Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Article about Louisville's move to the ACC. Officials feel fortunate that the B12 decided against admitting them to the conference.

Also funny that the sole contact with the B12 by Louisville according to article was......wait for it......Deloss Dodds. Shocking.

Everything's been roses for ACC-bound Louisville after getting spurned by Big 12 - Yahoo! Sports

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Mr. SEC discusses setup of SEC Network. Sounds like they followed the B10 model.

So What Will The SEC’s New Network Mean For You?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Article about Louisville's move to the ACC. Officials feel fortunate that the B12 decided against admitting them to the conference.

Also funny that the sole contact with the B12 by Louisville according to article was......wait for it......Deloss Dodds. Shocking.

Everything's been roses for ACC-bound Louisville after getting spurned by Big 12 - Yahoo! Sports

FTFA:

Jurich and president James Ramsey lobbied their peers within the league, particularly working on the kingpins at Texas and Oklahoma. Basketball coach Rick Pitino – who in his gut had no interest in coaching in Lubbock, Ames and other Big 12 locales – reached out to Bill Self at Kansas, seeking support. U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a Louisville alum and fan, put in a word with former Senate colleague David Boren, now president at Oklahoma.

Yet again, MBBF's inferiority complex over DeLoss Dodds shines through.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yet again, MBBF's inferiority complex over DeLoss Dodds shines through.

The only thing inferior to Deloss Dodds is the moderating on this message board.

[Young Drachma]

Loyola Chicago heading to the MVC to replace Creighton. Huge come-up for them. Davidson likely headed from the SoCon to the A10.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Loyola Chicago heading to the MVC to replace Creighton. Huge come-up for them. Davidson likely headed from the SoCon to the A10.

I'm a bit surprised UMKC didn't wait for that MVC spot. Seems like a great fit for that conference.

[Butter]

Wow, Loyola? That seems like a reach. Their basketball has been... terrible for decades now. They haven't even made the tournament since '85.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Wow, Loyola? That seems like a reach. Their basketball has been... terrible for decades now. They haven't even made the tournament since '85.

I think the idea was they wanted a metro team and to get someone who wouldn't pull a Butler, get good and then leave the year after. So they got a safety school in a major market. It was UIC or Loyola or Valpo, not sure what Valpo didn't get the nod.

But again, these decisions aren't about competitiveness.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit surprised UMKC didn't wait for that MVC spot. Seems like a great fit for that conference.

They got a visit a few weeks ago. They were passed over.

[britrock88]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

Loyola Chicago heading to the MVC to replace Creighton. Huge come-up for them. Davidson likely headed from the SoCon to the A10.

A Chicago school with some history is a nice add for the MVC; hope the Ramblers get up to snuff with the rest of the conference. As for Davidson, didn't they turn down a CAA invite a few months ago? I remember their rationale being something like "we like being a big, smart fish in a small pond." To be fair, the combination of 1) an invite from the A10, a much more prestigious conference, and 2) Appalachian State and Georgia Southern chasing football into the Sun Belt, will probably help Davidson move on. Good for them.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit surprised UMKC didn't wait for that MVC spot. Seems like a great fit for that conference.

Err... their WAC move was essentially a concession that they couldn't/didn't want to hack it in the Summit, as far as I read it.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Young Drachma

I think the idea was they wanted a metro team and to get someone who wouldn't pull a Butler, get good and then leave the year after. So they got a safety school in a major market. It was UIC or Loyola or Valpo, not sure what Valpo didn't get the nod.

But again, these decisions aren't about competitiveness.

I understand, but DePaul barely pulls viewers from Chicago, I really don't think this will make the media ripple they think it will.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I understand, but DePaul barely pulls viewers from Chicago, I really don't think this will make the media ripple they think it will.

In conferences like that, it's not really about tv money because they're never going to get that. It's as simple as "it's easier to travel there for teams by bus and it's a place people would rather visit, so coaches have an easier time recruiting to a league with a major city in it than a league with small towns. When Wichita is your biggest market, that's understandable."


It's simply a psychological thing and probably other intangibles like comfortability, good fit and the structure of the athletic department not being run by a bunch of fuckoffs.

