Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest #1Stunner

OT: University of Tulsa Athletic Dept budget cuts

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, jdgaucho said:

SGF, going off that chart San Jose State and New Mexico State would have the 4th largest budget if either returned to the BW.  I didn't expect Cal Poly to be ahead of those two.  

If the two would be fourth highest, one would thing the BW would be pleased to be able to get either of them. That particularly applies to SJSU since travel would be so simple for all current members except Hawaii. Even for Hawaii, traveling to the Bay Area should be much easier than to Las Cruces.

Boom goes the dynamite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SleepingGiantsFan said:

If:

1. A chain is truly only as strong as its weakest link; and

2. The Pac aspires to be as strong as the other four power conferences; then

3. Oregon State and Washington state should be cut out of the chain.

Except just about all P5 conferences have perrenial bottom feeders. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, soupslam1 said:

Except just about all P5 conferences have perrenial bottom feeders. 

This, Oregon State and Washington State have stronger programs than schools like Iowa State, Kansas, Wake Forest, Duke, etc. Every conference has its deadweight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2018 at 6:36 AM, Victor Maitlin said:

 

Look, I can actually respect somebody saying, "I want my college to have big time sports and I don't care what it costs."  That's at least intellectually honest.  It's this bullshit argument that dumping all that money into athletics is somehow the best way to move the university forward academically that's a loser.

No need to rationalize putting $ into athletics.   It is the smartest investment a university can make.    Hands down.   There is a reason why it is done by most all of our major universities.  It is the safe bet.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, slappy said:

No need to rationalize putting $ into athletics.   It is the smartest investment a university can make.    Hands down.   There is a reason why it is done by most all of our major universities.  It is the safe bet.  

Are you being sarcastic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slappy said:

No not at all.

So you're saying that a million dollars pumped into a money losing athletic department helps academics more than a million dollars spent directly on things like better faculty, scholarships for better students or academic facilities?  I seriously can't even begin to unwrap that level of stupid.  Tell me again what an academic powerhouse Wyoming has become due to all their athletic subsidies.

SteelCityBlue

November 24th, 2018 at 9:10 PM ^

I'm looking forward to a new head coach who isn't a cud-chewing autistic retard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Victor Maitlin said:

So you're saying that a million dollars pumped into a money losing athletic department helps academics more than a million dollars spent directly on things like better faculty, scholarships for better students or academic facilities?  I seriously can't even begin to unwrap that level of stupid.  Tell me again what an academic powerhouse Wyoming has become due to all their athletic subsidies.

I think you are having a hard time because you would like the university athletic department and academic departments separately considered.  But when you look at an university and the community that supports it you will find that the two are really intertwined.  Business, alumni and fans can seamlessly accept athletics and their university as a single entity.  I rarely if ever hear folks talk much about new engineering buildings going up.  But I hear people from all walks of life talking about the football program.  I see people from all walks of life tailgating etc.   Athletics are an important aspect of not only the society we live in but the universities our children attend.  Every dollar spent is well worth the investment.  This is a long haul investment.  Children and their children will be cowboy fans, season ticket holders etc.   It is foolish to think otherwise.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sports provide great loyalty to universities. Sports fans and former players are some of the highest contributors to universities.

The advertising value can be viewed with simple questions. Would you know there is a university in Norman, Oklahoma if OU did not play football? Would you know Alabama has a university if the school did not play football?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, slappy said:

No not at all.

wow. I'd much rather my school spend money on academics, profs, and classrooms/ dorms.

not as many people pay attention to college athletics as you think.

if the atheltic programs come close to funding themselves fine and /or the students are willing to pay the athletics fees in their tuition also fine.

 

 

cerified_Subarus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think both perspectives are correct - but it depends on whether alumni/fans/media dollars support the athletic program or whether funds that could be used for academics are diverted to athletics.  Boise State is a great example of how tapping into alumni and fans obtains private money that can't be spent on academics.  Bronco alumni should be self-aware enough to know that academic reputation still matters quite a bit on a resume and understand that they don't want the university to sacrifice its core mission in order to have an athletic program.

