, and the MPC Bowl.

      Of course, that potential windfall would get shared among the 8 other members of the WAC resulting in a $1.5 million payment to, guess who, the University of Nevada.

      So, suppose you were the University of Nevada playing Boise St. last Saturday…

      Well, Nevada did their part to earn a share of prize by losing 38-7 to Boise St. Following the BCS selections next Sunday, we’ll have to see if it was worth it.

    • #35407
      Colbybr
      Member

      One thing I was wondering: If swimming had roster sizes of 60 or 70, or even more at the division 1 level, would they contribute back to schools at an equal or higher level than football? What I’m asking is, are there any figures on per capita contribution. I always feel as if football’s numbers are distorted because there are just so many more football alumni.

    • #35408
      openwater
      Member

      @jj wrote:

      The other thing that is interesting to note with this is that there are no athletic departments in D1 with football that are able to produce the revenues needed to operate independently without institutional support. Ohio State is the only one that has come close thus far and in fact topped the $100 million mark this past year but still can not operate in the black without institutional supplementation. One can argue however, that through their revenues they contribute back to the academic programs re-paying the institutional support ten-fold but it is not direct spending and therefore can not be counted as such.

      Interesting discussion indeed, something to talk about while waiting for the NESCAC men and some last chance meets to decide the rest of the picture.

      The Athletic Dept at the University of Wisconsin (>$70 Million) is operating without institutional support beyond the electricity that is provided to the entire campus and some tuition remissions. No operational dollars.

    • #35409
      DonCheadle
      Member

      You cannot possibly apply the Fulks study to Div 3 football. Even the smallest Div 2 school generates 10 times the revenue of your typical D3 football team. All I know is that the athletic director of Kalamazoo said that football is by far the biggest drain on the budget.

    • #35410
      jj
      Member

      The Fulks study was in fact done in D3 as well as the rest of the divisions. And the reason that it is such a large drain on the direct budget is because of the fact that the roster sizes are so large you carry a basketball team with 100 guys on it and you are going to see the same thing. However the indirect spending that occurs as a result of the football team is the reason that we continue to have football teams. I am not talking about in communities or ticket sales etc. I am talking about alumni awarness and giving. D3 understands this and accepts the losses to get the gains in students, alumni, and overall institutional awareness.

      Even if you did not have football the rest of your sports are still a drain on your budgets at the d3 level. Athletic departments don’t make money nor do they have the chance to make money, they don’t even expect to. My point was that when you don’t have football the proportionallity is different and women’s teams suffer. The revenues and expenses report shows that at all of the other levels and there is no reason to assume it doesn’t show that at the d3 level as well.

      Also D2 does not generate any more revenue than d3 does. Either direct or indirect they are about the same. I know this because you don’t see 100,000 people show up for any d2 football game or fans rushing out to buy sports gear

    • #35411
      jj
      Member

      The Athletic Dept at the University of Wisconsin (>$70 Million) is operating without institutional support beyond the electricity that is provided to the entire campus and some tuition remissions. No operational dollars.

      Without seeing their budget I can’t say for sure… but I am pretty sure that this it is not right. I can say this safely because Madison is to small of a market to support the athletics department. This is also a common misperception because of how they label the funding that comes from intstitutions. Most people don’t see the line on their budget or they don’t label the line on the budget so that it is easy to understand that the money is coming from the institution.

      The other thing that you have to look out for and this is the kicker that gets most people. If the way that revenues are reported include institutional support then you would never know that an institution is giving that support.

    • #35412
      jj
      Member

      @Colbybr wrote:

      One thing I was wondering: If swimming had roster sizes of 60 or 70, or even more at the division 1 level, would they contribute back to schools at an equal or higher level than football? What I’m asking is, are there any figures on per capita contribution. I always feel as if football’s numbers are distorted because there are just so many more football alumni.

      I wish this was true because it would be a heck of a lot harder for AD’s to cut programs. But until you have the same opportunities for sales (tickets shirts sponsorship media sales etc) and a revenue sharing program in the conferences minor sports can not contribute to the athletics department regardless of size. They would be a larger drain on the budget because of the losses that occur operating minor sports.

    • #35413
      Low Tide
      Member

      The only reason not having a football program adversely affects women’s programs is simply Title IX, which would be a whole other discussion (that I certainly do not want to get into at this time). I just do not think that is a salient point to make right now — so men and women teams would be more level without the big skewer, football, thrown-in. As a fan of mens’ sports (and mens’ swimming in particular, which has often been the victim of Title IX), I would view this positively.

    • #35414
      jj
      Member

      @Low Tide wrote:

      The only reason not having a football program adversely affects women’s programs is simply Title IX, which would be a whole other discussion (that I certainly do not want to get into at this time). I just do not think that is a salient point to make right now — so men and women teams would be more level without the big skewer, football, thrown-in. As a fan of mens’ sports (and mens’ swimming in particular, which has often been the victim of Title IX), I would view this positively.

      I disagree and to say that it is simply a Title IX issue is short sighted. You fail to see the indirect spending that occurs (or fails to) as a result of football.

      Everyone wants to point the finger at the budget killer as the reason swimming gets cut but that just isn’t the case.

    • #35415
      silentp
      Member

      A question just came to mind on the numbers behind all of this. How do we have any accurate numbers? The vast majority of D3 schools are private and therefore are not required to report any numbers. If these numbers are being based off of those who do, there could be a HUGE bias on them. It could also be going off of those schools who are public, such as many WIAC schools, which would also not be an accurate representation.

      Overall, i think it really depends on the specific school and must be taken on a case by case basis, much more so than at D1 schools.

    • #35416
      jj
      Member

      @silentp wrote:

      A question just came to mind on the numbers behind all of this. How do we have any accurate numbers? The vast majority of D3 schools are private and therefore are not required to report any numbers. If these numbers are being based off of those who do, there could be a HUGE bias on them. It could also be going off of those schools who are public, such as many WIAC schools, which would also not be an accurate representation.

      Overall, i think it really depends on the specific school and must be taken on a case by case basis, much more so than at D1 schools.

