Value of Sports to a College.

[kingcy]

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/public...-worth-staggering-amount-money-054324907.html

At 11 a.m. ET on Saturday morning, the media evaluation firm Joyce Julius and Associates estimated that publicity UMBC had generated was worth $21.3 million in equivalent advertising exposure. By 11 p.m. ET on Saturday night, Meltwater put that number at about $119 million, meaning that roughly a third of the publicity value UMBC has generated in the past 12 months occurred in 24 hours.

Freshman applications to Georgia State increased 28.5 percent for the 2016-17 school year after the Panthers ousted third-seeded Baylor in the 2015 NCAA tournament. Florida Gulf Coast enjoyed a 27 percent rise after it became the first-ever No. 15 seed to reach the Sweet 16 in 2013 and Middle Tennessee had a 16.9 percent increase after it stunned second-seeded Michigan State in the 2016 NCAA tournament.

 

[Buster28]

This is the argument I always go to first when I run into someone who doesn't like/understand collegiate athletics and believes they should be eliminated to save money. It's absolutely a marketing tool for your university. While it still costs money to put these programs out there and to compete, it's essentially "free," because the additional money to intentionally advertise isn't being spent. Universities aren't going to give up that kind of advertising just because the programs cost money. Having a program that sees some success (especially on tv) only increases the potential audience for your school's brand.

Athletics won't mean anything to many students or prospective students, but there ARE some who will want to go someplace where they can experience big-time football and basketball while getting their education. Making the occasional appearance in a bowl game or the NCAA tournament is the exposure some places need/want to, at minimum, get some extra attention and to likely sell a few more t-shirts.

 

[jsb]

Not super related, but it has been fun to learn about UMBC over the last 2 days. Turns out it is a pretty great academic institution and their president is a really admirable person.

 

[Cydkar]

This is the argument I always go to first when I run into someone who doesn't like/understand collegiate athletics and believes they should be eliminated to save money. It's absolutely a marketing tool for your university. While it still costs money to put these programs out there and to compete, it's essentially "free," because the additional money to intentionally advertise isn't being spent. Universities aren't going to give up that kind of advertising just because the programs cost money. Having a program that sees some success (especially on tv) only increases the potential audience for your school's brand.

Athletics won't mean anything to many students or prospective students, but there ARE some who will want to go someplace where they can experience big-time football and basketball while getting their education. Making the occasional appearance in a bowl game or the NCAA tournament is the exposure some places need/want to, at minimum, get some extra attention and to likely sell a few more t-shirts.

I’ve never run into anybody that has had this opinion.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba...mbc-retrievers-file-trademarks-historic-upset

UMBC probably missing out on some money.

After their big win over Virginia, attorneys Jason Belzer and Darren Heitner pointed out to school officials that they didn't have "Retrievers" or "Retriever Nation" trademarked. They also filed to trademark "16 over 1."

While the trademark approval process could take a year, the school could at least make a case against the many opportunists putting its name and logo on T-shirts this week without giving the school a cut.