10-30-2024, 02:51 PM
NYT - The impact of travel on college athletes
10-30-2024, 03:12 PM
I read it, and it's a fine article detailing all the woes for student-athletes in this era of country spanning conferences. But I have a hard time getting that worked up about it. Nobody is forcing these kids to play college sports. If the plane trips are too long, then just stop playing. And no, Stanford shouldn't be giving preference to athletes when it comes to class registration- it's a university first. Being an athlete on campus is prestigious and has it's own rewards. Now you can even get paid millions.
It is a shame that football is making all the other sports worse off. But of all the people with rightful grievances on this big planet, college athletes are very low on the list.
It is a shame that football is making all the other sports worse off. But of all the people with rightful grievances on this big planet, college athletes are very low on the list.
I read it, and it's a fine article detailing all the woes for student-athletes in this era of country spanning conferences. But I have a hard time getting that worked up about it. Nobody is forcing these kids to play college sports. If the plane trips are too long, then just stop playing. And no, Stanford shouldn't be giving preference to athletes when it comes to class registration- it's a university first. Being an athlete on campus is prestigious and has it's own rewards. Now you can even get paid millions.
It is a shame that football is making all the other sports worse off. But of all the people with rightful grievances on this big planet, college athletes are very low on the list.
It is a shame that football is making all the other sports worse off. But of all the people with rightful grievances on this big planet, college athletes are very low on the list.
10-30-2024, 06:14 PM
Pretty sure I predicted this right after USC and Oregon made their big announcement. Anyone who has travelled for a living knows it.
Pretty sure I predicted this right after USC and Oregon made their big announcement. Anyone who has travelled for a living knows it.
10-30-2024, 07:47 PM
10-30-2024, 08:37 PM
Who could have predicted that abandoning geographic-based conferences would adversely affect the academics of student athletes? Shame on the universities (particularly UCLA and USC, but also including Stanford) for picking money and prestige ahead of athlete well-being and the academics excellence of their students.
BC
BC
Who could have predicted that abandoning geographic-based conferences would adversely affect the academics of student athletes? Shame on the universities (particularly UCLA and USC, but also including Stanford) for picking money and prestige ahead of athlete well-being and the academics excellence of their students.
BC
BC
10-31-2024, 07:43 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2024, 03:49 PM by StanUSwagU.)
Hi addressing this to BostonCard, (but anyone else feel free to comment),
(1). Hope all is well.
(2). As you know, I always respect your perspective and look forward to reading your posts, and dont mean this post in any way to be contentious ..just to present an alternative perspective.
(3). Just 3 things I would add to the dataset, for us to ponder (who knows maybe these are irrelevant parts of the data cube)
(4). I would postulate that "If all the Pac10-Pac12 schools (including Stanford) had gone all out in the early2000s to Prioritize being Top20 in Football 'IN ADDITION to being Top20 in Academics' ...and therefore 8 of the 12 Pac12 Schools (including Stanford) were always in the Top25 in Football, then:
(A) Pac12Football would be 'must watch TV for the Nation' & the Pac12 would have gotten the "Sweet 40 million dollar per year/ per Institution payout TV Deals': and then the Pac12 Conference would not have dissolved, and would still be around today, and there wouldn't have been this need to 'join far away geographic conferences' & thus have this 'Flying far causing problems for its student-athletes problem'.
(B) Its Also possible that if the Pac10 member institutions (including Stanford) had back in the 'early 2000s' Prioritized & achieved 8 of their 12 members always being being Top20 in Football, then Texas & Oklahoma (seeing the Pac10 conference & institutions getting Linked with Major TV Network deals & Getting paid $40Million/per year/per school), ...would have joined the Pac12. Then the Pac12 would truly have been 1 of the 3 Preeminent Football Conferences (which would have for sure preserved the Pac12 geographic Conference)
-C- I dont know the research on 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' and its effect on humans, but if I hear correctly 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' will begin around the year 2028. Since as BostonCard stated Stanford has a 'Large Operating Budget and Large Endowment (1 of the largest in the Nation) ...we can buy or charter Commercial SuperSonic Flights for our Athletes for the 'far away road trips'. I think a 'Commercial Supersonic Flight can go California to East Coast in 3 hrs or less ...so much time would be saved, making Stanford Team travels to the East Coast just like getting to Pullman Washington from Stanford.