      Geat point and I am going to make this statement and let it rest for a little bit so others can weigh in on this… I also have to say that this has been a great topic with a lot of good discussion..

      But other than Wabash and I know there are others out there, even private schools accept federal money. As a result they are required to report their numbers. However, this is the hole in the system. The way that they report the numbers are much more generic and are not a matter of public knowledge. So you can’t see the line budget from a school and makes it hard to determine how the spending occurs. This is why you have to look at the other divisions.

      http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstList.asp

      Check this out but be careful not to look at as a case by case. If you do that you can defend both points easily. (football is good for schools or football is bad)

    • #35417
      Low Tide
      Member

      JJ, ok… Title IX is only 90% of the issue when you say “womens’ teams would adversely be affected by cancelling a football program”. Especially at the D3 level, where without Title IX, womens’ sports would most likely realize increased spending as a result of football being cut.

      SilentP: You’re right, it is tough to compare Kalamazoo College (1,200 students or so) to a school like UCSC. It amazes me 5% of the student body is needed for the football team plus seven coaches. Most games the football players outnumber the fans in the stands.

    • #35418
      jj
      Member

      @Low Tide wrote:

      JJ, ok… Title IX is only 90% of the issue when you say “womens’ teams would adversely be affected by cancelling a football program”. Especially at the D3 level, where without Title IX, womens’ sports would most likely realize increased spending as a result of football being cut.

      Ok we are on the right track… you are starting to see my point. They wouldn’t just see the increased budget. That money doesn’t exist as far as a school without football is concerned. Even if a school that had football decided to drop football the other budgets MIGHT get a little bigger but they are going to put that money some place else and chances are not athletics and if they do it won’t be an investment over the long haul. A school without football is not going to take the budget of a football team and divide it up among their other sports. They are going to have budgets that are competitive with other like schools and what their institution can afford.

    • #35419
      Derek
      Member

      @jj wrote:

      Even if a school that had football decided to drop football the other budgets MIGHT get a little bigger but they are going to put that money some place else and chances are not athletics and if they do it won’t be an investment over the long haul. A school without football is not going to take the budget of a football team and divide it up among their other sports. They are going to have budgets that are competitive with other like schools and what their institution can afford.

      I agree to a certain extent (almost wholly, actually), but there are potentially other issues as well — making silentp’s point even more salient that a case-by-case look is far more effective and valid for D3. What about small colleges that fund their athletic departments in large part on alumni giving? I have no idea how much alumni giving contributes to athletic department budgets, but it seems that if alumni giving to the athletic fund is huge and the school has an opportunity to say, “hey, the alumni are so generous and our costs are so low, why don’t we give more?” then the athletic department and the school comes out looking like a hero, more sports are able to become great (it costs less to create a great swim team than to create a great football team), and the profile of the school is actually greater.

      Also, for institutions that are “high-brow”, there are plenty of people out there who are more likely to support the institution athletically and academically if the great sports the school supports are swimming, tennis, cross country, etc. There are people out there who simply do not like football and would find it refreshing that a school values other sports as well and will show that feeling by donating money.

      Additionally, when ranking sports teams at a college based on GPA, football doesn’t come out on top. Is there any correlation between grades in college and money earned after college? And if so, is there any correlation between money earned after college and alumni giving? And if so, would that be enhanced by focusing on the “smart sports”?

      I have plenty of questions, and I think it is short sighted to write them all off by using these studies of current D1 programs with football teams. It was brought up that schools without football teams are the anomaly, but this makes it even more important to question those studies and their applicability to D3.

      Ok, I’ve written enough!

    • #35420
      jj
      Member

      You could go out and look at schools in a case by case but why. The only thing that you would do is skew the numbers in your favor and I will counter quickly with the numbers in my favor. That is why research is done by compiling the data in order to get a look at the broad picture not just the small. It would actually make your study less valid to look at it case by case.

      Alumni giving to athletics in D3 is not that high. Alumni giving to Universities as a whole is higher. It isn’t like D1; you don’t have that many donors that are going to endow athletics programs. But they will give to the Universities endowment fund. Those monies are then used to budget for athletics. And you do see programs that are well funded in all sports; just because a school has football does not automatically mean that swimming is poorly funded.

      And are you sure that it costs less to create a great swim team. If so I would like to see your numbers and how you break them down. Is per athlete spending, facilities, etc more or less? Do you include the women or not, because if you do and you have a successful swim team then you are reaching roster sizes that are over half the size of football teams. And if you don’t then you skew the numbers in your favor due to the fact that women’s teams help off-set the overall costs that a men’s only team would incur.

      As far as your “high-brow” theory this just isn’t true. If it were I would not have an argument but giving IS lower at institutions without football they may be more likely but they don’t.

      As far as GPA and giving I am not sure. That is an interesting perspective and worth looking into. Off the top of my head however I would imagine that football alumni give back at higher rates than other athletes because there are more of them. But I can not back that up.

      I have plenty of questions, and I think it is short sighted to write them all off by using these studies of current D1 programs with football teams. It was brought up that schools without football teams are the anomaly, but this makes it even more important to question those studies and their applicability to D3.

      I am NOT writing anything off using a study done at the D1 level. This study was done at the D1A D1AA D1AAA Conferences D2 and D3 levels. Comparisons were made by professionals among all divisions. The numbers are there I gave you the studies go look at them at you will see what I am talking about. Do not assume that I am just talking about D1 when I do; I do it so that you can see the numbers easier in those reports but if you know what you are looking at you can see it in D3 as well. If you want to “question” their applicability then question the professionals who have already done it. I am not basing this off my opinion, I am basing it off of the studies that were done at ALL levels.

      If all of you think I am wrong then show me some numbers, this stuff interests me and I think that it is imprtant for all of us to understand especially when we are trying to save our sport!

      One more thing that I forgot to add is that we got off topic about listing the schools without football. So far we have two anyone know of any others?