I agree with @Victor Maitlin that it is misguided to think money which could be spent on academics (publicly appropriated tax payer funds) would have a higher return by being spent on athletics.  San Jose State currently spends the highest percentage of institutional funds on athletics and still has one of the lowest overall budgets due to alumni not supporting Spartan athletics similar to other FBS institutions; lack of success creates negative feedback where alumni and fans don't support athletics with donations and the cycle becomes self perpetuating. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, since1670 said:

Sports provide great loyalty to universities. Sports fans and former players are some of the highest contributors to universities.

The advertising value can be viewed with simple questions. Would you know there is a university in Norman, Oklahoma if OU did not play football? Would you know Alabama has a university if the school did not play football?

Yea, the advertising works... if you are a college football fan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Lester_in_reno said:

wow. I'd much rather my school spend money on academics, profs, and classrooms/ dorms.

not as many people pay attention to college athletics as you think.

 

 

If you want to evaluate who has the pull and who has the money just look at where the $ is spent.  It is not by accident and it is not a mistake.  Obviously your statement is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, slappy said:

If you want to evaluate who has the pull and who has the money just look at where the $ is spent.  It is not by accident and it is not a mistake.  Obviously your statement is wrong.

Wait, what are you saying Victor is "wrong" about? Are you saying that folks donate and spend more on athletics than academics? If so, you're phucking high. Also, at the most prestigious academic institutions in the US, athletics are an afterthought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Wait, what are you saying Victor is "wrong" about? Are you saying that folks donate and spend more on athletics than academics?

I am saying that every $ spent on athletics is wise.  

Regarding your other statement.  Think in terms of $ spent per student.  Where do student athletes stand in comparison to students?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slappy said:

I am saying that every $ spent on athletics is wise.  

Regarding your other statement.  Think in terms of $ spent per student.  Where do student athletes stand in comparison to students?

For my entertainment, yes; for the University, not so much. Are you saying it's wiser for a school to spend money on a new stadium versus a new library? 

What does $ per student have to do with anything. I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, renoskier said:

Are you saying it's wiser for a school to spend money on a new stadium versus a new library? 

Like anything it would be determined by individual circumstances.   They are different everywhere.   But all things being equal investing in your athletic program is a proven model that engages business and the community.   I am not making this stuff up and it is not just my opinion.   Look around.  Do you not see the obvious trend that has taken place over the past 75 years.  Athletic infrastructure is a priority for a reason.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, since1670 said:

Sports provide great loyalty to universities. Sports fans and former players are some of the highest contributors to universities.

The advertising value can be viewed with simple questions. Would you know there is a university in Norman, Oklahoma if OU did not play football? Would you know Alabama has a university if the school did not play football?

My favorite is, who would have heard of a small, Catholic U in South Bend, Indiana if they didn't play FB?  Or what if Pepperdine pushed FB in the 30's instead of USC?  The front page of our local on line version of the paper always has Wolf Pack sports news, the new library not so much.  Why is Ohio St known all across the country but Ohio U not so much?  Having said that, I agree, it's not the University's mission to entertain us but the marketing value can't be denied.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wolfan8431 said:

My favorite is, who would have heard of a small, Catholic U in South Bend, Indiana if they didn't play FB?  Or what if Pepperdine pushed FB in the 30's instead of USC?  The front page of our local on line version of the paper always has Wolf Pack sports news, the new library not so much.  Why is Ohio St known all across the country but Ohio U not so much?  Having said that, I agree, it's not the University's mission to entertain us but the marketing value can't be denied.  

So then why do the schools with the largest endowments, for the most part, not have great sports programs? Sure there are some schools with strong athletics that have huge endowments, but for the most part the list is dominated by academic powerhouses that, if they even compete at the D1 level, have marginal athletic programs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...