(5) Yes, I get it, this paradigm-shift could be interpreted as 'Modifying the old world values of Putting Academics 1st and Athletics a very distant 2nd' ...but rather than thinking that way, I would see it more as 'Leveling up on what was a 'Deficient dangerous lack of prioritization of Football, & Being Proactive & Not Reactive to Seeing into the Future & Adapting Early, to Ensure the preservation of the Pac12 geographic conference, so our student athletes wouldn't suffer drastic 'Pac12 conference dissolution' in the future".
(6) As I always go back to: Stanford needs to think more like 'NotreDame in Football & Duke in MensBasketball" (both these institutions are Top20 Academic institutions) with regard to "Being Top20 in Academics & IN ADDITION being Top20 in Football & MensBasketball" .......& less like Cornell, Bowdoin College, & Dartmouth (again no malicious disrespect to these latter institutions intended)
(1). Hope all is well.
(2). As you know, I always respect your perspective and look forward to reading your posts, and dont mean this post in any way to be contentious ..just to present an alternative perspective.
(3). Just 3 things I would add to the dataset, for us to ponder (who knows maybe these are irrelevant parts of the data cube)
(4). I would postulate that "If all the Pac10-Pac12 schools (including Stanford) had gone all out in the early2000s to Prioritize being Top20 in Football 'IN ADDITION to being Top20 in Academics' ...and therefore 8 of the 12 Pac12 Schools (including Stanford) were always in the Top25 in Football, then:
(A) Pac12Football would be 'must watch TV for the Nation' & the Pac12 would have gotten the "Sweet 40 million dollar per year/ per Institution payout TV Deals': and then the Pac12 Conference would not have dissolved, and would still be around today, and there wouldn't have been this need to 'join far away geographic conferences' & thus have this 'Flying far causing problems for its student-athletes problem'.
(B) Its Also possible that if the Pac10 member institutions (including Stanford) had back in the 'early 2000s' Prioritized & achieved 8 of their 12 members always being being Top20 in Football, then Texas & Oklahoma (seeing the Pac10 conference & institutions getting Linked with Major TV Network deals & Getting paid $40Million/per year/per school), ...would have joined the Pac12. Then the Pac12 would truly have been 1 of the 3 Preeminent Football Conferences (which would have for sure preserved the Pac12 geographic Conference)
-C- I dont know the research on 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' and its effect on humans, but if I hear correctly 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' will begin around the year 2028. Since as BostonCard stated Stanford has a 'Large Operating Budget and Large Endowment (1 of the largest in the Nation) ...we can buy or charter Commercial SuperSonic Flights for our Athletes for the 'far away road trips'. I think a 'Commercial Supersonic Flight can go California to East Coast in 3 hrs or less ...so much time would be saved, making Stanford Team travels to the East Coast just like getting to Pullman Washington from Stanford.
(5) Yes, I get it, this paradigm-shift could be interpreted as 'Modifying the old world values of Putting Academics 1st and Athletics a very distant 2nd' ...but rather than thinking that way, I would see it more as 'Leveling up on what was a 'Deficient dangerous lack of prioritization of Football, & Being Proactive & Not Reactive to Seeing into the Future & Adapting Early, to Ensure the preservation of the Pac12 geographic conference, so our student athletes wouldn't suffer drastic 'Pac12 conference dissolution' in the future".
(6) As I always go back to: Stanford needs to think more like 'NotreDame in Football & Duke in MensBasketball" (both these institutions are Top20 Academic institutions) with regard to "Being Top20 in Academics & IN ADDITION being Top20 in Football & MensBasketball" .......& less like Cornell, Bowdoin College, & Dartmouth (again no malicious disrespect to these latter institutions intended)
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2024, 03:49 PM by StanUSwagU.)
Hi addressing this to BostonCard, (but anyone else feel free to comment),
(1). Hope all is well.