    • #35421
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      Okay – now keep in mind that I don’t even pretend to be an expert any where on anything – but I have worked with a couple of D3 institutions 3 who don’t have football, and 3 who did. I can see the upside of both arguements, but I do beleive there are a couple points that maybe over looked. At one point, one of the schools that I worked with (not for) – was able to fully endow their football program – which proved to be the most amazing asset for the school – they then used the money which was going to the football program and spread it back into the operating budgets of the remaining programs. The turn around across the board was amazing. It spoke very highly of the AD who had orchastrated the whole endowment process. I also was involved in an institution who did not have a football program – originally it had been an all women’s school – but the support for the athletics programs was truely impressive….

      And while I know there are arguements on both sides – I REALLY think the Administration and the Athletics department make the program.

    • #35422
      jj
      Member

      I REALLY think the Administration and the Athletics department make the program.

      That is exactly right.

      That is impressive that the intstitution was able to endow their football team this is not an easy task at any level. But for the school and athletics department to re-invest the money back into the department in very unique in a time that operational costs and budgets are highly scrutinized.

    • #35423
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      That is exactly right.

      That is impressive that the intstitution was able to endow their football team this is not an easy task at any level. But for the school and athletics department to re-invest the money back into the department in very unique in a time that operational costs and budgets are highly scrutinized.

      Yes it was very inventive – the athletics department was very underfunded – it made a great difference in the whole Athletics Department. Funny enough just this weekend I learned about a couple of swimming programs that were completely endowed…… they can’t even spend enough of the interest to make a dent in the total endowment…..

    • #35424
      openwater
      Member

      @jj wrote:

      The Athletic Dept at the University of Wisconsin (>$70 Million) is operating without institutional support beyond the electricity that is provided to the entire campus and some tuition remissions. No operational dollars.

      Without seeing their budget I can’t say for sure… but I am pretty sure that this it is not right. I can say this safely because Madison is to small of a market to support the athletics department. This is also a common misperception because of how they label the funding that comes from intstitutions. Most people don’t see the line on their budget or they don’t label the line on the budget so that it is easy to understand that the money is coming from the institution.

      The other thing that you have to look out for and this is the kicker that gets most people. If the way that revenues are reported include institutional support then you would never know that an institution is giving that support.

      This side discussion of D1 schools is off the point of this thread but I have seen the figures and I can guarantee that this is true for UW. Sold out football. Sold out basketball. Nearly sold out 15,000 mens hockey. Big school. Tremendous global alumni support.

    • #35425
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      I would tend to believe this as well – but I do assume that there are costs that UW is writting off against their institutional accounts.

      Things like Staff Salaries, Facility Maintence, even recruiting could be put out against admissions –

      Lastly, I think I remember reading somewhere that the UW Football program had recieved an endowment gift of 8million – back in like 94 or so – so this would all make complete sense.

    • #35426
      jj
      Member

      Man I don’t want to sound like a jerk here and I know that I am flirting with this line.

      http://www.bpa.wisc.edu/fpa/annexp/2006/AnnualExpenditureReport2006.pdf

      It is a report for their expenditures if you search athletic you will find all the info that you need. The expenditures labeled Student Services, I believe, is institutional support. I will look at this further but I am almost positive that it is.

    • #35427
      Derek
      Member

      Let me just preface this that I am taking a stance for the sake of the argument (and maybe a little bit of hope that I could be right).

      @jj wrote:

      You could go out and look at schools in a case by case but why. The only thing that you would do is skew the numbers in your favor and I will counter quickly with the numbers in my favor. That is why research is done by compiling the data in order to get a look at the broad picture not just the small. It would actually make your study less valid to look at it case by case.

      The argument I was making isn’t that one school would prove it for every school (that giving is higher without football), but that one school could prove it for that school and that it is possible that other schools could do the same thing. This does NOT mean that I am arguing all schools could cut football and be more successful, and in fact, my argument presumes that it is a niche market in which only some unique schools could survive.

      @jj wrote:

      Alumni giving to athletics in D3 is not that high.

      I would doubt that alumni giving to athletics is ever high enough to fully fund a program, but again, I’m making an argument for the exception to the rule, not arguing that the rule itself is no good.

      @jj wrote:

      Alumni giving to Universities as a whole is higher.

      and
      @jj wrote:

      As far as your “high-brow” theory this just isn’t true. If it were I would not have an argument but giving IS lower at institutions without football they may be more likely but they don’t.

      We are talking about the exception, not the rule. COULD alumni giving to the rest of the school be higher if the university or college set itself apart as the “non-barbaric sport” school? (And, of course, recruited the kind of students who appreciated that line.)

      @jj wrote:

      And are you sure that it costs less to create a great swim team. If so I would like to see your numbers and how you break them down. Is per athlete spending, facilities, etc more or less? Do you include the women or not, because if you do and you have a successful swim team then you are reaching roster sizes that are over half the size of football teams. And if you don’t then you skew the numbers in your favor due to the fact that women’s teams help off-set the overall costs that a men’s only team would incur.

      I don’t have numbers, but I do know that football teams have more coaches than swim teams. I also know that even if you try to make your argument by breaking it down by athlete, the overall, or net cost of a football program is still greater. It really isn’t that complicated. Compare the coaching staff, compare the size of the team. Which one has higher overhead? A football team is more expensive NET to run than a swim team NET.

      @jj wrote:

      As far as GPA and giving I am not sure. That is an interesting perspective and worth looking into. Off the top of my head however I would imagine that football alumni give back at higher rates than other athletes because there are more of them. But I can not back that up.

      I think you might be right on this, but if there are fewer football players, there could be more other kind of players. The numbers of sports alums could easily be compensated for. This brings up another issue though, which is, What is the best and cheapest way to produce alums that care about athletics? This is probably the crux of your argument that I have just been too dull-witted to realize.

      @jj wrote:

      I am NOT writing anything off using a study done at the D1 level. This study was done at the D1A D1AA D1AAA Conferences D2 and D3 levels. Comparisons were made by professionals among all divisions. The numbers are there I gave you the studies go look at them at you will see what I am talking about. Do not assume that I am just talking about D1 when I do; I do it so that you can see the numbers easier in those reports but if you know what you are looking at you can see it in D3 as well. If you want to “question” their applicability then question the professionals who have already done it. I am not basing this off my opinion, I am basing it off of the studies that were done at ALL levels.

