PonyFans.com

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/176968-2294-216.html

from the Indianapolis Star newspaper - quote from SMU president Gerald Turner near the beginning of the piece.

Winning college sports teams do not spark a large increase in general donations or student applications, according to a report issued Tuesday by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

The report, a review of previous studies on the subject over the past 30 years, went on to decry colleges that chase athletic glory with larger salaries and facilities.

"The escalation doesn't add much other than higher bills," said Gerald Turner, president of Southern Methodist University and a member of the Knight Commission, a privately funded college sports reform group that consists mostly of school presidents.

The report is an attempt by the commission to address the "arms race" in college sports by debunking what it believes is a fallacy about the benefits of athletic spending.

The so-called "Flutie Factor" is generally believed to have created an impression of athletic success leading to increased admissions. Applications to Boston College increased in the wake of quarterback Doug Flutie's Heisman Trophy season in 1984. But there had been a similar spark in the 1970s, and the school had made an effort to increase enrollment from around the nation by improving in other areas.

Frank said there are isolated examples of "conspicuously successful" teams creating a short-term spike in donations or applications. But, the report said, "such increases are likely to be both small and transitory."

There also has been evidence to the contrary.

At Gonzaga University, applications to last year's freshman class more than doubled from six years earlier, according to a report in the The Wall Street Journal in March. During the same period, the school became an unlikely power in college basketball.

Valparaiso had a different experience, said Reggie Syrcle, executive director of university relations. Valpo became a national darling in 1998 during its run to the final 16 of the NCAA basketball tournament, but Syrcle said that didn't have a large effect on either applications or donations.

"We would tend to agree with the Knight Commission," Syrcle said. "I don't think that means there isn't an impact. We're aware of increased name recognition following '98. . . . There were more people in the 'interest' pool because of increased name recognition, but that didn't result in more than a little bump in applications."

Of donations, Syrcle said, "Our fund-raisers are saying people are giving for bigger reasons than the success of an athletic team."

NCAA president Myles Brand said the Knight Commission report reinforces a study released last year by the association. That report said spending more on sports does not result in more giving to the athletic department or the university in general.

"The message is clear: Institutional spending on intercollegiate athletics should not be made on the basis of an anticipated boon in financial return," Brand said Tuesday.

"It should be made on the basis of the value intercollegiate athletics brings to the educational mission of the university. Bringing resolution to the problem is exceptionally difficult."

A school president who attempted unilateral cutbacks would be committing athletic -- if not career -- suicide. When the NCAA tried to act in concert, voting to cap the salaries of certain assistant basketball coaches, the association lost an antitrust lawsuit. It paid a $54 million judgment in 1999.

Sports law expert Gary Roberts of Tulane University suggested the NCAA get an antitrust exemption from Congress. But speaking to the Knight Commission in February, Brand questioned whether that was realistic.

"The question we have to ask is if the effort is worthwhile. . . . I cannot be optimistic it would get done," he said.

Brand added Tuesday, "But I certainly do not object to the Knight Commission or any other organization pursuing that course of action."

Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke said he would be against an antitrust exemption.

"I've always been a guy in favor of merit and market," Burke said. "Let the marketplace set the rate, not something artificial. Maybe there are some people competing in Division I who should be in Division II or III."

First, the Knight Commission, made up of university presidents, sounds like it produced a report that is a little self serving.

Next, saying winning athletics has no effect is kind of like a study coming out saying a woman's looks has no bearing on how often they receive attention from men. I am sure someone can design a study that shows that looks don't matter but one is really hard pressed to believe it.

Just to beat someone else to this - why would they quote Turner about wins not helping - shouldn't we try it first before we say it does not help?

Next year I am sure we will be the experts.

yeah I'd love to actually read the report because I can imagine several ways to skew the results. Are they looking at the very next year after a successful season or do they look at the next few years. And are the reults national or region because I serious doubt that the conclusion is accurate in Texas See for example SMU as it emerged in the early 80s, the Aggies as they emerged in the mid 80s or even TCU as their program emerged in the late 1990s.