(2). As you know, I always respect your perspective and look forward to reading your posts, and dont mean this post in any way to be contentious ..just to present an alternative perspective.
(3). Just 3 things I would add to the dataset, for us to ponder (who knows maybe these are irrelevant parts of the data cube)
(4). I would postulate that "If all the Pac10-Pac12 schools (including Stanford) had gone all out in the early2000s to Prioritize being Top20 in Football 'IN ADDITION to being Top20 in Academics' ...and therefore 8 of the 12 Pac12 Schools (including Stanford) were always in the Top25 in Football, then:
(A) Pac12Football would be 'must watch TV for the Nation' & the Pac12 would have gotten the "Sweet 40 million dollar per year/ per Institution payout TV Deals': and then the Pac12 Conference would not have dissolved, and would still be around today, and there wouldn't have been this need to 'join far away geographic conferences' & thus have this 'Flying far causing problems for its student-athletes problem'.
(B) Its Also possible that if the Pac10 member institutions (including Stanford) had back in the 'early 2000s' Prioritized & achieved 8 of their 12 members always being being Top20 in Football, then Texas & Oklahoma (seeing the Pac10 conference & institutions getting Linked with Major TV Network deals & Getting paid $40Million/per year/per school), ...would have joined the Pac12. Then the Pac12 would truly have been 1 of the 3 Preeminent Football Conferences (which would have for sure preserved the Pac12 geographic Conference)
-C- I dont know the research on 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' and its effect on humans, but if I hear correctly 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' will begin around the year 2028. Since as BostonCard stated Stanford has a 'Large Operating Budget and Large Endowment (1 of the largest in the Nation) ...we can buy or charter Commercial SuperSonic Flights for our Athletes for the 'far away road trips'. I think a 'Commercial Supersonic Flight can go California to East Coast in 3 hrs or less ...so much time would be saved, making Stanford Team travels to the East Coast just like getting to Pullman Washington from Stanford.
(5) Yes, I get it, this paradigm-shift could be interpreted as 'Modifying the old world values of Putting Academics 1st and Athletics a very distant 2nd' ...but rather than thinking that way, I would see it more as 'Leveling up on what was a 'Deficient dangerous lack of prioritization of Football, & Being Proactive & Not Reactive to Seeing into the Future & Adapting Early, to Ensure the preservation of the Pac12 geographic conference, so our student athletes wouldn't suffer drastic 'Pac12 conference dissolution' in the future".
(6) As I always go back to: Stanford needs to think more like 'NotreDame in Football & Duke in MensBasketball" (both these institutions are Top20 Academic institutions) with regard to "Being Top20 in Academics & IN ADDITION being Top20 in Football & MensBasketball" .......& less like Cornell, Bowdoin College, & Dartmouth (again no malicious disrespect to these latter institutions intended)
(1). Hope all is well.
(2). As you know, I always respect your perspective and look forward to reading your posts, and dont mean this post in any way to be contentious ..just to present an alternative perspective.
(3). Just 3 things I would add to the dataset, for us to ponder (who knows maybe these are irrelevant parts of the data cube)
(4). I would postulate that "If all the Pac10-Pac12 schools (including Stanford) had gone all out in the early2000s to Prioritize being Top20 in Football 'IN ADDITION to being Top20 in Academics' ...and therefore 8 of the 12 Pac12 Schools (including Stanford) were always in the Top25 in Football, then:
(A) Pac12Football would be 'must watch TV for the Nation' & the Pac12 would have gotten the "Sweet 40 million dollar per year/ per Institution payout TV Deals': and then the Pac12 Conference would not have dissolved, and would still be around today, and there wouldn't have been this need to 'join far away geographic conferences' & thus have this 'Flying far causing problems for its student-athletes problem'.