      I agree that these studies have pointed out the way it is right now, but this is a hypothetical argument. And at the risk of sounding redundant, I am arguing for the exception, not the rule. You are stating the rule.

      @jj wrote:

      If all of you think I am wrong then show me some numbers, this stuff interests me and I think that it is imprtant for all of us to understand especially when we are trying to save our sport!

      I agree that we need to understand this stuff right now. I also think that the numbers simply aren’t there because most schools DO have football. Being able to hold up examples of school that have been successful with both football and swimming (or football and any sport in jeopardy) is crucial. It is fun to think about what a school could be like cutting football instead of swimming, though.

      @jj wrote:

      One more thing that I forgot to add is that we got off topic about listing the schools without football. So far we have two anyone know of any others?

      I know UCSC was already talked about as a public school, but I don’t think it was mentioned as a school that also does not have football. It actually only has 14 sports, counting both men’s and women’s teams (but men’s and women’s swimming is listed as one sport on their website, making the count 13).

    • #35428
      oldswimnfool
      Member

      To reply to JJ’s questions – here are the schools I know off the top of my head

      Babson College
      Wheaton College (MA)
      Clark University (MA)
      Of Course Women’s Schools like Wellesley, Smith, Mount Holyoke, Sweet Briar – interetingly enough these schools report higher percentage donations and alumni gifts than their coed counterparts.
      Regis (MA)
      Salem State College
      UMass Boston
      Elms College
      Old Westbury (former home of Yury Zimerov)
      Centenary College
      Steven’s Institute of Technology…..

      I can keep going, there are still at least 75 schools on my short list…. if you are interested I will enter them all.

    • #35429
      trout3
      Member

      In the UAA only half of the schools have football…. Ones without it:

      Rochester
      Brandeis
      NYU
      Emory

    • #35430

      Oh my, this is a discussion that I’ve been having with others for year (and JJ can confirm this). Collegiate athletic finances are something I’ve looked at, studied, experienced, researched and written about. (I guess I have to justify that Master’s from the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs considering all of my classmates are elected officials, executive directors, business executives, or peace corps volunteers).

      George, where are you on this? Fulks is a Transy guy.

      Everyone’s touched on a number of great points from all perspectives (My indoctrination of JJ, coupled with his own master’s degree have covered a lot of ground). I do want to propose some ideas for consideration and add some clarifications.

      The vast majority of D3 schools are private and therefore are not required to report any numbers.

      Actually, if you award federal financial aid of any type (Perkins, Stafford, Pell) you have to report under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act. At the same time, if you don’t take federal aid (typically very small institutions with healty endowments – VMI and the Citadel might be two, and very conservative religious schools like John Brown) you don’t have to comply with Title IX.

      I’m going to avoid Derek & JJ’s discussion of alumni donations. Shulman and Bowen showed that this wasn’t really a much of a revenue source.

      Football fans argue that without football there wouldn’t be any other sports because it pays the bills. Football opponents argue that the pigskin is actually a financial drain on athletic departments and that only 6, 8, 20, 32 (take your pick) programs actually turn a “profit.” There may only be 6, 8, 20 or however many programs that generate a ‘profit’ using the strictest criteria, but it’s iffy. Does the revenue include sources that are only peripherally related or a result of conference afilliation? How about state-subsidized debt service on capital improvements. Its a messy, messy process, but give you a couple of examples.

      Revenue Side I’m of the opinion that the BCS departments are largely healthy and its a result of the biggest, yet most-frequently omitted revenue source – conference television contracts remitted back to departments though not identified as coming from football or basketball. At Indiana our average football attendance was in the range of 33,000 – that included no-shows, comps, and every possible body inside of the stadium. That’s nowhere near enough tickets to fund even the poorest of Big Ten programs yet every year we – and in particular our football team – operated in the black. There were two reasons – one was a set of administrators who focused on the bottom line in terms of $$$, not just W’s and L’s. A good administration (as astutely identified earlier) is huge. Coaches struggle with good administrators because “they don’t understand our sport” or “the pressure we are under to keep up with the competition” yet they don’t acknowledge that it might take skill and restraint to run a department. The other reason we were in the black was our membership in the Big Ten. We never made a bowl, but we made mad money thanks to Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio State, Northwestern, and Penn State. They’d qualify for bowl payouts which were paid to the Big Ten then re-allocated back to schools. (In the Big Ten, the bowl-bound team was given a set travel allowance paid for from the bowl payout with the remainder payout distributed amongst the remaining school). When Wisconsin made it back to the Rose Bowl they lost this shirts because they obliterated their travel allowance by flying all the boosters, administrators, bands, cheerleaders, and other associated hangers-on out to Pasadena. At Indiana, we never had that problem. We just counted the money. Other conferences with equal distribution are the ACC, Pac 10 and WAC. This was why ND opted not to join the Big Ten – they don’t want to share that NBC or bowl money. The Big East was able to attract Miami by making a tiered distribution schedule that could enable the Hurricanes to hold onto some 50% of a bowl payout.

      On the Expense side of the equation, the numbers are equally cloudy. At the University of Minnesota, it looked like we had a HUGE swimming budget. That was because of Resource Centered Management accounting. RCM forced each unit of the university to be responsible for all of its own costs and revenues in and effort to get all departments to cut costs and maximize revenues. One of those costs, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, was pool rental and lifeguards. Did it “cost” anything? Not really. It was merely dollars moving from one hand of the university to another, yet on paper, it showed the UofM had an obscene swimming budget. The OPE has made strides in tightening up these numbers and limiting them to “all expenses an institution incurs attributable to home, away, and neutral-site intercollegiate athletic contests, for (A) lodging, meals, transportation, uniforms, and equipment for coaches, team members, support staff” but its still cloudy.

