$ Value of NCAA appearance, winning first round game

[ksummerlin]

Invest heavily in basketball... to what end?

What's the goal here? You say "exposure." Is the goal for Furman to be more famous?

As others have said, what UMBC accomplished was a once-in-several-lifetimes event. To go all in on NCAA Tournament fame is a huge gamble, and not one that I'm sure makes that big of a difference for anyone. Do you think kids are lining up to attend Valporaiso because of that time they were Cinderella? Or remember when George Mason made that crazy run to the Final Four? George Mason had a losing record overall this year.

If the goal is to be one of these schools, just know that it's a 15 minutes of fame situation. None of these programs are significantly different in the long run. To rise to truly elite status is incredibly rare (Gonzaga would be the closest case I could think of), and to create a culture of sustained winning is always difficult.

You have to be careful of the "15 minutes of fame argument" here. Gonzaga is actually a very good argument to the contrary. in 2001, they had 5,100+ students -- pretty comparable to Furman. They hit the jackpot with Mark Few, a once in a lifetime coach. What makes Gonzaga different than those other schools you mentioned? Loyalty of Mark Few. Those other coaches parleyed their 15 minutes of fame into a better coaching job at some other school. I would also put Davidson into this category, to a smaller degree. Again due to Bob McKillop and his loyalty. If we ever find a Mark Few at Furman, then I'd be 100% behind funding the basketball program to the detriment of football.

And beyond that, getting to the NCAA tournament at all is not just a matter of throwing millions of dollars around. We're a mid-major school, and mid-major schools, by and large, have one way to get to the NCAA tournament - win your conference tournament. Period. We were good enough to do that this year, but it's a tall order, even when you're good enough. I'm confident that we're going to have a lot of teams in the near future that are good enough. Eventually we'll make it.

From what I can tell, our administration is doing the best they can to create a long term culture of winning in BOTH football and basketball (and the rest of the sports). And, though it's taking time (doing things right always does), I'm pretty satisfied with the job they're doing.

I hope to and plan to enjoy watching both of these teams for years to come.

I'm not going to argue for or against taking money away from one sport to fund another. That is an argument for others with a long term plan. I do think that the size of Furman prohibits trying to fund both programs at a level where both can be successful year after year. My argument for keeping football as our focus right now is actually not related to football at all, but because of Title IX. If football goes, so do a lot of other sports and I don't want to see that happen.

[Bootie]

I'm not going to argue for or against taking money away from one sport to fund another. That is an argument for others with a long term plan. I do think that the size of Furman prohibits trying to fund both programs at a level where both can be successful year after year. My argument for keeping football as our focus right now is actually not related to football at all, but because of Title IX. If football goes, so do a lot of other sports and I don't want to see that happen.

No school has football and basketball success year after year. That should not be anyone's measuring stick or expectation. At some point it all goes bad in one sport or the other or both. It's eternally cyclical.

[Stumpy]

And you can enjoy football just as much when we're in the Pioneer League.

Perhaps. But we won't have a fancy-dancy message board if we're in the Pioneer League. At least not this one.

Getting back to money: Making it to the tournament gives the team that makes it a decent paycheck - which, if I'm not mistaken, is divvied up among the conference teams, with the school that's actually in the tournament getting a bigger cut. While Furman hasn't made it to the dance in 40 years, I think we did receive a nice chunk of change when Davidson had their run.

The SoCon is never - never - going to have more than one team in the NCAA basketball. And unless that team wins, no one outside of the conference (and a large portion of those inside the conference) is going to remember that team two months from now. I can say with complete truthfulness that I do not know - at this moment right now - who the SoCon representative was for THIS tournament. I have now heard of UM...something (there's a B in it right?) because they did something that had never been done before. I cannot name ANY of the teams that had first-round upsets last year, and I'd struggle to give you any from this year other than UM...something.

Point is, the "fame" angle doesn't cut it - and the money, unless Furman were to make it through the first two or three rounds, isn't going to add up to what the football team makes by playing Clemson once - or (in the case of Mercer) Alabama and Auburn in the same season. And the possibility for "fame" in those games is just as real as couple of fluke wins in basketball. Does anyone remember when some team from the SoCon beat Michigan at the Big House? I seem to recall seeing that on ESPN and seeing that team's locker room featured pretty prominently in sports advertising for a while.

Bottom line: Football rocks.

