USA Today article on rising pay for college coaches


#1

Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”


#2

[quote=“UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083”]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?


#3

[quote=“UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083”]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]
What catches my eye is taking stock in comments made by someone who has their part in racking up a record 1.42 trillion dollar budget deficit for the last fiscal year (which was more than triple the record deficit the year before). ::slight_smile:


#4
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

"According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality."


What catches my eye is taking stock in comments made by someone who has their part in racking up a record 1.42 trillion dollar budget deficit for the last fiscal year (which was more than triple the record deficit the year before). ::slight_smile:

Why do you bother to post here if all your going to do is attack others. Have you even offered one positive comment since you’ve been posting here. ::slight_smile:


#5

But the government knows all! How dare you question the murderer of millions and the thief of billions of dollars!


#6
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?


#7
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.


#8
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

Interesting point about athletic success and school stature. I had dinner last night with a elderly long-term high ranking Golden Panther and another friend. This fellow is a ~itter thru and thru and thru!The other person made that point about ~itt winning hoop team helping the school academic profile. Surprisingly the Golden Panther did not agree and was unhappy with the amount of salary paid to Dixon and Wanny. …Interesting if you know the people.


#9
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

Interesting point about athletic success and school stature. I had dinner last night with a elderly long-term high ranking Golden Panther and another friend. This fellow is a ~itter thru and thru and thru!The other person made that point about ~itt winning hoop team helping the school academic profile. Surprisingly the Golden Panther did not agree and was unhappy with the amount of salary paid to Dixon and Wanny. …Interesting if you know the people.

I certainly think winning sports programs can have a positive impact for a university/college. One financial impact that the study might not have looked at is how many more people applied to/attended Rutgers after their football program reached a higher level of national prominence when they started winning. However, I don’t think when Rutgers spent a ton of money to upgrade their football program, that they justified the spending by discussing how it a better football practice facility would help them move up the academic rankings.

Now, I just looked at the original quote and it says academic quality. I guess that could have a different meaning that what I originally took it to mean.


#10

How does more people applying for the same number of seats have a positive financial impact for a school?


#11
[quote="NICU, post:9, topic:1083"]I certainly think winning sports programs can have a positive impact for a university/college. One financial impact that the study might not have looked at is how many more people applied to/attended Rutgers after their football program reached a higher level of national prominence when they started winning.[/quote]

How does more people applying for the same number of seats have a positive financial impact for a school?

Sorry - I meant future students applying to the school. Not sports fans applying to get football tickets.

In the scenario you brought up, increasing the demand on a fixed supply probably leads to higher prices. I don’t know Economics and tried to sound smart there. Probably didn’t work.

Also want to say I heard the Cal AD speak on the radio once and she basically said the revenue they pull from football and basketball is used to fund all the other sports programs. If that holds true at most universities, I would think the goal of increasing revenue for one of those two sports would be to improve the athletic department.


#12
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]
What catches my eye is taking stock in comments made by someone who has their part in racking up a record 1.42 trillion dollar budget deficit for the last fiscal year (which was more than triple the record deficit the year before). ::slight_smile:

Why do you bother to post here if all your going to do is attack others. Have you even offered one positive comment since you’ve been posting here. ::slight_smile:

:-*

#13
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

The study don’t say that $1 spent = $1 earned. They say a net $1 spent = a net $1 earned. There is a difference.

In all but a handful of cases, college athletic programs are spending already MORE money than they are earning. Schools are operating at a deficit. What the studies are saying is that colleges can’t spend their way out of that deficit because they will only earn a dollar back for every additional dollar spent.

As far as improving a school’s academic standing, I think the argument goes that spending more on coaches, facilities, etc. would result in a higher profile, and perhaps more winning, athletic program. That in turn translates into more students applying to the school. If more students apply, a school can be more selective in who they take. If they can be more selective, they can take better students and build up the school’s academic standing.


#14
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

The study don’t say that $1 spent = $1 earned. They say a net $1 spent = a net $1 earned. There is a difference.