      Then there’s Tuition. Is it a revenue or an expense? It’s both. If you’re offering athletic scholarships, its an expense because it is money you pay back to the university. When the State of Iowa cut Northern Iowa’s budget some 10-15%, the university distributed the cuts unevenly. Deferred maintence might have had a 5% cut, but athletics took on more than its fair share, something like 21%. At the same time, UNI raised tuition 20% to compensate for the reduced funding. That mean’t the athletic department’s scholarship costs went up by 20% while its ability to pay for them decreased by the same amount. The result was goodbye to swimming and tennis. Now the UNI AD might be an ass (he told me that if any of his employees spoke with me about the team, he’d fire them) however, I don’t envy the double-whammy of 20% budget cut and 20% increase in costs.

      At most private institutions however, tuition is the single most important source of revenue (Grinnell, Harvard, the NESCAC’s are some notable exceptions). To a college operating under-capacity (enrollment-wise), football can be a lifesaver. For instance – if it costs $5,000 to educate, house, feed and entertain a student for a year and tuition at two schools is set at $20,000 the desperate school can award $14,000 in institutional aid and still come out ahead. It must, in fact, if its to compete against a more established institution that only awards $10,000. Most of us know of institutions that are far more aggressive in their aid packages and I don’t want to set off a round of finger-pointing, but people need to understand that there’s something more germane than the belief that “XXXX College” is paying athletes. My own school, Carthage, used to be accused of doing just that. But when the college had just 600 students and was struggling to stay afloat, they weren’t just paying athletes – they were paying EVERYBODY. Why? because we needed EVERY BODY to help pay the rent. If you’re at the top (or bottom) of the food chain, you can (or have to) pay to get the students you want (or need). Today, Carthage is in great shape. We’re still not quite able to cover student’s full need (which hurts us in recruiting), but we’ve been able to build a fantastic new pool, amazing library, world-class business school and obscenely luxurious lakeside dorms, all of which serve to increase demand. The simple fact is this (as it is for most tuition-driven Division 3 schools): – we wouldn’t have any of it if we didn’t have a football team. (How about that for an effort to bring the argument full circle.

      One caveot: this obviously excludes blatant cheathing which is pretty undetectable and unenforcale. The new 4% threshold is a joke. Last Spring one swimming school in the CCIW was identified by the NCAA as being in violation, yet no action was taken. You wouldn’t believe which school either.

      I don’t have numbers, but I do know that football teams have more coaches than swim teams…the overall, or net cost of a football program is still greater.

      True, but so is the net gain. Is it as efficient as generating revenue than swimming? No. Does it target the most desirable students-academically and socioeconomically? Possibly not (though USA Swimming won’t release that data). But does swimming bring 120 bodies (checkbooks) to a college campus? No. To oversimplify – 120 football players paying $10K each and costing $5K to put in helmet, pads, and busses = $600,000 net. Outfitting 30 swimmers, paying $10K each, in speedos at just $1,000 each = $270,000. Exxon Mobil just reported the biggest quarterly profit in the history of business all because they could sell gas for 15-20 cents more per gallon.

      That wound up being far wordier than I’d planned. Thanks if you made it this far. I need to wrap up so I can get back to recruiting 50 new kids (i.e. $250,000 in net tuition revenue) to help pay for another assistant, scoreboard and fins. (I’m kidding of course).

      I’ll close though with a proposition/fear I have about the future of collegiate athletics. JJ, you can skip this because you’ve heard it before.

      Collegiate athletics is becoming more corporatized every year (frequently out of necessity). I don’t think we are too far away from a world where an athletic departments becomes its own entity. There’s already the “University of Michigan Alumni Foundation”. How far off before we see the upper 30-50 teams say, “NCAA we don’t need you any more” and then reconstitute themselves as the “University of Nebraska Athletic Corporation.” Then, free of all institutional and federal funding, free of NCAA minimum sponsorship requirements, free of Title IX mandates, it would behoove these entitites to get rid of anything that doesn’t pay its own weight – swimming, track, tennis, golf, crew, etc. You’d have athletic departments with men’s football and basketball, and possibly hcokey, baseball, women’s basketball or wrestling if they could be made profitable or you had a legacy of success in the sport (Texas and swimming come to mind). Then what? Then our sport dies on the collegiate level.

      Myles Brand has said that he won’t allow this to happen under his direction. While he’s encouraging departments to embrace the principle of revenue generation, he also maintains that athletic endeavors should remain under the university umbrella. Division I football has already beaten the NCAA. Last spring I asked Dr. Brand if the NCAA could do anything to reign in football and he just shook his head no. The BCS conferences and schools think they’re living high off the hog under the current model even though the economic models run by the NCAA show that a Division I football championship (in nearly any form) would allow all programs (including the BCS schools) to profit even more. If CBS is paying the NCAA $6 BILLION for basketball rights, how much do you think a football playoff package would bring in? You’re potentially doubling the amount of money available for everyone. Division III receives 3.18% of these revenues. That’s what pays for our championships, enhancement grants, everything. What if the size of that pie were to double? Heck, we we might be able to get the sixteen best relays in the country to the big meet!

      OK, I’m off the soapbox

      Greg

      PS – Stay tuned to that other swimming site when, after NCAA’s we offer a proposal that will strengthen American swimming, reduce cheating, raise academic success rates, save departments money, AND make it impossible for schools to cut swimming on gender equity grounds. If you think I’m joking, stay tuned.

      And JJ – you DO sound like a jerk, but don’t worry, privates were cool.

    • #35431
      Low Tide
      Member

      It would be tough to argue “cutting football at any level benefits the schools, students and communities”, though it would be interesting to see someone take a gander at it, but I would like to only consider small Div. III schools for a moment.

      I guess I will start by asking, “How likely is it for a very small, selective college (let’s say under 2,500 students) to field a competitive football team capable of attracting a crowd?”

      Here’s an armchair look at K College (1,200 students):

      The football team is bad and does not attract more than a hundred observers for each homegame. There is next to no community interest — Due to the ‘K Bubble”, as well as the fact Western Michigan University is around the corner and there are numerous high schools around to satiate anyone’s desire for ‘live’ football.

