Athletics marketing stats
June 6, 2019
Dr. Champagne said that "In the modern 21st century university an intercollegiate athletic program is sine
qua non. It is a major source of branding, marketing and publicity for a major public
research flagship Tier I university. Intercollegiate athletics programs at a Land
Grant university are the institution’s gift to the citizens of the state and city
where that university is located.
Sports economists and marketing experts have opined that an intercollegiate athletics
program generates millions of dollars’ worth of advertising, marketing and publicity
not only for the university but for the state, region and the institution’s academic
and research programs.
In the 21st century it would be a grave mistake for any leader worth his or her weight
in gold to cut and eliminate an intercollegiate athletics program at a Land Grant
university. The so-called savings would be illusionary. For example, the university
would lose at UAF over 150 students, and probably upwards of 5,000 credit hours, and
the negative publicity that would result would impact the university’s ability to
enroll students, attract faculty and scholars, and it may even impact the university’s
ability to land major research grants and projects going forward. "
I can see this being true for the schools that are popular enough to have nationally
televised or regularly sold out sporting events (e.g. Ohio State and University of
Alabama college football, March Madness basketball teams, etc), but I have difficulty
believing that the advertising and publicity benefits to UAF outweigh the costs.
I also am not sure that I agree with the idea that losing 150 students and 5000 credit
hours is relevant to the argument. It might be, if athletes weren't fully funded
for the duration of their academic career, but since they aren't paying for those
classes anyway, it seems like it would be a wash financially. Using Spelman college
as an example, it doesn't look like there was any impact on enrollment or graduation numbers since their decision to cut NCAA in
Nov 2012 and divert those funds to wellness programs for the student body as a whole. Speaking
of student wellness, with the rates of depression and substance abuse in Alaska and
the indisputable impact that it has on education generally speaking and higher education
in specific, it seems like funding sports for a select few over wellness initiatives
for the many is a misplaced idea.
To disabuse us of that notion, can you provide references/citations to back up the
assertions in your original reply, please? Providing sources that specifically speak
to the tangible and intangible benefits to institutions similar in size to UAF would
be ideal.