The Knight Commission has a bias and a stated agenda. I think their mission is fine and could help SMU if its effective, but its not surprising that they would conclude what they did. I don't know if their conclusions are statistically valid or not, but I do know that SMU would have had one less applicant, and one less alum today had I not percieved the university to be a "big-time", can-do school which includes being a competitive player in D-1. You have to have winning seasons and success every now and then just to sustain your finances and your program. Extreme winning now and then, just like extreme but short term losing probably doesnt translate much into applications and general donation changes. But sustained winning or losing would have a much bigger impact, though ironically is harder to measure and draw conclusions from. The article ignores the longer term trends and implications. For that reason it can lead to false conclusions that having a competitive, D-1 athletics is not part of a vibrant university.

We should avoid jumping to any conclusions. Winning sports can be one one aspect to the success of a college's recruitment & donations, but not the only one. The schools with the highest academic standards and endowments seldom have successful DI athletic programs, however the 'Flutie' effect or the 'Doak' effect are also true. Over 50 years ago, Doak Walker's exploits did as much to make SMU a household name as Doug Flutie's career did for BC. I tend to believe it is about positive press and good relations. Winning feels good and potential applicants and alumni donators wish to feel good about their decisions. As a college we need to build our pool of applicants and our pool of donations. The true question is cost to build programs (FB/BB) worth the positive news from their successes. I believe none of us really no, however we would feel better if we did.

A great run always helps a University with donations and admissions. Its national public relations. Had my father not heard of Doak Walker, I am sure I never would have visited SMU. Remember, I'm from the east coast. I also remember seeing an SMU-TCU game on TV in the 60's when I was a kid. So, don't tell me that athletic success doesn't help admissions. It puts the school on the map. Certainly, there are schools like Clerment and Bowdoin that are not athletic powers that are excellent schools and are on the list of many guidance counselors. I also made calls to alums to raise money for SMU during fund raising campaigns during the Dave Smith era. Many of my rejections came from people complaining about the football team. But athletic success has nothing to do with giving. Gerald try manning the phones sometime and see what I mean.

'stated agenda' is an understatement for our university system in general in today's political climate -

they wouldn't know the 'truth' if it hit them over the head -

but then again - did we really expect much in the first place -

& yes, it dissappoints me in Turner who lacks a true sense of honesty -

just consider the mustang club donations during those yrs of winning - wow! they were in orbit!

& then look what happens when we lose the fb team & where do the donations then go? yep - we were then closing dorm floors?! $%%# yes!

then a$m comes out with all those statements during those yrs of top 10 rankings & cotton bowl visits & then they claim how applications are up b/c of those wins -

yeah - i don't think sooo turner - i believe its time to be honest with yourself, the school & the alums!

but then again - u are a good fund raiser if nothing else.

Stallion wrote:yeah I'd love to actually read the report because I can imagine several ways to skew the results. Are they looking at the very next year after a successful season or do they look at the next few years. And are the reults national or region because I serious doubt that the conclusion is accurate in Texas See for example SMU as it emerged in the early 80s, the Aggies as they emerged in the mid 80s or even TCU as their program emerged in the late 1990s.

In fact, Stallion, I suspect you will be correct nationally about total endowments relate to successful athletic programs. Although I cannot verify endowments, the simplest correlation is: butt-in-seats vis-a-vis W/L record.

Perfect example: USC v. UCLA

Why?

[1] They play in the same market;

[2] They play in the same stadium.

Now, compare. 2003 stats..

USC (Private): 16,000 undergraduates
UCLA (Public): 25,300 undergraduates

USC: Record- 12-1 Home attendance 6 games 439,715 (excl UCLA)
UCLA: Record- 6-7 Home attendance 6 games 339,813 (excl USC)

Almost 100,000 more "butts-in-seats" in the same city, in the same market, in the same stadium for USC, which is a smaller privtae university. And all you read about is how fast USC is growing.

YEAH, winning doesn't matter. Sure...

Actually, to compare usc and ucla is a bit skewed. First off, they do not play in the same stadium. sc plays at the coliseum, ucla at the rose bowl. Both have been reconfigured for play during the season. (No way either school could make a sellout otherwise, it is still LA, not columbus or a gainsville.)

Also, just look at the numbers. Both schools dwarf SMU in population size. Also, most alumni of the schools stay in LA area, so it is easier to keep them coming back.

Attendace figures will rise/fall as the programs win/lose. I think that happens most anywhere, except in towns that are more true college towns. ucla and usc have the whole of the greater LA area on which to draw, plus at this time there is no pro club.

I look forward to SMU winning and gaining more fans, but it starts with the students and alumni showing 100% loyalty.

Go Ponies!