      I would put the Homecoming crowd at 1,000 absolute tops, with 50% there only for the tailgating and zero interest in the game itself. How many would still come back to Homecoming if there was no football game? I don’t know, but I would think at K, you would lose very little — perhaps 10% — But it certainly does serve as a conveniant “gathering point”.

      Who are your most valuable students? I think it is a fair assumption student athletes donate more to their colleges, on average, than non-student athletes and I will assume the same holds true for Kzoo. However, despite football’s large roster, I know 1) tennis and 2) swimming are the school’s largest donators with football third. It would be interesting to see where football would fall if you ranked it by average contribution by student-athlete, by sport. I would not be suprised a bit if football came in on the low end under those parameters.

      I know at K we struggle to get ten quality swimmers merely ‘accepted’ each year, I cannot imagine what the football coaches go through each year trying to get fifty (and probably closer to a hundred). Resisting the urge to stereo-type, it would be interesting to see the average GPA and test scores of football players vs. the other sports. What percent of them receive scholarships and financial aid? In other words, what is the sacrifice to get in that many football players each year, if there is one?

      I know it would not happen this way, but what if K College cancelled their football program and used all the money slotted for football for the other sports, especially the ones which have actually garnered national success and comprise of your more “valuable student-athletes”? Bettering those facilities and programs to recruit the same amount of student-athletes lost by cutting football.

      In this case, why not cut football? The two biggest reasons I can think of are 1) Homecoming and 2) Tradition. But I assume other schools’ (without football) homecomings are not total duds?

      It just seems to me that at these very small, selective schools (like Kalamazoo College) those resources can be better used elsewhere.

      You can file this away under “wishful thinking” but I am curious if others agree or disagree –in this case–

      … we offer a proposal that will strengthen American swimming, reduce cheating, raise academic success rates, save departments money, AND make it impossible for schools to cut swimming on gender equity grounds.

      Wow, does it involve less homework and soda in all the drinking fountains as well?? You’ve got my vote! 🙂

    • #35432

      @Low Tide wrote:

      Who are your most valuable students? I think it is a fair assumption student athletes donate more to their colleges, on average, than non-student athletes and I will assume the same holds true for Kzoo.

      Read Shulman & Bowen’s “Game of Life”. Athletes do not donate more on average than on-athletes.

      hat if K College cancelled their football program and used all the money slotted for football for the other sports,

      You would have to assume that you could easily replace those 100+ football students without deteriorating the selectivity of the college. It’s a big assumption and, if you don’t replace them, it’s a gaping hole in the college budget.

      In this case, why not cut football? The two biggest reasons I can think of are 1) Homecoming and 2) Tradition.

      This assumes that a football player’s experience as a part of a team isn’t very valuable or valid. What makes one athlete’s more deserving than another’s? By the same token should we not also cut the slow swimmers from every team? All they do is take up lane space and take away resources that could be used by the deserving swimmers?

      … we offer a proposal that will strengthen American swimming, reduce cheating, raise academic success rates, save departments money, AND make it impossible for schools to cut swimming on gender equity grounds.

      Wow, does it involve less homework and soda in all the drinking fountains as well?? You’ve got my vote! 🙂

      It not only does that, but according to Tom Waits:
      It filets, it chops
      It dices, slices, never stops
      lasts a lifetime, mows your lawn
      and it picks up the kids from school
      It gets rid of unwanted facial hair
      it gets rid of embarrassing age spots
      It delivers a pizza
      and it lengthens, and it strengthens
      And it finds that slipper that’s been at large under the chaise longe for several weeks
      And it plays a mean Rhythm Master
      It makes excuses for unwanted lipstick on your collar
      And it’s only a dollar.
      You can live in it, live in it
      laugh in it, love in it
      Swim in it, sleep in it
      Live in it, swim in it
      laugh in it, love in it
      Removes embarrassing stains from contour sheets t
      And it entertains visiting relatives
      it turns a sandwich into a banquet
      And it walks your dog, and it doubles on sax
      And it steals your car
      It gets rid of your gambling debts, it quits smoking
      It’s a friend, and it’s a companion
      And it’s the only product you will ever need
      it never needs ironing
      it takes weights off hips, bust, thighs, chin, midriff
      Gives you dandruff, and it finds you a job
      And it gives you denture breath
      And you know it’s a friend, and it’s a companion
      And it gets rid of your traveler’s checks
      It’s new, it’s improved, it’s old-fashioned
      Well it takes care of business
      never needs winding
      Gets rid of blackheads, the heartbreak of psoriasis
      ‘Cause it’s effective, it’s defective
      it creates household odors
      It disinfects, it sanitizes for your protection
      It gives you an erection
      it wins the election
      Why put up with painful corns any longer?
      It’s a redeemable coupon, no obligation
      no salesman will visit your home
      We got a jackpot, jackpot, jackpot
      prizes, prizes, prizes, all work guaranteed
      batteries not included

    • #35433
      Low Tide
      Member

      Read Shulman & Bowen’s “Game of Life”. Athletes do not donate more on average than on-athletes.

      That is suprising to me. It just would seem athletes develop more of an affinity towards their colleges… I mean seriously, how many cheers do your non-athlete friends know? 🙂

      You would have to assume that you could easily replace those 100+ football students without deteriorating the selectivity of the college. It’s a big assumption and, if you don’t replace them, it’s a gaping hole in the college budget.

      That is precisely the exact opposite of the point I was trying to make. I believe small, selective schools struggle to find 100 football students, and doing so may already be deteriorating the selectivity of the college and costing money in the form of scholarships and financial aid in order to get so many in.

      This assumes that a football player’s experience as a part of a team isn’t very valuable or valid. What makes one athlete’s more deserving than another’s? By the same token should we not also cut the slow swimmers from every team? All they do is take up lane space and take away resources that could be used by the deserving swimmers?

      Ok. I guess I would recommend that a football player applying to a college without a football team may want to look elsewhere to validate his experience as part of a team. Yes, I get your point — it sucks to cut an existing program and there is probably no great way of going about doing it.