The idea is essentially like starting a relationship, especially for teams that probably aren't going anywhere.

All seems silly from the outside looking in, but the calculus on these things at that level can be nebulous. What's funner is, when you consider realignment at the D3 level and how it happens.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by britrock88

As for Davidson, didn't they turn down a CAA invite a few months ago? I remember their rationale being something like "we like being a big, smart fish in a small pond." To be fair, the combination of 1) an invite from the A10, a much more prestigious conference, and 2) Appalachian State and Georgia Southern chasing football into the Sun Belt, will probably help Davidson move on. Good for them.

I think that may have been Davidson politely declining an invitation to a conference in the CAA they thought was (or at least might be, and has now proven to be) a sinking ship.

[Buccaneer]

By Dave Tobin | [email protected] The Post-Standard
Email the author
on April 17, 2013 at 5:09 PM, updated April 17, 2013 at 7:10 PM


Email

View/Post Comments
For Syracuse University to leave the Big East Conference and join the Atlantic Coast Conference, it has to pay the Big East a $7.5 million exit fee. But what part of the university should pay it?

The university’s trustees say the cost should be shared by the whole university - every school, every revenue-generating entity such as its office of housing and meal plan, as well as the athletics department.

Wednesday afternoon, at the final University Senate meeting of the year, members of its budget committee recommended that SU's athletics department alone should pay the exit fee.

The chief reason? Syracuse’s athletics program stands to make far more money from its annual conference payout, which comes from conference television contracts.

“At a time when the University is (fiscally) challenged, asking the entire university to bear the cost of the exit fee so that coaches’ salaries and facilities for athletics may be improved does not align with the core academic mission of the University,” the budget committee’s resolution read.

Published estimates of conference payouts for 2012 cited average Big East payouts as $3.18 million per year and ACC payments of $16 million. Those figures “are not inconsistent” with estimates the university provided the budget committee, said Craig A. Dudczak, budget committee chairman.

Syracuse University won't disclose exactly how much revenue it gets from the Big East, or what it expects to get from the ACC.

The University Senate is mostly an advisory body and has no authority to make spending decisions for SU.

Syracuse University will leave the Big East this July. The university has already paid at least 20 percent of its $7.5 million exit fee.

Syracuse's everyone-share-the-payment approach is different from at least one other school that left the Big East – West Virginia University.

Michael Parsons, deputy athletics director at West Virginia, said the athletics department there paid an exit fee of nearly $10 million to the Big East with money it borrowed from the Big 12 Conference, which it joined last July. West Virginia’s loan will be “paid down” through reduced payments from the Big 12 in its first years of membership.

"There were no university funds whatsoever,” said Parsons.

Syracuse University's budget is a virtual watershed of income streams, with each revenue-generating entity paying a roughly 21 percent tax, called an administrative and support charge, to a common fund, which supports programs without revenue, like security, the chancellor's office and the library.

A second pool of money helps balance revenue programs that lose money. The athletics department is one.

"Most people believe that athletics generates money and helps support the university. That's not so," said Robert van Gulick, a member of the University Senate budget committee. “You’ve got 35 or 40 sports and only two of them (football and men’s basketball) are making money. Athletic scholarships are paid by financial aid, which is entirely financed by schools and colleges. If the athletics department had to pay for athletic scholarships, they’d be bankrupt.”

The university administration argues the present shared payment plan is best, said Kevin Quinn, a university spokesman, in an email.

Syracuse University will “recoup” its Big East exit payment through increased ACC payments to the athletics department in less than three years, he wrote. By 2016, through the “tax” the athletics department pays, roughly an additional $9 million a year will flow to the university’s common fund.

The university administration also argues that membership in the ACC will increase Syracuse University’s visibility nationally, help it recruit students and faculty from the south and west and affiliate Syracuse with quality research institutions.

But members of the University Senate budget committee weren’t swayed by the administration’s argument.

“We have no data to back up claims that it will help recruitment,” said Van Gulick. "Athletics are being treated differently."

Both Van Gulick and the budget committee chairman, Dudczak, noted the disagreement did not signal a split between athletics and academics at the university.

