Rumored salary for Schmidt draws ire of faculty

[spils84]

treedoyle said:

"A football program would be a disasterous waste of scarce resources. I'd much rather see a serious and professional effort to market the current athletic programs before even thinking about beginning a new one."

alumnussbu, don't try to use rational arguments. They don't work when it comes to FB. See spils84.

Actually, that is not a rational argument, rather an opinion formed from an apparent limited knowledge of how intercollegiate athletics are used to attract students.

Because it's Thursday, let me give you my best Dwight Schrute voice:

Question: Why does non-scholarship football work at St. John Fisher College, but it would be disastrous at Bonas?

Fact: Universities add athletic and academic programs in order to increase enrollment and allow for greater resources. If it looks as though a particular program will waste or deplete resources, it won't happen. Fortunately, none of the posters on this board, myself included, will be responsible for making such a decision.

There's nothing on my horizon except everything...

[sburizz]

How many colleges are there that do not have athletics at all? Not too many and that is because athletics draw higher enrollments. I'm not saying that SBU should start adding sports teams right now but when the time is right it is a good idea. But seriously can we talk about something else we just hired a new coach, held onto our three primary recruits, what is our biggest need going into the season? I think we need to get better rebounding from our big men.

[TransplantedBonnie]

Dear Meatheads,

Here is a realisitc picture of what happens five years after SBU starts football and endures five straight losing seasons.



They call this the Bandwagon for a reason!

Regards,
Reasonable SBU Alums & Fans

[blazermaniac5]

Was this picture taken at the Reilly Center in the past couple of years? That caption would explain the basketball mess that SBU was in.

[treedoyle]

"Fact: Universities add athletic and academic programs in order to increase enrollment and allow for greater resources. If it looks as though a particular program will waste or deplete resources, it won't happen."

The latter is just not true. Very few teams actually make money (think BCS football and some basketball programs as ones that turn a profit due to sponsorships, ticketing, merchandise, etc.). It's well known amongst collegiate athletics that virtually every program loses money because of the resources it takes to support student athletes.

And I'll Shrute right back: Question -- Why did Siena discontinue its football program?

I'll leave it at that because it seems like this thread is losing steam and getting us nowhere.

Just know this: I'm right, and it's okay for you to be wrong.

[sneakers]

alumnussbu said:

BTW...enrollment at SBU exploded during the 60s and 70s....at one point close to 3,000 students. The goal for admissions over theb next 5 years should be a solid 2.500 undergraduate student enrollment. What's attracting increased freshman interest this time around is better facilities (Shay, Hickey, Delaroche) and an admissions department that is finally starting to do its job.

alumnussbu

When was the last time you visited college campuses? Do you really think that we can rely on Shay, Hickey and Delaroche to attract students and increase our enrollment? After years of neglect, we are making some incremental improvements, but nothing compared to our competition. You live near Rochester, right? Take a drive over to Hobart College or University of Rochester and it will give you an idea of the types of facilities that really impress prospective students.

I'm glad that we are moving in the right direction with facility upgrades, but those buildings are not going to result in 1,000 more students coming to SBU.

[sneakers]

softintheo said:

Please quit acting like sports are the only things that attract students.

Here's 8 examples of why this is wrong:

Brown Bears
Columbia Lions
Cornell Big Red
Dartmouth Big Green
Harvard Crimson
Penn Quakers
Princeton Tigers
Yale Bulldogs

Now of course we aren't Ivy League, but my point is that sports are only one piece of a college's marketing strategy

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I've ever seen. Do you think we compete in any way with the schools on this list?

Also, by the way all of these schools have a football team, a men's lacrosse team, a field hockey team, an ice hockey team, a track and field team, a volleyball team, etc. They actually DO attract students that want to play these sports.

And, please tell me what poster said that adding athletics was the silver bullet to the problems the school faces? Of course is it only one piece of a college's marketing strategy. Who said otherwise? Some paper tiger you invented?

Get a clue.

[sneakers]

treedoyle said:

"A football program would be a disasterous waste of scarce resources. I'd much rather see a serious and professional effort to market the current athletic programs before even thinking about beginning a new one."

alumnussbu, don't try to use rational arguments. They don't work when it comes to FB. See spils84.

Tree

You are a pretty close-minded guy. Nobody said that improving our current athletic programs, improving our academic offerings or improving the shool's marketing is a bad idea. Lots needs to be done though and these ideas are not mutually exclusive.

You can be against football without personally attacking those that think it may be one of the things we can do to improve our attractiveness to potential students.

I can assure you that Spils84 wants what is best for SBU.

[sneakers]

treedoyle said:

Very few teams actually make money (think BCS football and some basketball programs as ones that turn a profit due to sponsorships, ticketing, merchandise, etc.). It's well known amongst collegiate athletics that virtually every program loses money because of the resources it takes to support student athletes.

This statement is overly-simplifying a complicated issue. As often is the case, the answer is "it depends".

If a college has all the students that it wants to have and is turning away applicants by the thousands I think you look at the profitability of the sports programs by comparing revenues (ticket sales), verses expenses of running the program. I agree with you that in such cases there are very few profitable sports programs at colleges.

