|
Post by jh on Mar 27, 2015 9:01:09 GMT -5
Also, even if it was non-scholarship you will be spending at least $250,000 a year to operate the program. The question is, could you use that money to hire some more people for admissions, or invest in more advertising and outreach programs, that would yield ten to twenty more students (male and female) that are interested in what SBU already offers? If you can, then spending the money to launch a program would not be a wise use of resources. Pinnum....40 paying students at say 15k/year = 600k Now add in the brother or sister who attend because they've been exposed to the campus...5 x15k = 75k thats 675k coming in and paying out 250k = 425k annual net gain How else might you compute?
|
|
|
Post by kcSBU03 on Mar 27, 2015 9:09:26 GMT -5
Well, the off season sure came at us early. This is usually July talk.
|
|
|
Post by Bona84 on Mar 27, 2015 9:23:53 GMT -5
The football talk is right around the corner.
|
|
|
Post by Bona84 on Mar 27, 2015 9:25:26 GMT -5
It's amazing that Paschall potentially leaving Fordham brought up the lacrosse discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Pinnum on Mar 27, 2015 9:35:35 GMT -5
Also, even if it was non-scholarship you will be spending at least $250,000 a year to operate the program. The question is, could you use that money to hire some more people for admissions, or invest in more advertising and outreach programs, that would yield ten to twenty more students (male and female) that are interested in what SBU already offers? If you can, then spending the money to launch a program would not be a wise use of resources. Pinnum....40 paying students at say 15k/year = 600k Now add in the brother or sister who attend because they've been exposed to the campus...5 x15k = 75k thats 675k coming in and paying out 250k = 425k annual net gain How else might you compute? Let's assume your math is correct. Spend $250k a year. And you hire people to look for talented male Lax players and offer a schedule for these players to compete. The coaches will want to recruit talented players that will improve their team. They will also spend a lot of time developing the talent on the field and traveling to away games. Let's say a third of their time is spent on recruitment. You will have a roster cap, that is a fact. We haven't even addressed the issues with Title IX (I assume, for expediency, the school will use the proportionality prong to determine compliance). But let's not address that major issue right now. So you have a coaching staff that is being paid full-time salaries to recruit students for a third of their time working, they are looking for male athletes interested in one sport, and are only interested in roughly ten new additions a year (but will give some other interested athletes the chance to try to prove themselves in tryouts). We all know that a roster size and recruiting class is static. Coaches are not going to keep recruiting once they hit their targets so you're not looking at any additional athletes to be filled by the staff. Additionally, they are spending a large amount of money on gear, athletic training resources, administration, in addition to taking these students away from the general student population due to their training and travel schedules which costs money and more resources. So let's say your data is correct. 40 paying students at say 15k/year = 600k Now add in the brother or sister who attend because they've been exposed to the campus...5 x15k = 75k thats 675k coming in and paying out 250k = 425k annual net gain Could $250k be spent, not to attract 10 male Lax players that will not bring recognition to the school but to attract 10 students that are interested in what SBU offers as a place to study, grow, and build community? Could you end up with a scenario where you found one program that yielded good results in attracting students and you wouldn't have to turn away people because there wasn't a roster spot available for them? Could you end up with 30 or 40 students being attracted to the school? What would the difference be if you didn't hire a coaching staff to spend a third of their time attracting men interested in lax but rather, for the same money, hired staff that would work full time on the recruitment of students both men and women who are interested in government, math, science, writing, and teaching. What would the difference be to the community if you didn't spend money taking students off campus for a road trip to play Richmond (which spends nearly a million dollars a year on mens LAX) but instead those recruited students stayed on campus and built community--maybe even going to basketball games. You won't need the added requirements of admins and athletic staff that will distract from basketball and you won't need your professors working with yet another group of athletes making special accommodations for what they missed in class. Maybe rather than getting a group of students that will pay to be able to call themselves D1 athletes while they lose a bunch of games in a sport they enjoyed in high school you will land a few talented and academically focused students. If you compare the two, I think you see that the potential with lax is static and requires more resources. Personally, I would rather pay an admissions person to go to a large Long Island high school with many prospective students than pay a coach to go to the school (many fewer times) to find one or two male athletes that will help him win in a game that is not popular in the communities surrounding the school and is not expected to attract much fan interest.