(B) Its Also possible that if the Pac10 member institutions (including Stanford) had back in the 'early 2000s' Prioritized & achieved 8 of their 12 members always being being Top20 in Football, then Texas & Oklahoma (seeing the Pac10 conference & institutions getting Linked with Major TV Network deals & Getting paid $40Million/per year/per school), ...would have joined the Pac12. Then the Pac12 would truly have been 1 of the 3 Preeminent Football Conferences (which would have for sure preserved the Pac12 geographic Conference)
-C- I dont know the research on 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' and its effect on humans, but if I hear correctly 'Commercial Supersonic Flights' will begin around the year 2028. Since as BostonCard stated Stanford has a 'Large Operating Budget and Large Endowment (1 of the largest in the Nation) ...we can buy or charter Commercial SuperSonic Flights for our Athletes for the 'far away road trips'. I think a 'Commercial Supersonic Flight can go California to East Coast in 3 hrs or less ...so much time would be saved, making Stanford Team travels to the East Coast just like getting to Pullman Washington from Stanford.
(5) Yes, I get it, this paradigm-shift could be interpreted as 'Modifying the old world values of Putting Academics 1st and Athletics a very distant 2nd' ...but rather than thinking that way, I would see it more as 'Leveling up on what was a 'Deficient dangerous lack of prioritization of Football, & Being Proactive & Not Reactive to Seeing into the Future & Adapting Early, to Ensure the preservation of the Pac12 geographic conference, so our student athletes wouldn't suffer drastic 'Pac12 conference dissolution' in the future".
(6) As I always go back to: Stanford needs to think more like 'NotreDame in Football & Duke in MensBasketball" (both these institutions are Top20 Academic institutions) with regard to "Being Top20 in Academics & IN ADDITION being Top20 in Football & MensBasketball" .......& less like Cornell, Bowdoin College, & Dartmouth (again no malicious disrespect to these latter institutions intended)
10-31-2024, 12:25 PM
Re dissolution of the Pac-12, iirc the board of directors was the 12 university presidents. With rare exceptions (John Hennessy comes to mind), they are ill-equipped to run athletic programs.
Re dissolution of the Pac-12, iirc the board of directors was the 12 university presidents. With rare exceptions (John Hennessy comes to mind), they are ill-equipped to run athletic programs.
(10-31-2024, 12:25 PM)TonyLima Wrote: Re dissolution of the Pac-12, iirc the board of directors was the 12 university presidents. With rare exceptions (John Hennessy comes to mind), they are ill-equipped to run athletic programs.
Agreed, 100%. And not only are they ill-equipped to run the programs, some senior administrators are particularly discinclined to support the athletic part of the overall University mission and may, in fact, view top-flight athletics to be deleterious to the overall brand -- particularly football. Without persistent, consistent support over the years and decades, particularly at a program that faces the challenges that Stanford faces, the program will suffer and wither.
From my perspective, if it's worth doing at a place like Stanford, it's worth striving to be the best. And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(10-31-2024, 12:25 PM)TonyLima Wrote: Re dissolution of the Pac-12, iirc the board of directors was the 12 university presidents. With rare exceptions (John Hennessy comes to mind), they are ill-equipped to run athletic programs.
Agreed, 100%. And not only are they ill-equipped to run the programs, some senior administrators are particularly discinclined to support the athletic part of the overall University mission and may, in fact, view top-flight athletics to be deleterious to the overall brand -- particularly football. Without persistent, consistent support over the years and decades, particularly at a program that faces the challenges that Stanford faces, the program will suffer and wither.
From my perspective, if it's worth doing at a place like Stanford, it's worth striving to be the best. And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
10-31-2024, 03:35 PM
(10-31-2024, 02:08 PM)Mick Wrote: ... And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
You don't know that, and I can't prove otherwise but I disagree. My guess is that it was true decades ago but at this point Stanford has a global brand as one of the world's leading universities and I don't have any sense that athletics has much to do with the number of applications it now receives. When you go to the bookstore and see it overrun with tourists, including many, many (!) Asian ones (including, anecdotally, the Hong Kong tourists looking to buy Stanford gear that happened to ask me for directions not too long ago), I'm confident that few are there due to athletics. No one applies to the Harvards, MITs and Yales for any "unique combination," and at this point I think that's true for Stanford.