"We're supportive of athletics," said Van Gulick. "We think it's a good thing. What people are upset about is that athletics is a net taker. They take out more than they put in."

It is incredulous to me that anyone would ask the whole university to help pay the exit fee when nearly all of the benefits will be given to the athletic department. If it were up to me, all extra revenues from being in the ACC should be distributed to the academic colleges and not to the AD. What does having a bigger training center have to do with the university?

[molson]

Maybe they should just shut down those pesky departments that don't make money like the library, and security, and use all that money for the athletic program. And honestly, does the school need a history department? Close that down, use that money for football.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It is incredulous to me that anyone would ask the whole university to help pay the exit fee when nearly all of the benefits will be given to the athletic department. If it were up to me, all extra revenues from being in the ACC should be distributed to the academic colleges and not to the AD. What does having a bigger training center have to do with the university?

Forget where the money to pay the exit fee comes from, but it is well proven that excellent athletic teams raise the entire profile of a university. It increases the number of applicants, in some cases by multiples. A large pool of candidates from which to select students raises the academic profile of a school.

On a side note, the old training facilities go to the non-revenue athletes and the general student population for intramurals.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Forget where the money to pay the exit fee comes from, but it is well proven that excellent athletic teams raise the entire profile of a university. It increases the number of applicants, in some cases by multiples. A large pool of candidates from which to select students raises the academic profile of a school.

On a side note, the old training facilities go to the non-revenue athletes and the general student population for intramurals.

And how well would the athletic programs fare without the university?

Edit: And maybe applications go up somewhat if the football team plays in a shit bowl instead of no bowl at all, but I doubt the students who make enrollment decisions based on that are the ones that improve a university's "academic profile."

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Marmel

it is well proven that excellent athletic teams raise the entire profile of a university.

Well, that's only true if the university was a nobody before (i.e. BC before Flutie, Miami before Schnellenberger). Syracuse has had winning basketball for years now, so I don't think the ACC will do anything to raise its profile. That said, the increased payouts in the ACC will at least reduce the athletic department's dependence on the rest of the university to cover its budget deficits.

[cuervo72]

Seriously. When I applied to schools, I didn't go "hmm, which of these have good football and basketball teams?" I asked "which schools have a high academic profile and are strong in my intended major?" I didn't know Hopkins had a lacrosse team, I wasn't aware of RPI's hockey team, I didn't care about Virginia Tech's football team. Penn? Please. Brown? Ha!*

I knew a lot of smart kids who went to Penn State. It has a good honors program. And! We lived in Pennsylvania! I knew kids who went to E-town, Shippensburg, Muhlenberg, F&M...because they were also relatively close-by. I knew kids who went to Lehigh, Lafayette, Temple, Villanova. A couple went to Towson. A couple to Cornell. I don't think any of them went because of their powerhouse sports teams.

(edit: there was a guy who went to Princeton to wrestle. And I forgot we also had a Yaley.)

* I admit that I really, really wanted to go to Duke. This was after I visited and realized that holy shit, the campus is gorgeous. And it was despite having hated the Blue Devils in the '80s.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Seriously. When I applied to schools, I didn't go "hmm, which of these have good football and basketball teams?" I asked "which schools have a high academic profile and are strong in my intended major?"

I've known a lot of people who eliminated schools because of the lack of a D1 football program, and some who've done so because of the lack of a successful D1 program. That's a rather large part of the "college experience" for a fairly large number of people.

That said though, the real impact would be on lower profile schools being able to draw applicants from outside their geographic area. The simple awareness that a particular school even exists is heightened considerably by athletic success (Florida Gulf Coast being the latest example I guess).

[cuervo72]

I can see it being a regional thing I guess. Near Philly, if you really cared about football THAT much, you just went to Penn State. But of course that was already going to be the fallback option (or the economic option).

By-and-large, the kids in my classes...they weren't really that into sports. Some followed the local pro teams, sure. For many of them, sports weren't even on the radar. I mean, we were nerds. Colleges were for academics. Other friends who played sports weren't good enough for major programs, but they could play at the smaller state/D3 schools.