[edwards555]

Men's basketball is the only sport at Furman that has the opportunity to generate a positive cash flow. Start with scholarships-basketball has 13; football 63. Coaches-basketball 6, football 13. Football spends more on facilities and equipment.
Basketball earns about the same as football in money games. The difference is last year Furman played at Butler, Duke, and Tennessee while football was at NC State. Three games versus one generates approximately the same income. The variance each year is based on travel; basketball has more trips and football transports more people. Clemson will decrease costs this year.
Basketball receives income from the tournament. I don't know of other income received by football.
Next studies have shown that there is a significant enrollment advantage for universities whose major college football teams perform at a high level. Except for perhaps North Dakota State there is no bump at the FCS level. In basketball the same bump occurs. Davidson still gets people because of the Curry years. ETS and UNCG a smaller bump in basketball and Wofford will probably get some admissions increase from the UNC game particularly since they play at Wofford again this year. The reason is national exposure.
Furman has an admissions problem. Today that problem is prevalent at many other private colleges and universities and it is expected to grow over the next decade.
The purpose of this post is not to pit football versus basketball. Rather its objective is to show the economics for both sports.

[Monday]

And a cynical person could read the recent $2mill given to football as a way to keep the program around. The out-of-town AD probably realizes all the bonuses of a strong small school basketball program.

[Fessor]

And a cynical person could read the recent $2mill given to football as a way to keep the program around. The out-of-town AD probably realizes all the bonuses of a strong small school basketball program.

I'll bite: "out-of-town"?

[Monday]

I just meant he had no previous ties to Furman, and since he has no ties he might not have an emotional connection to our football team.

It was 3am when I wrote that.

Btw, you should keep up some of your early morning posts.

[Fessor]

It was 3am when I wrote that.

Btw, you should keep up some of your early morning posts.

How about I just IM you instead?

I've learned that my 10:00 AM self frequently has a hard time understanding, and disagrees with, my 3:00 AM self.

[FUBeAR]

there is a significant enrollment advantage for universities whose major college football teams perform at a high level. Except for perhaps North Dakota State there is no bump at the FCS level.

Furman has an admissions problem. Today that problem is prevalent at many other private colleges and universities and it is expected to grow over the next decade.

The purpose of this post...is to show the economics for both sports.

A few folks down the road in Maconga, who started their FCS FOOTBALL program in 2012/2013, might seriously question your grasp of enrollment management data in particular & economics, in general.

Put any/some accurate, verifiable data around any/all of those many (I stopped counting at 20) unsubstantiated claims you made & I might consider taking your OPINION seriously. Otherwise...I, and, I imagine, more than a few others here, have no interest in this voo doo that you doo doo.

[Fessor]

Mercer resuming football is the reason for enrollment increases?

What's student turnout at Mercer FB games?

[FUBeAR]

Mercer resuming football is the reason for enrollment increases?

What's student turnout at Mercer FB games?

Well, I suppose smoke-blowers could tie the enrollment increase to a variety of specious causes such as a recent Miss America being an undergrad there, or beating Duke in a 1st round game of the NCAA Hoops Tourney, or global warming; but I have been very ’close-to-the-ground’ there since 2012 & have had lengthy conversations on this subject with several Sr. Leaders of MU, including President Underwood, with whom I spent some time this past Saturday. I won’t direct quote any of them, but I would characterize their collective opinion is that adding FCS Football, in itself, has had a wholly transformative positive effect on the University, its campus, Macon, and Middle Georgia; with just one of those effects being increased enrollment at Mercer. While there was no reason to converse with them on the topic of eliminating or de-emphasizing Football, I am confident that their collective opinion is that such action would have an equally transformative effect in the opposite direction.

Regarding attendance, Mercer has been at or near the top of SoCon attendance figures from Day 1. Some will dispute (and disparage) those numbers by citing the age-old paid vs. actual conundrum, but that’s not really the point in this context, is it? But, I mention it because PAID is PAID, i.e., positive cash flow.

The students actively Tailgate on Cruz Plaza & other areas on campus in large numbers, completely fill the student section for entire games, and are loud & proud every week.

As a VERY wise soul recently opined, “Football Rocks!”

[fufanatic]

Football is the best. Would never want to see money taken away from football to make another sport better. But I certainly understand how basketball can transform a campus with one special run in March. Re: UMBC, Loyola, Davidson, Florida Gulf Coast, I could go on and on. I have to think there's a way to be consistently good at both. That's not saying winning titles and going to Sweet 16 ever year, that's saying compete for the SoCon title in both, compete for a national title in football hopefully occasionally and maybe having that once in a generation upset or two sooner rather than later.

[gman]

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/ ... 441772002/

[Stumpy]

https://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/ ... 441772002/

Kind of what I was trying to say. Whether Furman goes to the NC double A's or not, they're going to get money because a Southern Conference team will be there.

[Affirm]

I agree with those (apparently few) who consider potential basketball investment payoffs for FU to be somewhat greater than potential football investment payoffs for FU.