However, if you are a college that is failing to draw enough tuition paying students such that the school is spreading its fixed costs over a student body that is smaller than they would like, there is a different profitability equation. In such a situation, the tuition that is being paid by the athletes is not merely replacing tuition that would be paid by students that they are replacing. They are actually providing incrementally new revenue that would not be there if we did not have the specific sports program that drew them (say men’s lacrosse). If these incrementally new students are increasing the number of total students at the school, you need to factor in the $30,000+ of new revenue per student into the equation to determine whether the program is profitable to the university.

Most of the expenses that a college has are fixed costs and do not fluctuate as long as the total number of students falls between a particular band. For SBU, I think the costs of running the school are primarily fixed costs within the band of say 1,800 to 2,500 students. These fixed costs include the salaries of professors, the utilities, the salaries of administrators, janitors, cafeteria employees, etc. If we grew above 2,500 students or so there would be probably be more costs of hiring faculty and building new dorms, etc. Right now, however we are underutilizing the current number of professors and the facilities. Adding new students right now will not have much costs associated with it. There will, of course, be some increase in cost of feeding these students, and perhaps adding a couple professors here and there, but the incremental costs are low.

Thus, if you take say 20% of the new incremental tuition revenue and allocate it to the cost of running the new men's lacrosse program you still have 80% of the tuition money to be used to address the fixed costs of running the university. In such a case, adding the new program would actually be very profitable to the school (and that is not factoring such things as the marketing exposure the teams brings, or the future alumni donations that will follow). It doesn't matter at all if a single ticket is sold as the increased tuition revenue would make the move profitable in itself.

This equation would work for several sports and until the number of students reaches the upper level of the band and until the school is turning away a substantial number of tuition paying students.

[keystone]

sneakers said:

Who said otherwise? Some paper tiger you invented?

Get a clue.

In his defense it was a sweet paper tiger.


I think his point is these schools don't rely on sports for enrollment and don't need to. That is not saying we shouldn't have realistic sports like these schools do but improvements in our academic reputation can be just as beneficial to a University as athletics. I think the goal for everyone is to improve both, there are just differences on what mix is right.

[koab]

Sneakers series of posts should be pinned so the nonthinking can learn from them.

And I echo your Go Sox from the other day.

[treedoyle]

"Thus, if you take say 20% of the new incremental tuition revenue and allocate it to the cost of running the new men's lacrosse program you still have 80% of the tuition money to be used to address the fixed costs of running the university. In such a case, adding the new program would actually be very profitable to the school (and that is not factoring such things as the marketing exposure the teams brings, or the future alumni donations that will follow). It doesn't matter at all if a single ticket is sold as the increased tuition revenue would make the move profitable in itself."

I'm sorry Sneakers but this is just not true. There's a reason that colleges and universities across the country cut sports like lacrosse, swimming, gymnastics, etc. There's no money in those programs -- direct or indirect -- period. The normal student takes up an already-allocated part of a university budget. Student-athletes, on the other hand, require a much higher percentage of funding due to coaches, equipment, insurance, travel, etc., and it is extremely difficult to recoup those costs, especially when your athletics department doesn't already make enough money through its revenue sports (which are football and basketball -- and yes, it is that simple to say that most programs don't make money because by and large, athletics departments have to raise a large portion of money to fund its own ventures).

Don't confuse my argument against football for not wanting best for SBU. In many of my posts I have thrown out things that I believe could help SBU increase enrollment (however correct or incorrect they may be). But simply adding sports -- especially football -- is not the answer.

There's easier ways to attract 75 more students than simply constructing a football team. As for lacrosse, great sport, great guys, was fun when SBU had it, but just not worth it. If it were financially beneficial, it never would have gone away.

Did anyone on the bandwagon come to SBU because it had lacrosse? Anyone come because of its powerhouse MBB program? Sure, successful athletics can be a tremendous boon, but SBU and tremendous athletics will never be synonymous. We need to develop and increase our student base and endowment through means attractive to most common denominator of students. And in my humble opinion, that's not athletics.

[sburizz]

I don't know who said before that Siena dropped their football programs because they were losing money. While it is true that they were losing money they were losing money in the athletic department not overall. Siena made a strategic decision that because of the high demand to be a student at Siena they would actually be driving down the quality of education by having a football team. Treedoyle I am with you in thinking that Football is not a good idea at least at this point but you are not making a good case for yourself. Say what you will but I think the best way to increase enrollment is to have a highly successful basketball team and very good academics. Townie had it right that adding majors would also be a phenominal way of adding enrollment. But just as some students come to a college because of a major, students also come because of a sport. I know dozens of people I graduated high school with who attended a school because they could play college football, basketball or lacrosse. Attend a recruiting event and I can guarantee that you will be asked nearly as many athletics questions as academic.

[koab]

I know this is difficult for you, but the sports being cut are programs with scholarships while these examples relate to non-scholarship programs.

Parents pay for kid to go to school and while they are they are attending, they play the sport. Think of it like adding a new major, but because of the small numbers needed to make it work the outcome is a more certain.

Football is often mentioned because of the numbers involved it has the largest single impact. Also the most complex to put together.

If you add more paying sports, some schools charge students for a sports fee in lieu of ticket purchases. Generate much more income that way.

[treedoyle]

I agree with you sburizz. But some people see simply adding sports as THE answer. It's not.

And yes, successful athletics can draw people to your university. But that draw is fleeting, as is athletics success. Look no further than UMass for proof of that. Conversely, strong academic programs, attractive student-life options, etc., is much easier to keep constant than building and maintaining the type of athletics program that makes money.