(10-31-2024, 02:08 PM)Mick Wrote: ... And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
You don't know that, and I can't prove otherwise but I disagree. My guess is that it was true decades ago but at this point Stanford has a global brand as one of the world's leading universities and I don't have any sense that athletics has much to do with the number of applications it now receives. When you go to the bookstore and see it overrun with tourists, including many, many (!) Asian ones (including, anecdotally, the Hong Kong tourists looking to buy Stanford gear that happened to ask me for directions not too long ago), I'm confident that few are there due to athletics. No one applies to the Harvards, MITs and Yales for any "unique combination," and at this point I think that's true for Stanford.
10-31-2024, 03:40 PM
(10-31-2024, 03:35 PM)FarmTeam Wrote:(10-31-2024, 02:08 PM)Mick Wrote: ... And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
You don't know that, and I can't prove otherwise but I disagree. My guess is that it was true decades ago but at this point Stanford has a global brand as one of the world's leading universities and I don't have any sense that athletics has much to do with the number of applications it now receives. When you go to the bookstore and see it overrun with tourists, including many, many (!) Asian ones (including, anecdotally, the Hong Kong tourists looking to buy Stanford gear that happened to ask me for directions not too long ago), I'm confident that few are there due to athletics. No one applies to the Harvards, MITs and Yales for any "unique combination," and at this point I think that's true for Stanford.
I continue to believe that for students who are at the top, both academically and athletically, Stanford is their only choice.
(10-31-2024, 03:35 PM)FarmTeam Wrote:(10-31-2024, 02:08 PM)Mick Wrote: ... And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
You don't know that, and I can't prove otherwise but I disagree. My guess is that it was true decades ago but at this point Stanford has a global brand as one of the world's leading universities and I don't have any sense that athletics has much to do with the number of applications it now receives. When you go to the bookstore and see it overrun with tourists, including many, many (!) Asian ones (including, anecdotally, the Hong Kong tourists looking to buy Stanford gear that happened to ask me for directions not too long ago), I'm confident that few are there due to athletics. No one applies to the Harvards, MITs and Yales for any "unique combination," and at this point I think that's true for Stanford.
I continue to believe that for students who are at the top, both academically and athletically, Stanford is their only choice.
(10-31-2024, 03:35 PM)FarmTeam Wrote:(10-31-2024, 02:08 PM)Mick Wrote: ... And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
You don't know that, and I can't prove otherwise but I disagree. My guess is that it was true decades ago but at this point Stanford has a global brand as one of the world's leading universities and I don't have any sense that athletics has much to do with the number of applications it now receives. When you go to the bookstore and see it overrun with tourists, including many, many (!) Asian ones (including, anecdotally, the Hong Kong tourists looking to buy Stanford gear that happened to ask me for directions not too long ago), I'm confident that few are there due to athletics. No one applies to the Harvards, MITs and Yales for any "unique combination," and at this point I think that's true for Stanford.
There's actually a term for this in a paper you can find on the HBS web site. It's called "The Flutie Effect", named after Doug Flutie, the quarterback at Boston College. When Flutie threw a Hail Mary TD pass against the U. of Miami in the 1984, applications to Boston College shot up 30% within two years, 16% in 1984 (from 12,414 to 14,398) and another 12% in 1985 (to 16,163).
Similar effect at Gonzaga. Their undergrad population actually dropped from over 4,000 in 1990 to under 2,800 in 1998. That year, Gonzaga made the Elite Eight, and frosh enrollment jumped to 701. They had similar success in each of the next two NCAA tournaments and enrollment increased to 796 in 2000 and 979 in 2001. Their applications jumped, and their incoming student credentials increased from 3.54 gpa in 1998 to 3.71 in 2016. Median SAT rose from 1159 to 1290 in the same period, and undergrad enrollment in 2016/17 was 5,160 with more than 1,200 freshmen. There were similar measureable results at George Mason, Appalachian State, Boise State, Butler, Northern Iowa, Oregon, Auburn, Baylor, Virginia Commonwealth, Florida Gulf Coast, Wichita State, Texas A&M, Loyola of Chicago, Northwestern and Georgetown.
Georgetown's applications increased 45% between 1983 and 1986 after they made the national championship games in 1982 and 1985 and won it all in 1984. Northwestern's applications increased by 21% after winning the Big Ten in football in 1995.