[Klinglerware]

Yeah, it's a regional thing. Few people really care all that much about college football in the northeast. If college football mattered up here, we'd still have a Big East

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I can see it being a regional thing I guess. Near Philly, if you really cared about football THAT much, you just went to Penn State. But of course that was already going to be the fallback option (or the economic option).

You raise another possible regional difference too. In my mind, I'd say that PSU is basically the nearest equivalent of UGA (or vice versa). But here UGA is the school that nearly everyone* staying in state tries desperately to get into, not the fallback.

The only kids who have UGA as a fallback are the relative handful who want to go elsewhere out of state but either don't get in or ultimately can't swing the cost difference of going out of state.

*that isn't looking at something in the engineering field

[cuervo72]

Well yeah, fallback for those who may have really wanted to go to Princeton or MIT or Caltech and either just didn't have the means or didn't get in, and even the it was the honors program there. The top 10% of class 1200+ SAT types.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yeah, it's a regional thing. Few people really care all that much about college football in the northeast. If college football mattered up here, we'd still have a Big East

+1. I don't even recall anyone in my high school class who went to a school due to their football team.

[britrock88]

I'll admit that all 8 colleges I got into as a HS senior have D1 football teams. Maybe I could have looked at more small, private schools with deemphasized athletics. But I ended up going in-state, anyway--tuition, honors prgm, so on. The awesome team (basketball) had nothing to do with it.

[Abe Sargent]

When I was looking for grad schools in 1999, my top two choices outside of WVU were Syracuse and Virginia Tech, in part because they were in the Big East and good schools.

[sterlingice]

I think we can finally change the title of this thread

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

+1. I don't even recall anyone in my high school class who went to a school due to their football team.

Didn't have many attend SEC schools I gather.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Didn't have many attend SEC schools I gather.

They probably actually wanted to get a degree in an academic subject instead of getting a degree in pep rallies.

[cuervo72]

I wish I had a list with the alma maters of my HS class - I can't think of anyone who went to an SEC school, though with a class of 575, there must have been someone.

[molson]

Whether a school has a lot of big time sports programs can definitely be an enrollment decision factor, because that can be one of the fun things about college, but that's the difference between Muhlenberg and Penn St, or Colgate and Syracuse. What annoys me is when its used as the justification for ANY additional support given to the athletic programs. An extra few million to an already big athletic program isn't going to cause your school to jump up the US News rankings.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

They probably actually wanted to get a degree in an academic subject instead of getting a degree in pep rallies.

In no shortage of cases, I wouldn't argue that point.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I wish I had a list with the alma maters of my HS class - I can't think of anyone who went to an SEC school, though with a class of 575, there must have been someone.

That's be interesting for my high school, too. Tho I think of the 520, probably half went to college and another half of those went to either UT or A&M

SI

[Buccaneer]

I went to Carolina in the mid-1980s. The first year, I went to a few basketball games at Carmichal and the next year, at dean dome. If I didn't go or if they did not exist, I would've gone to the movies instead. Same thing with football games, I should've spent more time driving around the region on fall weekends. Point is, movie theaters were just as viable of a diversion and they didn't impact my fees or took resources away from department. As far as my fellow grad students, the only ones that cared were the locals and some the long timed, old professors. But they knew how to play the so-called students-athletes charade and made up grades so they could milk Jordan or other athletes for money.

[Marmel]

I thought all this was common knowledge. Successful sports teams increase alumni donations to both the athletic department and the university general fund. The more successful the more donations. Sometimes a very successful sports team is the only thing that keep alumni connected to their university. Just because you (or one specific person) did not choose a school partially based on their athletic program does not mean that a huge number of students did not.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I thought all this was common knowledge. Successful sports teams increase alumni donations to both the athletic department and the university general fund. The more successful the more donations. Sometimes a very successful sports team is the only thing that keep alumni connected to their university. Just because you (or one specific person) did not choose a school partially based on their athletic program does not mean that a huge number of students did not.

I'd strongly argue that successful sports teams are also the biggest thing that keeps the voting public connected to universities. You know, the ones who elect the people in charge of the tax purse strings.