In all but a handful of cases, college athletic programs are spending already MORE money than they are earning. Schools are operating at a deficit. What the studies are saying is that colleges can’t spend their way out of that deficit because they will only earn a dollar back for every additional dollar spent.

As far as improving a school’s academic standing, I think the argument goes that spending more on coaches, facilities, etc. would result in a higher profile, and perhaps more winning, athletic program. That in turn translates into more students applying to the school. If more students apply, a school can be more selective in who they take. If they can be more selective, they can take better students and build up the school’s academic standing.

Yeah, that all makes sense. I was kind of thinking that in my last post - how in a roundabout kind of way it might have a positive impact, though I think it would take a very long time and lots of sustained winning for athletics to have the impact suggested, which is why it doesn’t.

In the above scenario I would replace the word “spending” with “winning”. Stupid spending doesn’t do anything for a school. Only a winning football/basketball program will have a positive impact on the university. I do think it is hard to win without spending, but spending does not necessarily equal winning, which was the point I was making before. Nobody should think that the troubles will be corrected simply by spending more.


#15
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

The study don’t say that $1 spent = $1 earned. They say a net $1 spent = a net $1 earned. There is a difference.

In all but a handful of cases, college athletic programs are spending already MORE money than they are earning. Schools are operating at a deficit. What the studies are saying is that colleges can’t spend their way out of that deficit because they will only earn a dollar back for every additional dollar spent.

As far as improving a school’s academic standing, I think the argument goes that spending more on coaches, facilities, etc. would result in a higher profile, and perhaps more winning, athletic program. That in turn translates into more students applying to the school. If more students apply, a school can be more selective in who they take. If they can be more selective, they can take better students and build up the school’s academic standing.

Yeah, that all makes sense. I was kind of thinking that in my last post - how in a roundabout kind of way it might have a positive impact, though I think it would take a very long time and lots of sustained winning for athletics to have the impact suggested, which is why it doesn’t.

In the above scenario I would replace the word “spending” with “winning”. Stupid spending doesn’t do anything for a school. Only a winning football/basketball program will have a positive impact on the university. I do think it is hard to win without spending, but spending does not necessarily equal winning, which was the point I was making before. Nobody should think that the troubles will be corrected simply by spending more.

Take a look at schools like South Florida or Florida International. I’m sure that they justified putting all the money into their football programs as a way of eventually improving their academic standing.


#16
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

The study don’t say that $1 spent = $1 earned. They say a net $1 spent = a net $1 earned. There is a difference.

In all but a handful of cases, college athletic programs are spending already MORE money than they are earning. Schools are operating at a deficit. What the studies are saying is that colleges can’t spend their way out of that deficit because they will only earn a dollar back for every additional dollar spent.

As far as improving a school’s academic standing, I think the argument goes that spending more on coaches, facilities, etc. would result in a higher profile, and perhaps more winning, athletic program. That in turn translates into more students applying to the school. If more students apply, a school can be more selective in who they take. If they can be more selective, they can take better students and build up the school’s academic standing.

Yeah, that all makes sense. I was kind of thinking that in my last post - how in a roundabout kind of way it might have a positive impact, though I think it would take a very long time and lots of sustained winning for athletics to have the impact suggested, which is why it doesn’t.

In the above scenario I would replace the word “spending” with “winning”. Stupid spending doesn’t do anything for a school. Only a winning football/basketball program will have a positive impact on the university. I do think it is hard to win without spending, but spending does not necessarily equal winning, which was the point I was making before. Nobody should think that the troubles will be corrected simply by spending more.

Take a look at schools like South Florida or Florida International. I’m sure that they justified putting all the money into their football programs as a way of eventually improving their academic standing.

A decent number of schools view a high profile, successful sport as their bread and butter for exposure. It’s an indirect translation to academic standing, but it’s not a huge leap to think that more exposure helps in many areas. I think a lot of small schools in particular justify the money they put into basketball by the exposure it gets them. And we’re hardly talking about bad schools either… think about Duke, Georgetown, etc


#17

It seems to me that the NCAA could do a lot more to keep college coaching salaries from skyrocketing, which I don’t think sits really well with anybody except the coaches. For example, mandate equal spending on men’s and women’s sports. It’s probably the right thing to do anyway. Sure, they’d get a lot of push back from schools with large athletic budgets, but who cares… they seem to me like a weak institution. Maybe it’s not even something they can control, I don’t really know. But I’d think they have some lever they can pull to keep coaching salaries from going through the roof, and then work on closing loopholes


#18

2 great posts DC.


#19
[quote="UncleLar, post:1, topic:1083"][url=http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/2010-04-01-coaches-salaries-cover_N.htm?csp=Daily%20Briefing]Rising salaries of coaches force colleges to seek budget patch[/url]

One paragraph caught my eye.

“According to several studies, including one co-written by the now-White House budget director Peter Orszag— in his previous life as a Brookings Institution fellow — for every $1 a school pays to build its athletic program, it gets $1 back in new revenue. In other words, with rare exceptions, spending more on a football or men’s basketball program does not yield increases in alumni giving, net operating revenue, winning or academic quality.”[/quote]

Wouldn’t that mostly have to do with the fact that other than football and men’s basketball, all other sports are just money eaters? So even if football and men’s basketball are profitable, the money they make just goes to support the rest of the athletic teams?

No, it doesn’t.

But even if it did, how exactly would that have anything to do with “alumni giving”, “winning”, or “academic quality”?

Winning and academic quality weren’t even part of my comment. I was solely focusing on the $1 spent = $1 earned, which essentially means that overall no college athletic program turns a profit. I was strictly commenting on that area.

Who on earth would actually think that spending more money on athletics will increase a colleges academic standing? Quick, spend a lot on football so we can become the next Harvard. Spending money also doesn’t equal success. I don’t think anybody feels that way either – look at professional sports. We needed a study to tell us all this? I can see a direct correlation between winning programs and alumni donations but, again, spending does not equal winning, so spending does not equal alumni donations.

The study don’t say that $1 spent = $1 earned. They say a net $1 spent = a net $1 earned. There is a difference.

In all but a handful of cases, college athletic programs are spending already MORE money than they are earning. Schools are operating at a deficit. What the studies are saying is that colleges can’t spend their way out of that deficit because they will only earn a dollar back for every additional dollar spent.

As far as improving a school’s academic standing, I think the argument goes that spending more on coaches, facilities, etc. would result in a higher profile, and perhaps more winning, athletic program. That in turn translates into more students applying to the school. If more students apply, a school can be more selective in who they take. If they can be more selective, they can take better students and build up the school’s academic standing.

Yeah, that all makes sense. I was kind of thinking that in my last post - how in a roundabout kind of way it might have a positive impact, though I think it would take a very long time and lots of sustained winning for athletics to have the impact suggested, which is why it doesn’t.

In the above scenario I would replace the word “spending” with “winning”. Stupid spending doesn’t do anything for a school. Only a winning football/basketball program will have a positive impact on the university. I do think it is hard to win without spending, but spending does not necessarily equal winning, which was the point I was making before. Nobody should think that the troubles will be corrected simply by spending more.

Take a look at schools like South Florida or Florida International. I’m sure that they justified putting all the money into their football programs as a way of eventually improving their academic standing.

A decent number of schools view a high profile, successful sport as their bread and butter for exposure. It’s an indirect translation to academic standing, but it’s not a huge leap to think that more exposure helps in many areas. I think a lot of small schools in particular justify the money they put into basketball by the exposure it gets them. And we’re hardly talking about bad schools either… think about Duke, Georgetown, etc

Agree 100%. A successful sports program certainly gives great exposure for the University, which helps across the board.


#20

Thank you Tundra. a lot of people probably won’t see them since they have me on ignore. I am widely hated for my views on the PSU AD and Ed’s performance as coach.