Prof. Douglas Chung at the HBS wrote "The Dynamic Advertising Effect of Collegiate Athletics". Findings included:
- When a school rises from mediocre to great in football, applications increase by 18.7%.
- Athletic success leads to greater diversity and higher morale on campus.
- Notre Dame's increases in applications are consistent with their successful football seasons, same with Texas and Penn State.
- Biggest surprise of his research according to Chung? Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success.
- Schools become more academically selective with athletic success.
Quote from Prof. Chung's paper:
"One can see that when there is no significant change in football performance (near zero on the x axis), changes in the number of applications are minimal. However, when there is a substantial increase in football success (the right side of zero on the x-axis), applications increase substantially. In contract, when there are negative changes in football performance (the left sixde of zero on the x-axis) there is a decline in normalized applications."
Dr. Chung's paper:
Microsoft Word - Collegiate Athletics as a Tool for Advertising_Feb02_2013
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(10-31-2024, 03:35 PM)FarmTeam Wrote:(10-31-2024, 02:08 PM)Mick Wrote: ... And may I suggest that a not insubstantial portion of the high school seniors applying to Stanford are attracted by its very unique combination of extraordinary academics and athletics? Keeping a competitive football team in place keeps the acceptance rate ridiculously low and the yield ridiculously high.
You don't know that, and I can't prove otherwise but I disagree. My guess is that it was true decades ago but at this point Stanford has a global brand as one of the world's leading universities and I don't have any sense that athletics has much to do with the number of applications it now receives. When you go to the bookstore and see it overrun with tourists, including many, many (!) Asian ones (including, anecdotally, the Hong Kong tourists looking to buy Stanford gear that happened to ask me for directions not too long ago), I'm confident that few are there due to athletics. No one applies to the Harvards, MITs and Yales for any "unique combination," and at this point I think that's true for Stanford.
There's actually a term for this in a paper you can find on the HBS web site. It's called "The Flutie Effect", named after Doug Flutie, the quarterback at Boston College. When Flutie threw a Hail Mary TD pass against the U. of Miami in the 1984, applications to Boston College shot up 30% within two years, 16% in 1984 (from 12,414 to 14,398) and another 12% in 1985 (to 16,163).
Similar effect at Gonzaga. Their undergrad population actually dropped from over 4,000 in 1990 to under 2,800 in 1998. That year, Gonzaga made the Elite Eight, and frosh enrollment jumped to 701. They had similar success in each of the next two NCAA tournaments and enrollment increased to 796 in 2000 and 979 in 2001. Their applications jumped, and their incoming student credentials increased from 3.54 gpa in 1998 to 3.71 in 2016. Median SAT rose from 1159 to 1290 in the same period, and undergrad enrollment in 2016/17 was 5,160 with more than 1,200 freshmen. There were similar measureable results at George Mason, Appalachian State, Boise State, Butler, Northern Iowa, Oregon, Auburn, Baylor, Virginia Commonwealth, Florida Gulf Coast, Wichita State, Texas A&M, Loyola of Chicago, Northwestern and Georgetown.
Georgetown's applications increased 45% between 1983 and 1986 after they made the national championship games in 1982 and 1985 and won it all in 1984. Northwestern's applications increased by 21% after winning the Big Ten in football in 1995.
Prof. Douglas Chung at the HBS wrote "The Dynamic Advertising Effect of Collegiate Athletics". Findings included:
- When a school rises from mediocre to great in football, applications increase by 18.7%.
- Athletic success leads to greater diversity and higher morale on campus.
- Notre Dame's increases in applications are consistent with their successful football seasons, same with Texas and Penn State.
- Biggest surprise of his research according to Chung? Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success.
- Schools become more academically selective with athletic success.
Quote from Prof. Chung's paper:
"One can see that when there is no significant change in football performance (near zero on the x axis), changes in the number of applications are minimal. However, when there is a substantial increase in football success (the right side of zero on the x-axis), applications increase substantially. In contract, when there are negative changes in football performance (the left sixde of zero on the x-axis) there is a decline in normalized applications."