[molson]

So if the athletic department doesn't have to cover the $7.5 million exit fee, how much will that improve the school's academic profile, as opposed to if the academic side of the university got to retain that money? How do we measure that? The debate here isn't whether Syracuse should do away with their big time sports programs. I get that sports are important to a university, that's obvious. But that doesn't justify the athletic department getting their way in every single budget debate. I mean, the academic side of the university also has something to do with the academic profile of the school, I think.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by molson

So if the athletic department doesn't have to cover the $7.5 million exit fee, how much will that improve the school's academic profile, as opposed to if the academic side of the university got to retain that money? How do we measure that? The debate here isn't whether Syracuse should do away with their big time sports programs. I get that sports are important to a university, that's obvious. But that doesn't justify the athletic department getting their way in every single budget debate. I mean, the academic side of the university also has something to do with the academic profile of the school, I think.

Oh, I agree that the athletic department should foot the bill, or at least 80-90% of it.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I thought all this was common knowledge. Successful sports teams increase alumni donations to both the athletic department and the university general fund. The more successful the more donations. Sometimes a very successful sports team is the only thing that keep alumni connected to their university. Just because you (or one specific person) did not choose a school partially based on their athletic program does not mean that a huge number of students did not.

Sure, but I think it only helps to a certain extent. And in the cases of many of these schools, you're going to have tons of applicants anyway. I mean, most of the SEC schools are huge public universities - that's going to be a default for many, many students. Like Penn St is for kids from all around PA. Even if they don't intend on going there, most are going to apply.

What I'm not sure about is to what extent - and this is how I read your initial argument - the sports teams raise the profile of the school from an academic standpoint. Yes, Boise St. is now on the map because of its football team. I don't know that anyone thinks of it as a fine academic institution because of it. It's not going to be cracking the US News top 50 anytime soon, I don't think. Schools like Stanford, Duke, Vandy, (Georgetown, GA Tech, UM, etc) are on the list because they have long been well-regarded.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'd strongly argue that successful sports teams are also the biggest thing that keeps the voting public connected to universities. You know, the ones who elect the people in charge of the tax purse strings.

Private universities (and superrich-ass mayors) FTW.

[Marmel]

I live here, so I have watched this happen over the past 20 years (and I despise the team), but the rise of Uconn as a school coincides with their basketball program(s). 20 years ago this was a small, old fashioned campus in the middle of nowhere. Now...well it is still in the middle of nowhere, but the changes are just unreal. Uconn was barely a blip on the radar in my high school, but now everyone at least applied if they live in CT.

How 'Cow College' UConn Became Campus of Champions - New York Times

[Logan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

What I'm not sure about is to what extent - and this is how I read your initial argument - the sports teams raise the profile of the school from an academic standpoint. Yes, Boise St. is now on the map because of its football team. I don't know that anyone thinks of it as a fine academic institution because of it. It's not going to be cracking the US News top 50 anytime soon, I don't think. Schools like Stanford, Duke, Vandy, (Georgetown, GA Tech, UM, etc) are on the list because they have long been well-regarded.

Rutgers' football program lucked into the Big Ten, which got the school into the CIC consortium. It's already a pretty strong research institution, but this could (should) knock it up a peg or two over time.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Didn't have many attend SEC schools I gather.

Someone may have, who knows?

We had a few folks go to Penn State, but I don't think it was for the football program. I think one guy went to Boston College and someone went to UVa. More than a few of us when to Rutgers (and that was back when Rutgers was the pits of college football).

[cartman]

I think the only non-BCS conference school I was accepted to that I even halfway considered attending was Pepperdine. That campus was amazing, right above the beaches of Malibu.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I live here, so I have watched this happen over the past 20 years (and I despise the team), but the rise of Uconn as a school coincides with their basketball program(s). 20 years ago this was a small, old fashioned campus in the middle of nowhere. Now...well it is still in the middle of nowhere, but the changes are just unreal. Uconn was barely a blip on the radar in my high school, but now everyone at least applied if they live in CT.

