82SiouxGuy Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 That is not empirical evidence. Please try citing a source with fact. The fact is that schools use advertising on sports broadcasts to attract new students. But again, I don't have time to go and find the numbers to try and satisfy some anonymous poster on the internet. The numbers are out there and you can find them yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 Spin around all you want but all of you were DaveKs and Fetchs not that long ago. Yes I would say Hak et al flip-flopped like a fish that jumped out of the tank. It is not going to drag the unversity down, just the sports. Would that really be such a major loss? Look at Minnesota and their lousy sport teams, and scandals, and the university lives on. Really Skippy, Not even close, you sound like some of the people on S.A.B. that said Hakstol changed his mind because he didn't have a contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 That is not empirical evidence. Please try citing a source with fact. http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/03/11/athletic-success-boosting-academic-awareness-the-marketing-merits-of-march-madness/ The question has been asked before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 http://www.forbes.co...-march-madness/ The question has been asked before. Thanks, homer. I knew the numbers were out there but didn't have a lot of time available to go find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homer Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Thanks, homer. I knew the numbers were out there but didn't have a lot of time available to go find it. No problem. Your story was the exactly the same as this article but apparently since it wasn't published it carried no merit. I'm sure the guy who wrote the Forbes artcle knew we'd come looking and is just using these numbers as scare tactics. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 11, 2012 Author Share Posted April 11, 2012 The school uses sports to market the University, especially in the Twin Cities. So yes, they would probably lose students. I don't work for UND so I don't have specific data. I do know one thing, College Hockey makes a lot of money for the University of North Dakota... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Sports can be divorced from most colleges? http://www.freakonom...and-basketball/ The Kahane study deals with the dollar impacts of D1 hockey. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I do know one thing, College Hockey makes a lot of money for the University of North Dakota... And all the other sports eat it up leaving a very small net profit. It was not that long ago that the athletic department was seriously in the red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Every last one of them sold their souls. The athletic dept. may still be alive and well at each school, but that isn't the point. The fact of the matter is that they turned their back on their heritage, which is the ultimate display of dishonor. PS - It isn't "my" soul that I was referring to, it is the soul of the UND athletic programs. To tell UND they can't be the Sioux anymore is like telling Motey Crue they can't be a rock band anymore. UND, you have to play under a different nickname = Motley Crue, you have to change to either rap or country music. That is about how absurd this situation is, to make an abstract analogy. That's a terrible analogy and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Let me make this as clear as I possibly can... I hate the idea of UND football and hockey teams existing with a nickname other than Sioux attached to them. The very thought of it makes me nauseous. No nickname I could tolerate as an absolute worst case scenario, but a new nickname is a dealbreaker. That is how I feel, and I am very passionate about it. I'm sorry if you have a problem with that, but I refuse to change who I am or what I stand for to please you or anybody else for that matter. And this is why people don't take you seriously. Which part of the name came first? The University of North Dakota or Fighting Sioux? Which part of the name has never changed? University of North Dakota or the nickname that comes after it? Which part of the name will always be the same? (Hint, the answer is University of North Dakota for all three). The fact that you continue to think that changing a team's nickname means that it ceases to exists despite nothing else change is absurd. Again, UND won titles as the Flickertails and those are still counted the same as those won as the Fighting Sioux. How many NCC football titles do you credit to the football team? 22 or 24? Or should it be split again since some of those 22 were won as the Sioux and and some as the Fighting Sioux? Just because that happened before you were alive doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is infinitely times bigger than you and what you stand for, quite trying to pretend it is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 And all the other sports eat it up leaving a very small net profit. It was not that long ago that the athletic department was seriously in the red. Being in the red is very common in college athletics. From http://californiawat...sing-money-4121: In the Football Bowl Subdivision, formerly known as Division I-A, the number of athletic programs with surpluses for the 2009 fiscal year dropped by nearly half, from 25 in 2007 and 2008 to 14 in 2009.That is out of 120 programs. Football Championship Subdivision programs fare worse: No athletic programs in this division, formerly known as Division I-AA, reported surpluses in 2009. Only 2 percent of football programs, 6 percent of men's basketball programs, and 2 percent of women's basketball programs reported surpluses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UNDColorado Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 And what has it done for Gonzaga or NDSU? Explain how destroying the athletic department would hurt UND? Not random statements but empirical evidence. Will the university lose grant funding? Will the university lose students or potential students? Will profesors not be published? If you were a prospective student and you had narrowed your choices down to a school that has little to no athletics and a school with a strong athletic program, which one would you choose? I know I would have chosen the school with athletic events that I could attend. (keep in mind that in this example both schools are equals academically) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayduke Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The athletic dept. may still be alive and well at each school, but that isn't the point. No, that IS the point. One that you will never get. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 If you were a prospective student and you had narrowed your choices down to a school that has little to no athletics and a school with a strong athletic program, which one would you choose? I know I would have chosen the school with athletic events that I could attend. (keep in mind that in this example both schools are equals academically) I really do not think that is as important at what type of scholarship money, comfort level, and close to home as a sports team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I do know one thing, College Hockey makes a lot of money for the University of North Dakota... The Lincoln Stars make more money than UND does from sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The Lincoln Stars make more money than UND does from sports. You're comparing a USHL team to an entire athletic department? A school must sponsor 14 sports (minimum) for NCAA DI membership. Not all of the sports are going to turn a profit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I really do not think that is as important at what type of scholarship money, comfort level, and close to home as a sports team. People choose colleges for a lot of reasons. A big one that you didn't mention is field of study. But there are a lot of similar opportunities. A lot of students in the Twin Cities want to go to school out of town, but within a certain range. They could choose from UND, NDSU, SDSU, USD, St. Cloud, Duluth, Mankato, Southwest Minnesota, plus all of the smaller schools like Moorhead, Concordia, St Johns, etc. If they want to go into teaching, or business, or another similar major, then other factors enter into the discussion. They would probably get similar financial aide from many of the schools I listed. A lot of kids want to go somewhere they can have some fun. Attending sporting events can be a major social event for the students. And as some of the other posts have noted, having successful sports teams help get the potential students attention. So having sports isn't the most important factor for attracting students, it is an important factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 The Lincoln Stars make more money than UND does from sports. I'm not sure what your point is. As tSic mentions, you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm pretty sure that the Minnesota Wild makes more money than either UND or the Lincoln Stars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I really do not think that is as important at what type of scholarship money, comfort level, and close to home as a sports team. But the empirical data you asked for show it is a noteworthy factor that should not be disregarded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 You're comparing a USHL team to an entire athletic department? A school must sponsor 14 sports (minimum) for NCAA DI membership. Not all of the sports are going to turn a profit. OK they make more money than the hockey team does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 OK they make more money than the hockey team does. They are in business to make money. That isn't the main goal for a college team. And the college teams have expenses that a Jr. team doesn't, like scholarships for the student-athletes. I would guess that those expenses are higher for a college team than any similar educational expenses would be for the Jr. team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watchmaker49 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 They are in business to make money. That isn't the main goal for a college team. And the college teams have expenses that a Jr. team doesn't, like scholarships for the student-athletes. I would guess that those expenses are higher for a college team than any similar educational expenses would be for the Jr. team. And you are saying that colleges are not in it for the money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 they soon will be just for Alumni & students Admin & teachers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 And you are saying that colleges are not in it for the money? Didn't you see my post above? Almost all schools lose money on athletics. Less than half make money on hockey, and that is one of the more profitable sports on campus. If they were in it for the money they are doing it wrong. College athletics are a completely different business model than a for profit business like a Jr. hockey team or a sporting goods store. Most schools would be happy if the athletic department was at break even. The colleges benefit by using it as an activity for students, using it as a marketing tool, and using it to attract donations from donors which are often alumni. And not all the donations end up in the athletic department. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 they soon will be just for Alumni & students Admin & teachers Don't worry Fetch, plenty of people will continue to support UND even if you quit. But it only makes sense that the group you identified would have a stronger connection to the school than people that just like the sports teams, or the people that worship a nickname and logo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.