Dr. Chung's paper:
Microsoft Word - Collegiate Athletics as a Tool for Advertising_Feb02_2013
Audaces fortuna iuvat
11-01-2024, 07:52 AM
That is interesting, but not really helpful for persuading the Stanford administration to prioritize football since there is no lack of demand to attend Stanford, even when the football team sucks.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
11-01-2024, 08:30 AM
(11-01-2024, 07:52 AM)martyup Wrote: That is interesting, but not really helpful for persuading the Stanford administration to prioritize football since there is no lack of demand to attend Stanford, even when the football team sucks.
I'm thinking about additional applications at the margin. Stanford's acceptance rate is around 3.9%, fifth in the country (more or less). Take a look at this application trend. Notice anything interesting, perhaps a sharp increase in applications when Harbaugh and Shaw's early years are factored in? The university had decent increases during Willingham's tenure as well, but a sharp increase when Harbaugh had the first winning season in nine years, and then a sharper increase when they went 12-1. The increases persisted until 2016, when the football team started to nose over.
You can also see the same effect between Bill Walsh's successful years in the late 1970s, through John Elway, then they went down (actually declined) during the Jack Elway/Dennis Green years, then rose sharply again when Walsh returned.
undergraduate-admissions-1950-2023.pdf
I know, I know. Correlation ain't causation, I read that somewhere. Maybe it's just a heck of a coincidence.
Here's the question: is it better for the University to have a mediocre football team, a good football team or a great football team? Particularly considering the comparatively minor investment in football (relative to the University's annual expenditures).
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(11-01-2024, 07:52 AM)martyup Wrote: That is interesting, but not really helpful for persuading the Stanford administration to prioritize football since there is no lack of demand to attend Stanford, even when the football team sucks.
I'm thinking about additional applications at the margin. Stanford's acceptance rate is around 3.9%, fifth in the country (more or less). Take a look at this application trend. Notice anything interesting, perhaps a sharp increase in applications when Harbaugh and Shaw's early years are factored in? The university had decent increases during Willingham's tenure as well, but a sharp increase when Harbaugh had the first winning season in nine years, and then a sharper increase when they went 12-1. The increases persisted until 2016, when the football team started to nose over.
You can also see the same effect between Bill Walsh's successful years in the late 1970s, through John Elway, then they went down (actually declined) during the Jack Elway/Dennis Green years, then rose sharply again when Walsh returned.
undergraduate-admissions-1950-2023.pdf
I know, I know. Correlation ain't causation, I read that somewhere. Maybe it's just a heck of a coincidence.
Here's the question: is it better for the University to have a mediocre football team, a good football team or a great football team? Particularly considering the comparatively minor investment in football (relative to the University's annual expenditures).
Audaces fortuna iuvat
11-01-2024, 09:14 AM
Mick, thanks for posting the application research. Can you or someone else post donor history? I understand it also mirrors sports success.
Mick, thanks for posting the application research. Can you or someone else post donor history? I understand it also mirrors sports success.
I would not have applied to Stanford if it had not competed well in sports. I got nerd/grind grades but never missed a football game, tennis match or swim meet, and attended lots of basketball and baseball games. All school work and no play would have made Hulk a dull boy,
I would not have applied to Stanford if it had not competed well in sports. I got nerd/grind grades but never missed a football game, tennis match or swim meet, and attended lots of basketball and baseball games. All school work and no play would have made Hulk a dull boy,
11-01-2024, 09:29 AM
I agree that the Flutie Effect does increase desire by HS students to attend schools with winning football (and basketball) programs. I'm sure Stanford is no exception. However, the Stanford administration doesn't need more applicants. As Mick pointed out, Stanford only accepts about 3.9% of applicants. Maybe there would be an increase in the quality of the accepted applicants, but I think it would be minuscule.
I would bet that an appearance of College Game Day on a campus would also have a positive effect on demand to attend that school. Those broadcasts display the host schools as fun and brimming with school spirit.