|
|
|
Post by jh on Mar 27, 2015 9:48:44 GMT -5
Pinnum....40 paying students at say 15k/year = 600k Now add in the brother or sister who attend because they've been exposed to the campus...5 x15k = 75k thats 675k coming in and paying out 250k = 425k annual net gain How else might you compute? Let's assume your math is correct. Spend $250k a year. And you hire people to look for talented male Lax players and offer a schedule for these players to compete. The coaches will want to recruit talented players that will improve their team. They will also spend a lot of time developing the talent on the field and traveling to away games. Let's say a third of their time is spent on recruitment. You will have a roster cap, that is a fact. We haven't even addressed the issues with Title IX (I assume, for expediency, the school will use the proportionality prong to determine compliance). But let's not address that major issue right now. So you have a coaching staff that is being paid full-time salaries to recruit students for a third of their time working, they are looking for male athletes interested in one sport, and are only interested in roughly ten new additions a year (but will give some other interested athletes the chance to try to prove themselves in tryouts). We all know that a roster size and recruiting class is static. Coaches are not going to keep recruiting once they hit their targets so you're not looking at any additional athletes to be filled by the staff. Additionally, they are spending a large amount of money on gear, athletic training resources, administration, in addition to taking these students away from the general student population due to their training and travel schedules which costs money and more resources. So let's say your data is correct. 40 paying students at say 15k/year = 600k Now add in the brother or sister who attend because they've been exposed to the campus...5 x15k = 75k thats 675k coming in and paying out 250k = 425k annual net gain Could $250k be spent, not to attract 10 male Lax players that will not bring recognition to the school but to attract 10 students that are interested in what SBU offers as a place to study, grow, and build community? Could you end up with a scenario where you found one program that yielded good results in attracting students and you wouldn't have to turn away people because there wasn't a roster spot available for them? Could you end up with 30 or 40 students being attracted to the school? What would the difference be if you didn't hire a coaching staff to spend a third of their time attracting men interested in lax but rather, for the same money, hired staff that would work full time on the recruitment of students both men and women who are interested in government, math, science, writing, and teaching. What would the difference be to the community if you didn't spend money taking students off campus for a road trip to play Richmond (which spends nearly a million dollars a year on mens LAX) but instead those recruited students stayed on campus and built community--maybe even going to basketball games. You won't need the added requirements of admins and athletic staff that will distract from basketball and you won't need your professors working with yet another group of athletes making special accommodations for what they missed in class. Maybe rather than getting a group of students that will pay to be able to call themselves D1 athletes while they lose a bunch of games in a sport they enjoyed in high school you will land a few talented and academically focused students. If you compare the two, I think you see that the potential with lax is static and requires more resources. Personally, I would rather pay an admissions person to go to a large Long Island high school with many prospective students than pay a coach to go to the school (many fewer times) to find one or two male athletes that will help him win in a game that is not popular in the communities surrounding the school and is not expected to attract much fan interest. Pinnum if you have a net gain you do it...... why wouldn't you? why not do both if hiring more recruiters bring in more students than their salary costs??
|
|
|
Post by tastylicks on Mar 27, 2015 10:04:04 GMT -5
it's really a shame we don't have a men's lacrosse program. We are in such a hot bed!!
-Denver University, Ranked #5 in the entire nation- best player is from Steamburg. A bike ride away from Bona's campus -Syracuse #1 in the entire nation, 90+% of the roster is made up of local NY kids. Lacrosse is huge in Rochester right now. Rochester is already a big bona city.
Its almost like not having a basketball program despite being right across the street from all the top prep schools
|
|
|
Post by Pinnum on Mar 27, 2015 10:22:36 GMT -5
Pinnum if you have a net gain you do it...... why wouldn't you? why not do both if hiring more recruiters bring in more students than their salary costs?? No, it is much more complicated. You don't add an expensive program that distracts from your core mission in order to entice a few potential students. Do you think you could bring in 10 additional kids that are already accepted to SBU but decide to go elsewhere if you just raised their aid package $6k a year for their four years? That would do the same thing and would cost the same amount of money. How much attention did womens lax bring this last year when they were sitting at the bottom of D1? How about mens soccer when they were sitting amoung the bottom of D1? How much attention and respect do you think will be given to a Bonnies program that is launched with no expectation to be able to compete simply to attract tuition dollars? That is not how you get people to respect the school. Sure, I have seen it work at D3 schools because they can play other low level programs and they don't care what talent level they attract but you're not going to find any low level programs in D1 and you're not going to find more than a few players D1 talent (same as we see with some other Bonas programs at time). In D1 you will find talented teams that will down the Bonnies regularly while no one sits in the stands. That is detrimental to the mission.