      Slow swimmers do not equate to an entire football team. I would be disappointed if K College’s swim team ever had to cut slow swimmers, but then again, I would probably be pretty thrilled the team had grown to such a size and degree of quality they do not have the resources to keep everyone.

    • #35434
      RadAGator
      Member

      Cal Tech!!! Although they used to have one, and they played their home games in the Rose Bowl.

      Also UCSC does not have football. All the other SCIAC schools as well as Chapman, do.

    • #35435
      Derek
      Member

      I really can’t refute CollegeSwimming.com’s post in any significant way, but I do maintain (as Low Tide does) that small colleges (like Kalamazoo) have unique situations in which not having football could be a competitive advantage. Yes, most colleges (regardless of division) are better off with football, but I really think that some could be better off without football. I agree that, on the whole, football IS good for universities. Can we agree, though, that in certain, select instances, it can be bad?

    • #35436
      Psimon3
      Member

      http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/main.asp

      This website will give you all the information you need to examine any school that recieved federal aid of any kind.

    • #35437
      jj
      Member

      This is the same website that I covered back on page 2. But thanks for the insight.

    • #35438
      DonCheadle
      Member

      JJ and Greg (Collegeswimming.com):

      This is D3swimming.com not Collegeswimming.com

      The question at hand has nothing to do with the numbers and cases that you are spewing. We are interested in the D3 level not D1. Football is good for Ohio State. You had to do a disertation to prove that?

      I doubt Kalamzoo has even 50 football players.
      When the swimteam managed the gates (IE collected money) for the football games we brought in maybe $1200 per week (4 or 5 games per year).
      Our AD said that football was the biggest drain on the budget.

    • #35439
      maverick1
      Member

      here’s some numbers we can look at from the k-college example:

      2006 football team
      roster size-54
      froshies-20
      sophs-15
      juniors-8
      seniors-12

      –please take note that a large percentage of total juniors go on study abroad during the football season—

      –quickly looking at the team and others though, this is a small football squad compared to albion and hope’s teams

      –looks to me like it might be straining the admissions dept. to get enough froshies in each year to have a complete team

    • #35440
      jj
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      JJ and Greg (Collegeswimming.com):

      This is D3swimming.com not Collegeswimming.com

      The question at hand has nothing to do with the numbers and cases that you are spewing. We are interested in the D3 level not D1. Football is good for Ohio State. You had to do a disertation to prove that?

      I doubt Kalamzoo has even 50 football players.
      When the swimteam managed the gates (IE collected money) for the football games we brought in maybe $1200 per week (4 or 5 games per year).
      Our AD said that football was the biggest drain on the budget.

      Don I am sorry to say this and don’t mean this in an overtly negative way. But you are obviously mis-informed and want to take a look at this on an individual level. Ok fine, I can see this but if you did follow the conversation and understand it then you would know that we are not talking about this on a D1 level. The information, yes applies to D1, but also applies to D3 as well. The question was asked do you think that not having football helps other sports. I do not believe it does and used actual evidence to back that statement up instead of my own opinion. No one implied it was collegeswimming.com and if you don’t like the conversation don’t follow it.

    • #35441
      DonCheadle
      Member

      @jj wrote:

      But you are obviously mis-informed and want to take a look at this on an individual level. Ok fine, I can see this but if you did follow the conversation and understand it then you would know that we are not talking about this on a D1 level. The information, yes applies to D1, but also applies to D3 as well. The question was asked do you think that not having football helps other sports. I do not believe it does and used actual evidence to back that statement up instead of my own opinion.

      @jj wrote:

      Bottom line here is that one can infer that this trend in D1 and D2 does reflect the actions in D3. Not directly in the same way because of the lack of scholarships but the logic is still sound.

      Is this the actual evidense to which you refer? You’re right, I have missed it.

    • #35442
      jj
      Member

      @DonCheadle wrote:

      @jj wrote:

      But you are obviously mis-informed and want to take a look at this on an individual level. Ok fine, I can see this but if you did follow the conversation and understand it then you would know that we are not talking about this on a D1 level. The information, yes applies to D1, but also applies to D3 as well. The question was asked do you think that not having football helps other sports. I do not believe it does and used actual evidence to back that statement up instead of my own opinion.

      @jj wrote:

      Bottom line here is that one can infer that this trend in D1 and D2 does reflect the actions in D3. Not directly in the same way because of the lack of scholarships but the logic is still sound.

      Is this the actual evidense to which you refer? You’re right, I have missed it.

      Hey great work… you took one line out of context so obviously I must be wrong and you certainly must be right.

    • #35443
      Derek
      Member

      Ok, does nobody read my posts? Don Cheadle, Low Tide, and myself all seem to be coming from the stance that

      THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE FOOTBALL COULD BE BAD FOR AN ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT. THE QUESTION: IS KALAMAZOO ONE OF THOSE SCHOOLS GIVEN THE UNIQUE PECULIARITIES OF THE KALAMAZOO COLLEGE SITUATION?

      This is opposed to the JJ et al. stance that

      FOOTBALL, AS A WHOLE AND ACROSS DIVISIONS, IS GOOD FOR SCHOOLS. THE QUESTION: CAN FOOTBALL BE GENERALIZED AS A GOOD OR BAD THING FOR ATHLETIC DEPARTMENTS ACROSS ALL DIVISIONS?

      We are essentially having two different arguments. Nobody is dull enough to think that football is bad for Ohio State. But we are questioning the value of football for a small and unique college like Kalamazoo College.

    • #35444

      The question at hand has nothing to do with the numbers and cases that you are spewing. We are interested in the D3 level not D1.

      Actually much of my post was aboud D3 and like it or not without D1 and that basketball tournament, there wouldn’t be a D3 swimming national championship.

      I do think I understand Don, Derek and the like’s argument now however I think it would have been clearer if it had been said something to the effect of, “Who else agrees with us that K-football is a waste of money and lowers our academic standards?”

      I mean, really, the money isn’t much debatable you could do a benefit-cost analysis to see how much those 54 football players are paying to go to school. We won’t go into the discussion of how someone playing a low-brow sport such as football might actually add to a student body, and on academics? Using the same logic by previous posters, you could go so far as to say that schools like Kalamazoo ought to not admit minorities because – and while I don’t believe it – statistics have shown that minorities score lower on standardized entrance exams. I mean you could go there, but I won’t.

      In fact, I’ll throw up my hand for “Yes” on the “Who else agrees with us that K-football is a waste of money and lowers our academic standards.”

    • #35445
      aquaholic
      Member

      Oh snap! You can always tell a K-Zoo guy but you can’t tell him much.

      I vote yes too

    • #35446
      Derek
      Member

      @aquaholic wrote:

      Oh snap! You can always tell a K-Zoo guy but you can’t tell him much.

      Well said.

    • #35447
      Derek
      Member

      @CollegeSwimming.com wrote:

      I mean, really, the money isn’t much debatable you could do a benefit-cost analysis to see how much those 54 football players are paying to go to school. We won’t go into the discussion of how someone playing a low-brow sport such as football might actually add to a student body, and on academics? Using the same logic by previous posters, you could go so far as to say that schools like Kalamazoo ought to not admit minorities because – and while I don’t believe it – statistics have shown that minorities score lower on standardized entrance exams. I mean you could go there, but I won’t.

      ZING! You assume that the opposite of high-brow is low-brow, but I think more realistically, the opposite is “not conceited” or “not condescending” or “not intellectually elitist for no substantiated reason.”

      As for the “slippery slope” logic, while I admit that I’ve sunk to using it before when my argument really sucked, I still maintain that it is a bad argument that has no value. Slippery slope works really well with legal precedent, of which this is not. Also, the only argument like this that I’ve seen offered (there has been a lot of writing on this thread, sorry if I missed something) is that football team GPA is lower than the GPA of other teams, and that there is possibly a correlation between GPA and giving potential. This has nothing to do with standardized entrance exam scores, unless you are making a correlation between these test scores, college GPA, earning potential, and alumni giving.

    • #35448
      Say What
      Member

      I mean, really, the money isn’t much debatable you could do a benefit-cost analysis to see how much those 54 football players are paying to go to school.

      That assumption only holds up if other, non football playing students replace those 54 football players. If there are other students that fill those gaps, then there is no net financial loss…in fact there could be a gain. Your argument supposes that a college can’t fill a class without football’s help – that may have been the case where you are now, but at most highly regarded academic schools like Kzoo, they’re turning away people thru the admissions process – people who would gladly pay for the right to go there.

    • #35449
      jj
      Member

      Well shoot, why stop at football. If you’re going to cut those boys then we got to get basketball out of there. Kzoo is spending $2099 per athlete which is more $400 an athlete than football, and they are losing $4700 more than the football team which is at least breaking even. And you know basketball isn’t bringing in $1200 a game I mean have you seen them they were only able to put up 5 wins this year. While you’re at it you might as well cut every other men’s sport except for tennis and baseball because they can actually win. Then you won’t have to worry about it because those two sports will have endless budgets and rock D3 while maintaining the reputation of Kzoo’s academics.

    • #35450
      Duck
      Member

      Thank you for that textbook illustration of the slippery slope logical fallacy Derek spoke of. Cutting football team –> cutting slow swimmers –> denying acceptance to minorities –> cutting 90% of all sport teams. Before you know it, we’ll have human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together – mass hysteria – all from cutting a football team at a tiny liberal arts college.

      A+ work!

    • #35451
      jj
      Member

      Exactly, and then world domination will be nearly complete! My plan is coming together nicely.

    • #35452
      PowerPuff
      Member

      There’s one piece of the argument here that you keep hinting about, yet haven’t said. Football – across all divisions – is partly about the money (the Golden Rule!), partly about education (or so the NCAA tells us), and partly about legitimacy. It makes students and alumni feel good (givers, donors!)… which prompts them to give further money to the school.

      Even bad football teams add legitimacy to a college or university, enhancing the brand which is eventually converted to dollars that are felt campus-wide. If you have a football team, you must be a “real” college or university.

      Let’s also make this point clear, regardless of market size, athletic departments do not rely on ticket sales to fund their football programs. (Although let me qualify that… they do not rely on general ticket sales. Corporate seats and skyboxes etc are new products that athletic departments are increasingly turning to. See: Iowa) The real money, as mentioned before, comes from TV contracts and bowl appearances. Intuition can tell you that 6-8 home games per season does not even sniff at Ohio State’s $100 million budget. Of course below DI these opportunitites are limited, which brings us back to the original point of legitimacy.

      DIII football programs are just like the art/performace department or the cost of bringing in a world-renowned professor, or building a new rec center. It’s ultimately a marketing tool, an expense, the college uses to enhance its legitimacy and brand image.

      Maybe if more athletic departments viewed their football programs for what they are, they’d be run more efficiently, like a business, and would be less of a drain.

    • #35453
      trout3
      Member

      I just stumbled on this which some of you may find of interest. It’s 2006 football attendance numbers for all divisions (Kzoo is 190)…. it also answers the question which schools sponsor football. Last page is summary of attendance by D3 conference.

      http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/2006/2006_football_attendance.pdf

      This will show history by year back to 1998….

      http://www.ncaa.org/stats/football/attendance/index.html

    • #35454
      Chris Knight
      Member

      Holy crap, St. John’s averages 3,000 more than the #2 school. Wow.

    • #35455
      Psimon3
      Member

      I can tell you this, If Wabash had the seating, they would average more… The Monon Bell game every year is around 10,000 when they bring extra bleachers

      Still, extremely impressive that St. John has that average, I would have thought Mount Union would have been higher

    • #35456
      Derek
      Member

      I’m not sure how accurate those counts are. I worked the gates my freshman year and we were NOT very careful to keep an accurate count. That may have changed.

    • #35457
      PowerPuff
      Member

      Attendance figures are not accurate… the school submits them, usually off the SIDs estimate. We usually assessed how many people were there then doubled it.

Viewing 61 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.