PonyFans.com

"Colleges change their athletic-conference affiliation for all sorts of reasons, but it’s mostly to make more TV money and move up the perceived ladder of prestige. It’s rare to hear anyone talk about the academic impact.

But switching leagues, it turns out, often enhances an institution’s ability to attract and retain high-quality students. Those are among the findings from a paper to be presented on Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research.

In fact, many of the 32 Division I colleges that changed conferences between 2004 and 2011 and were part of the study saw some sort of academic benefit from the switch, according to Dennis A. Kramer II and Michael J. Trivette, the two doctoral students at the University of Georgia who wrote the paper.

On average, colleges that moved to a new league saw about a 3-percent decrease in their admit rate (meaning they became more selective) and a 5-percent increase in their admission yield rate (more admitted students enrolled) three years after joining the new conference. The ACT scores of incoming students increased by more than .29 points. And the colleges saw a net gain of about 130 applications per year three years after their moves."

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/does ... ains/30227

Without reading the source link or the basis of the report, I would think the number of applicants goes up simply because those schools moving around are in the media a bit more for those years. More applicants = more selective.

It's been proven that gains on the field and the court bring in more applicants, so I would imagine that being among more selective athletic schools would help.

One interesting note: The Big 10 has been sharing research and other materials amongst it's members for years; it's not simply an athletic conference anymore, it's become, in many ways, an academic one as well. It's one of the reasons the teachers in schools like Notre Dame and Missouri wanted in so badly.

The economic study I want to see the the value in name recognition from millions of free advertisement on networks, newspapers and magazines just reporting on an athletic program. SMU probably has an advertisement budget of millions just to enhance name recognition when the football program does that for "free". What is the difference between the name recognition of SMU and say Austin College, Sewanee or the University of Dallas-all worthy schools but with no where near the name recognition of SMU. What would a school have to pay on the market to achive a similiar name recognition.

leopold wrote:It's been proven that gains on the field and the court bring in more applicants, so I would imagine that being among more selective athletic schools would help.

One interesting note: The Big 10 has been sharing research and other materials amongst it's members for years; it's not simply an athletic conference anymore, it's become, in many ways, an academic one as well. It's one of the reasons the teachers in schools like Notre Dame and Missouri wanted in so badly.

Big 10 has always been an Academic Conference though... it was an academic one before it was a athletic one.

until they let in Nebraska.

One need no further than the neighbors to the west, TCU. Success breeds new and larger fan base along with older alumni returning to the fold. Larger donations, all of a sudden tickets are not being given away anymore but an actual waiting list. Higher standards for it's athletes because the coaches don't have to give as many second, third and fourth strikes because of a better selection of student/athlete. then look at the changes around TCU campus from plain and ugly to new construction and home values surging around the campus. People just like winners and to associate with winners.

Stlhockeyguy02 wrote:"Colleges change their athletic-conference affiliation for all sorts of reasons, but it’s mostly to make more TV money and move up the perceived ladder of prestige. It’s rare to hear anyone talk about the academic impact.

But switching leagues, it turns out, often enhances an institution’s ability to attract and retain high-quality students. Those are among the findings from a paper to be presented on Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Association for Institutional Research.

In fact, many of the 32 Division I colleges that changed conferences between 2004 and 2011 and were part of the study saw some sort of academic benefit from the switch, according to Dennis A. Kramer II and Michael J. Trivette, the two doctoral students at the University of Georgia who wrote the paper.

On average, colleges that moved to a new league saw about a 3-percent decrease in their admit rate (meaning they became more selective) and a 5-percent increase in their admission yield rate (more admitted students enrolled) three years after joining the new conference. The ACT scores of incoming students increased by more than .29 points. And the colleges saw a net gain of about 130 applications per year three years after their moves."

http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/does ... ains/30227

Not sure of any current statistics; however, according to media sources Penn State received more than 120 million in additional research grants the year they joined the Big 10. This money was directly attributable to private corportation linkages to the Big 10 for R & D. Penn State at the time was somewhat reluctant to join the Big 10 purely for athletic purposes, but the academic side of the house pushed this deal to the maximum. Not sure this study addresses the R & D benefits which are huge to the hundred or more schools who are members of the prestigious ( what ever scientific association whose name escapes me) of which all Big 10 schools are a member.

It is the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which is the Big10+Chicago. Does about $6 billion in combined R&D. I think SMU's research expenditures are around $25M, Rice $130M for reference.

Nebraska was an AAU school when originally added looked at for the B10, but they were voted out of the AAU. I believe they were the first school to every be voted out, and not voluntarily self-withdraw, which shows you how contentious the issue was to Nebraska.

MustangSTATS wrote:It is the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which is the Big10+Chicago. Does about $6 billion in combined R&D. I think SMU's research expenditures are around $25M, Rice $130M for reference.

Nebraska was an AAU school when originally added looked at for the B10, but they were voted out of the AAU. I believe they were the first school to every be voted out, and not voluntarily self-withdraw, which shows you how contentious the issue was to Nebraska.

Thanks for getting my post more focused. I think that the answer to changing conferences is that there can be huge benefits beyond applications and retention rates as exemplified by the impact/linkages imparted on the Big 10 through the AAU's dispersement of R & D money. Does anyone know whether or not the Big East will have any similar linkages that would benefit SMU's access to R & D money?????

The Big10's CIC is the only one that I am aware of existing. The Big East has such a variability in the size and focuses of its schools, not to mention an extremely fluid membership, I doubt they would add something like this. A smaller example (outside of sports) closer to home is The Golf Coast Consortia.