I would bet that an appearance of College Game Day on a campus would also have a positive effect on demand to attend that school. Those broadcasts display the host schools as fun and brimming with school spirit.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
I agree that the Flutie Effect does increase desire by HS students to attend schools with winning football (and basketball) programs. I'm sure Stanford is no exception. However, the Stanford administration doesn't need more applicants. As Mick pointed out, Stanford only accepts about 3.9% of applicants. Maybe there would be an increase in the quality of the accepted applicants, but I think it would be minuscule.
I would bet that an appearance of College Game Day on a campus would also have a positive effect on demand to attend that school. Those broadcasts display the host schools as fun and brimming with school spirit.
I would bet that an appearance of College Game Day on a campus would also have a positive effect on demand to attend that school. Those broadcasts display the host schools as fun and brimming with school spirit.
Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip.
(11-01-2024, 09:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I agree that the Flutie Effect does increase desire by HS students to attend schools with winning football (and basketball) programs. I'm sure Stanford is no exception. However, the Stanford administration doesn't need more applicants. As Mick pointed out, Stanford only accepts about 3.9% of applicants. Maybe there would be an increase in the quality of the accepted applicants, but I think it would be minuscule.
I would bet that an appearance of College Game Day on a campus would also have a positive effect on demand to attend that school. Those broadcasts display the host schools as fun and brimming with school spirit.
My point wasn't that there would be an increase in quality of accepted applicants. My point was that the sports program in general and the football program in particular boosts the number of overall applicants, therefore reducing the acceptance percentage, a metric that the University considers to be particularly important. It's the same reason that MIT and CalTech reach out to students with really, really good math test scores along with students who have legitimately great scores. The really, really good students are unlikely to be accepted to MIT, but MIT needs their applications to reduce their acceptance percentages. To wit, I had a 710 on the math SAT in 1979, and MIT sent me a mailer. I was utterly mystified by the mailer...I was good at math, not great. I was headed for accounting, not engineering and would never have considered MIT -- nor would they have considered me.
Separately, the unique blend of Stanford athletics and academics may have a positive effect on yield, the percentage of admitted applicants who actually attend the university. Stanford's yield rate for the class of 2027 was 80.94%. Harvard's was 83.72%, Princeton's was 76.66% and Yale's was 70.37%. Another point of pride. Did the top-level athletics program have anything to do with it? Maybe. BTW, Cal's and USC's yield rates were almost identical at 44.97% and 44.89%, respectively. Santa Clara, the prototypical "out" school had a yield of 18.79%.
Yield Rates for the Class of 2028 | IvyWise
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(11-01-2024, 09:29 AM)martyup Wrote: I agree that the Flutie Effect does increase desire by HS students to attend schools with winning football (and basketball) programs. I'm sure Stanford is no exception. However, the Stanford administration doesn't need more applicants. As Mick pointed out, Stanford only accepts about 3.9% of applicants. Maybe there would be an increase in the quality of the accepted applicants, but I think it would be minuscule.
I would bet that an appearance of College Game Day on a campus would also have a positive effect on demand to attend that school. Those broadcasts display the host schools as fun and brimming with school spirit.
My point wasn't that there would be an increase in quality of accepted applicants. My point was that the sports program in general and the football program in particular boosts the number of overall applicants, therefore reducing the acceptance percentage, a metric that the University considers to be particularly important. It's the same reason that MIT and CalTech reach out to students with really, really good math test scores along with students who have legitimately great scores. The really, really good students are unlikely to be accepted to MIT, but MIT needs their applications to reduce their acceptance percentages. To wit, I had a 710 on the math SAT in 1979, and MIT sent me a mailer. I was utterly mystified by the mailer...I was good at math, not great. I was headed for accounting, not engineering and would never have considered MIT -- nor would they have considered me.
Separately, the unique blend of Stanford athletics and academics may have a positive effect on yield, the percentage of admitted applicants who actually attend the university. Stanford's yield rate for the class of 2027 was 80.94%. Harvard's was 83.72%, Princeton's was 76.66% and Yale's was 70.37%. Another point of pride. Did the top-level athletics program have anything to do with it? Maybe. BTW, Cal's and USC's yield rates were almost identical at 44.97% and 44.89%, respectively. Santa Clara, the prototypical "out" school had a yield of 18.79%.
Yield Rates for the Class of 2028 | IvyWise
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »