PDA

View Full Version : The Importan$e of Football



RPS
10-04-2007, 01:52 PM
As reported here (http://calgoldenbearfootball.blogspot.com/):


The Chronicle of Higher Education last week released a report putting the Cal athletic department at the helm of the Pac-10 with $34.7 million received in charitable donations. That number was good enough for eighth in the country, less than $3 million behind third-ranked Florida. And Assistant Athletic Director for Development David Rosselli said that had the organization issued a report last year, Cal would have been ranked first in the nation.

Look at the turnaround in the program between 2002 and present. Overall fundraising—which encompasses more than just charitable donations—in the year from 2002-2003 yielded just under $8.5 million, according to a marketing report done by the Cal athletic department. From 2005-2006, the total surged to over $68 million. That’s roughly an 800% increase in three years for those of you math majors keeping track. Tedford is almost as responsible for this resurgence as he is for the Bears’ on-field performance.

It isn’t hard to pinpoint the roots of this fundraising turnaround. In 2002 the Bears football team was 7-5 and just recently emerging from the conference’s doldrums. Now, Cal is undefeated and, not coincidentally, the athletic department is well on its way to fully funding the proposed $125 million Student-Athlete High Performance Center. “The football team brings tremendous momentum not just to the athletic program but to the entire institution,” Rosselli said. “We have a captive audience now. People want to be a part of that success.” They do that by donating money—lots of it as of late. The equation is quite simple. Football brings unrivaled national television exposure, brings thousands of alumni to Memorial Stadium for games week after week, and gets the alumni engaged in the university. Having another Noble-prize winning professor doesn’t have quite the same effect.Duke may already be garnering all the benefit it can on account of athletic success due to hoops, but those who denigrate the connection between athletic success and university growth and prestige (due primarily to $ and a larger/"better" applicant pool) don't seem conversant with reality. A good football team makes good sense economically and educationally. Let's hope the recent progress at WW continues....

formerdukeathlete
10-05-2007, 08:48 AM
As reported here (http://calgoldenbearfootball.blogspot.com/):

Duke may already be garnering all the benefit it can on account of athletic success due to hoops, but those who denigrate the connection between athletic success and university growth and prestige (due primarily to $ and a larger/"better" applicant pool) don't seem conversant with reality. A good football team makes good sense economically and educationally. Let's hope the recent progress at WW continues....

And, one wonders why, because this does not make sense. That is, football makes sense, more now than it did 30 years ago. Now, because of football related conference revenue sharing Duke makes money in football even though attendance at home games is abysmal.

I recall seeing WW for the first time when visiting Duke and considering Duke among UNC-CH and UVa as well as northern schools, including several in the Ivy league. I thought, man this is unimpressive.

Re the renovations to Wade, I put removing the running track, lowering the field and bringing seats close to the field as the single most important thing we could do to get the fans and particularly student fans into the game. Unfortunately, it looks like this may be the last thing they do. It takes some foresight and leadership to see that while this would add seats at a time when we do not fill seats we already have, the quality of the fan experience is vastly improved in this fashion.

Speaking of Cal, I have been to games there. It is an old style natural bowl, but more steeply raked than Wade. You sit right up to the field. In the student section you get a view of downtown San Fran.

Cal is rolling in it because of Football and is able to fund tons of athletic scholarships for non-revs.

Duke can make a lot more money in Football with some winning and stadium improvements. This would go a long way to funding all scholies like Stanford.

Some quick thoughts on the path to winning:

1. reverse the draconian emasculation of student life under nan and dick - put Phi Delt, ATO, and other selective, by reason of choice, living groups on the main quad.

2. fix wade all the way, the right way.

3. relocate the track, and, at the same time, stake out ground where a new basketball arena will eventually be built.

4. get away from the notion of the need to lower academic requirements. With winning will come an ability to attact the better students who are otherwise (and currently) drawn to schools because of the quality of the football program.

5. make sure we have the right coach to sell Duke as appropriately configured - fixed post Nan and Brodhead.

6. pay the coach close to the going rate.

7. because we have the right coach - he might stay for a long while like K.

8. we then win more and more often.

9. the University benefits financially, and our yield versus the Ivies improves again.

Indoor66
10-05-2007, 09:15 AM
And, one wonders why, because this does not make sense. That is, football makes sense, more now than it did 30 years ago. Now, because of football related conference revenue sharing Duke makes money in football even though attendance at home games is abysmal.

I recall seeing WW for the first time when visiting Duke and considering Duke among UNC-CH and UVa as well as northern schools, including several in the Ivy league. I thought, man this is unimpressive.

Re the renovations to Wade, I put removing the running track, lowering the field and bringing seats close to the field as the single most important thing we could do to get the fans and particularly student fans into the game. Unfortunately, it looks like this may be the last thing they do. It takes some foresight and leadership to see that while this would add seats at a time when we do not fill seats we already have, the quality of the fan experience is vastly improved in this fashion.

Speaking of Cal, I have been to games there. It is an old style natural bowl, but more steeply raked than Wade. You sit right up to the field. In the student section you get a view of downtown San Fran.

Cal is rolling in it because of Football and is able to fund tons of athletic scholarships for non-revs.

Duke can make a lot more money in Football with some winning and stadium improvements. This would go a long way to funding all scholies like Stanford.

Some quick thoughts on the path to winning:

1. reverse the draconian emasculation of student life under nan and dick - put Phi Delt, ATO, and other selective, by reason of choice, living groups on the main quad.

2. fix wade all the way, the right way.

3. relocate the track, and, at the same time, stake out ground where a new basketball arena will eventually be built.

4. get away from the notion of the need to lower academic requirements. With winning will come an ability to attact the better students who are otherwise (and currently) drawn to schools because of the quality of the football program.

5. make sure we have the right coach to sell Duke as appropriately configured - fixed post Nan and Brodhead.

6. pay the coach close to the going rate.

7. because we have the right coach - he might stay for a long while like K.

8. we then win more and more often.

9. the University benefits financially, and our yield versus the Ivies improves again.

Same song, another verse. Does it make sense? I don't know.

formerdukeathlete
10-05-2007, 10:11 AM
Same song, another verse. Does it make sense? I don't know.

In my opinion, it makes perfect (common) sense. If you have no viewpoint either way, other than the equivocal, "I don't know" other than to suggest derogatorily that my post was related to past posts, Why bother? Stick to the issues.

monkey
10-05-2007, 04:12 PM
the last football player in Phi Delt had to have been years ago.