|
|
|
Post by jh on Mar 27, 2015 10:38:18 GMT -5
Pinnum if you have a net gain you do it...... why wouldn't you? why not do both if hiring more recruiters bring in more students than their salary costs?? No, it is much more complicated. You don't add an expensive program that distracts from your core mission in order to entice a few potential students. Do you think you could bring in 10 additional kids that are already accepted to SBU but decide to go elsewhere if you just raised their aid package $6k a year for their four years? That would do the same thing and would cost the same amount of money. How much attention did womens lax bring this last year when they were sitting at the bottom of D1? How about mens soccer when they were sitting amoung the bottom of D1? How much attention and respect do you think will be given to a Bonnies program that is launched with no expectation to be able to compete simply to attract tuition dollars? That is not how you get people to respect the school. Sure, I have seen it work at D3 schools because they can play other low level programs and they don't care what talent level they attract but you're not going to find any low level programs in D1 and you're not going to find more than a few players D1 talent (same as we see with some other Bonas programs at time). In D1 you will find talented teams that will down the Bonnies regularly while no one sits in the stands. That is detrimental to the mission. Pinnum I am not talking D1 - I am talking non-scholarship sport that would attract students because they love their sport but not good enough to get a D1 full ride. We would player other non-scholarship schools. Kids will choose a college because they have club hockey for example. They are also attending to take say accounting but they pick your accounting school because accounting dept are similar caliber but you offer an extra activity the other does not. Obviously you dont want to be attracting players who would attend SBU anyways
|
|
|
Post by Pinnum on Mar 27, 2015 10:49:20 GMT -5
So you are not saying lax should be a varsity sport but rather a club sport? What other non-scholarship teams do you want to play?
You do know based on your math, having a Pioneer League football team with fellow A10 members Dayton and Davidson would make more sense. Though I don't think you're advocating for the addition of football...
|
|
|
Post by jh on Mar 27, 2015 11:04:31 GMT -5
So you are not saying lax should be a varsity sport but rather a club sport? What other non-scholarship teams do you want to play? You do know based on your math, having a Pioneer League football team with fellow A10 members Dayton and Davidson would make more sense. Though I don't think you're advocating for the addition of football... I would advocate ANY non-schlarship sport that attracted in more tuition revenue than it cost to provide the sport. Key is to make sure as best you can you truly are targetting students/areas who otherwise would not be attending SBU Students must stay in good academic standing and follow normal admissions process Sports that would provide the highest net gain would be top of the list
|
|
|
Post by Pinnum on Mar 27, 2015 11:14:44 GMT -5
So you are not saying lax should be a varsity sport but rather a club sport? What other non-scholarship teams do you want to play? You do know based on your math, having a Pioneer League football team with fellow A10 members Dayton and Davidson would make more sense. Though I don't think you're advocating for the addition of football... I would advocate ANY non-schlarship sport that attracted in more tuition revenue than it cost to provide the sport. Key is to make sure as best you can you truly are targetting students/areas who otherwise would not be attending SBU Sports that would provide the highest net gain would be top of the list That would launching a football program and joining the Pioneer League while playing a non-conference schedule against a local NEC team like Robert Morris, St Francis, or Duquesne while playing Cornell. I would rather investigate and address reasons why SBU is not in demand with students and look to make corrections rather than changing the culture in an effort to find some quick fixes to attract students. But if you want to add a sport to attract students and fill seats while being able to recruit outside the area while having the local communities interested, football is the best bet.
|
|
|
Post by fjs64 on Mar 27, 2015 11:38:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jh on Mar 27, 2015 11:57:48 GMT -5
I would rather investigate and address reasons why SBU is not in demand with students and look to make corrections rather than changing the culture in an effort to find some quick fixes to attract students. But if you want to add a sport to attract students and fill seats while being able to recruit outside the area while having the local communities interested, football is the best bet.
Why would we not do BOTH (add a revenue generating sport & look at reasons we can do better) if each one nets more revenue ?
|
|
|
Post by sbu79 on Mar 27, 2015 12:04:42 GMT -5
Maybe we need to add a 2nd squad to get those extra students. This discussion reminds me of my former employer. For many years, the quest for quick revenue boosters led them to pursue numerous "add-on" alliances and deals rather than spending the equivalent time/money enhancing the core business. The add-ons turned out to cost more than predicted, brought in less incremental revenue than promised and, in general, became distractions from the what the real business was. It didn't turn out well in the end.
|
|