Is it valid to say that if Cal sports were more successful and drew more paying customers and got more television exposure, the amount of institutional support needed would be reduced? If so, Clueless Carol needs to direct Empty Suit Jim to get his butt off dead center and upgrade every cash generating program. Fire deadbeat coaches and …
Is it valid to say that if Cal sports were more successful and drew more paying customers and got more television exposure, the amount of institutional support needed would be reduced? If so, Clueless Carol needs to direct Empty Suit Jim to get his butt off dead center and upgrade every cash generating program. Fire deadbeat coaches and hire winning coaches. Maybe even drop some sports that are "dead weight" (for ex.,track and field, cross country, et al). Forget the Presidents Cup and dominate in the high profile cash producing sports (and maintain dominance in other positive sports - swimming, water polo, et al.- even the club sports - crew, rugby, et al). Sadly, I don't think Empty suit Jim can handle the assignment and he needs to go too. However, given his insipid contract extension, maybe he can be transferred to the grounds and maintenance department.
I'm not sure that's valid. You would for sure earn more revenue, but may be outpaced by outgoing expenses. And some of the benefit of the competitiveness may not show up for years, say when students matriculate into donors, etc. I think the question that's of most interest to me, is how athletic success contributes to the overall brand and financial success of a university. An example of this might be Oregon. When I was growing up, Oregon was a bit of an outlier school. Today, it's become one of the most popular and applied to schools for California high schoolers. Academically not much has changed in the past several decades, but the Oregon brand has been amplified several times over because of the athletic success. There is for sure a correlation.
Yeah I think Oregon is a good example of a transformational change in brand and image. But it has taken several billion dollars in infusion from Uncle Phil along with his ongoing support for operating expenses. Same with Boone Pickens at Oklahoma.
T.Boone is Oklahoma State, not Oklahoma. Oklahoma State is miles ahead of where they would be without his support, but nobody a fuck about Oklahoma State still.
Right, Oregon is an extreme example and we'll likely never be in a position to hope for the same influx--at least in yours and my lifetimes. But I am interested in how athletic success impacts revenue and brand credibility in ways that don't show up directly in the annual report. Berkeley remains and will always remain a top academic brand, but our academic standing has slipped slightly in recent years, mostly due to the continued strain of do-more-with-less budgets. If one could show a correlation that athletics success results in financial gains across the institution (not just athletics), then it may be easier to sell Christ and administrators on the idea that investment in athletics may ultimately feed the rest of the institution and its brand credibility.
Athletics, whether successful or not, indeed does affect overall contributions to schools. Along with all other aspects of university life, alumni maintain fond memories and connections through their participation in sports as well as fans of major college sports. This has been proved out at Oregon, Stanford, and other universities. Maybe Bob R. can find some citations on those studies?
Is it valid to say that if Cal sports were more successful and drew more paying customers and got more television exposure, the amount of institutional support needed would be reduced? If so, Clueless Carol needs to direct Empty Suit Jim to get his butt off dead center and upgrade every cash generating program. Fire deadbeat coaches and hire winning coaches. Maybe even drop some sports that are "dead weight" (for ex.,track and field, cross country, et al). Forget the Presidents Cup and dominate in the high profile cash producing sports (and maintain dominance in other positive sports - swimming, water polo, et al.- even the club sports - crew, rugby, et al). Sadly, I don't think Empty suit Jim can handle the assignment and he needs to go too. However, given his insipid contract extension, maybe he can be transferred to the grounds and maintenance department.
I'm not sure that's valid. You would for sure earn more revenue, but may be outpaced by outgoing expenses. And some of the benefit of the competitiveness may not show up for years, say when students matriculate into donors, etc. I think the question that's of most interest to me, is how athletic success contributes to the overall brand and financial success of a university. An example of this might be Oregon. When I was growing up, Oregon was a bit of an outlier school. Today, it's become one of the most popular and applied to schools for California high schoolers. Academically not much has changed in the past several decades, but the Oregon brand has been amplified several times over because of the athletic success. There is for sure a correlation.
Yeah I think Oregon is a good example of a transformational change in brand and image. But it has taken several billion dollars in infusion from Uncle Phil along with his ongoing support for operating expenses. Same with Boone Pickens at Oklahoma.
T.Boone is Oklahoma State, not Oklahoma. Oklahoma State is miles ahead of where they would be without his support, but nobody a fuck about Oklahoma State still.
Right, Oregon is an extreme example and we'll likely never be in a position to hope for the same influx--at least in yours and my lifetimes. But I am interested in how athletic success impacts revenue and brand credibility in ways that don't show up directly in the annual report. Berkeley remains and will always remain a top academic brand, but our academic standing has slipped slightly in recent years, mostly due to the continued strain of do-more-with-less budgets. If one could show a correlation that athletics success results in financial gains across the institution (not just athletics), then it may be easier to sell Christ and administrators on the idea that investment in athletics may ultimately feed the rest of the institution and its brand credibility.
Also the non-reliance on standardized tests is for me, a major negative for Cal in the future.
Athletics, whether successful or not, indeed does affect overall contributions to schools. Along with all other aspects of university life, alumni maintain fond memories and connections through their participation in sports as well as fans of major college sports. This has been proved out at Oregon, Stanford, and other universities. Maybe Bob R. can find some citations on those studies?
Hah.