How 'Cow College' UConn Became Campus of Champions - New York Times

Ok, UConn is a pretty nice success story. But I think they have a ways to go - even per the article:

UConn officials have said they want to be compared to the University of California, Berkeley, and state universities in Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia. According to the State Department of Higher Education, however, test scores, research spending and other factors place the school in line with schools like Louisiana State University, Rutgers University in New Jersey, and the Universities of Iowa, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee and West Virginia.UConn's primary competition for students comes from Boston College, Boston University, Syracuse University and Rutgers, according to Mr. Austin.

I'd put them at the "solid state schools" level. I don't know why they weren't there before, but I guess in that area there is a lot of competition. But in looking at something like endowment - which is relevant if we're talking donations - it is still FAR behind BC and BU; UConn is listed as having $306M in 2011, compared to $1.2B for BU and $1.76B for BC (Syracuse listed at $914M)*.


* yeah ok, they're private so I guess maybe that's not totally fair

[molson]

And how much money does it take to guarantee a UConn-like basketball jump? Is it even possible to guarantee such a thing? If the University of Rhode Island goes on a huge basketball run right now, wins a few championships, gets to a bunch of final fours, it will definitely help out all aspects of the school. So how much money should they divert from academics (and/or taxpayers) to get that? Would a $25 million dollar windfall into the athletic program guarantee that kind of jump? That's basically the argument. That these athletic departments should be supported by the schools (and by the taxpayers in the case of public schools), because it can really help out the school as a whole. It's such a tenuous connection though. It seems hiring the right coach gives you the same odds or better.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Seriously. When I applied to schools, I didn't go "hmm, which of these have good football and basketball teams?" I asked "which schools have a high academic profile and are strong in my intended major?" I didn't know Hopkins had a lacrosse team, I wasn't aware of RPI's hockey team, I didn't care about Virginia Tech's football team. Penn? Please. Brown? Ha!*

I knew a lot of smart kids who went to Penn State. It has a good honors program. And! We lived in Pennsylvania! I knew kids who went to E-town, Shippensburg, Muhlenberg, F&M...because they were also relatively close-by. I knew kids who went to Lehigh, Lafayette, Temple, Villanova. A couple went to Towson. A couple to Cornell. I don't think any of them went because of their powerhouse sports teams.

(edit: there was a guy who went to Princeton to wrestle. And I forgot we also had a Yaley.)

* I admit that I really, really wanted to go to Duke. This was after I visited and realized that holy shit, the campus is gorgeous. And it was despite having hated the Blue Devils in the '80s.

Even something as simple as name recognition is important. I've heard of maybe half those schools. If I'm a guy who doesn't live in your area, but would consider going to school there, I'd probably be more likely to dismiss the schools I haven't heard of. And the only reason I've heard of any of those schools in your 2nd paragraph is sports.

[Marmel]

molson, I don't think we can know exactly what impact it has, but take Syracuse as an example. They were a good basketball school when they hired Boeheim and built the Carrier Dome. Then they became a great school. Things were really great for a long time. Then they built the Melo center, one of the premier basketball facilities in the country. Their recruiting has been on another level the last 5 years and it can be directly attributed to the Melo Center.

Why wasn't Boeheim pulling in these players and in the numbers that he has before the Melo center? The title help, sure, but the recruits themselves are awed by the Melo Center. Put Boeheim in a place with no facilities (Rutgers?) and he doesn't have nearly the same success going forward.

So my point, yes you can hire a great coach, but you can't get to that next level, normally, without the buildings.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

And how much money does it take to guarantee a UConn-like basketball jump? Is it even possible to guarantee such a thing? If the University of Rhode Island goes on a huge basketball run right now, wins a few championships, gets to a bunch of final fours, it will definitely help out all aspects of the school. So how much money should they divert from academics (and/or taxpayers) to get that? Would a $25 million dollar windfall into the athletic program guarantee that kind of jump? That's basically the argument. That these athletic departments should be supported by the schools (and by the taxpayers in the case of public schools), because it can really help out the school as a whole. It's such a tenuous connection though. It seems hiring the right coach gives you the same odds or better.

RI athletics already gets 17.5 mil a year in subsidies from the university.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1