more than $120million

[docdore]

that’s how much the president of abilene christian university’s president is publicly stating that their appearance at the dance/win over univ. texas/loss to ucla has netted acu in new donations (getting blown out by kentucky in the first round four years ago netted them $74mill). those are pretty amazing numbers but they do support charleston’s repeated assertions that successful athletics are an excellent and wise investment.

[commadore]

Charleston is 100% correct on this.

[charlestonalum]

Thanks for acknowledging, but this was an observation made by my good friend who was a vice-president at Duke. Not only did alums and others make much more generous gifts each year they were in final four, but SAT, MEDCAT, GRE and all standardized test scores of matriculating students went up signicantly the following year. Then if you add all the free TV advertising, the benefits of winning athletics improved all aspects of the University including believe it or not faculty morale. I think out new administration understands this.

[egbertsouse]

that’s how much the president of abilene christian university’s president is publicly stating that their appearance at the dance/win over univ. texas/loss to ucla has netted acu in new donations (getting blown out by kentucky in the first round four years ago netted them $74mill). those are pretty amazing numbers but they do support charleston’s repeated assertions that successful athletics are an excellent and wise investment.

A contrarian POV:

I think the good president may be engaging in a little bit of hyperbole and creative accounting.

Looking at news stories he does not attribute the $120 million solely to 'new donations'.

Here's a link to ACU's most recent financial statement.
https://cdn01.acu.edu/content/dam/commu ... -audit.pdf
I'm no accountant but it looks like ACU had approximately 20 million in total contributions in the year ending 5/31/2020. I'm reading that both their revenue and expenses for both of the last two years were approx. $140 million. That's the year they lost to Kentucky and the year after. I don't see how you get a net 74 million gain.

There's no guarantee that investment in athletics will lead to success. During ACU's 1st game the announcers spoke of how small their athletic budget was. How has UT(east)'s investment in football turned out for them in recent years.

[egbertsouse]

Thanks for acknowledging, but this was an observation made by my good friend who was a vice-president at Duke. Not only did alums and others make much more generous gifts each year they were in final four, but SAT, MEDCAT, GRE and all standardized test scores of matriculating students went up signicantly the following year. Then if you add all the free TV advertising, the benefits of winning athletics improved all aspects of the University including believe it or not faculty morale. I think out new administration understands this.

In Duke's case, are the benefits of winning athletics, specifically MBB, more attributable to a strategic investment decision or the decision many years to hire Coach K?

[commadore]

Thanks for acknowledging, but this was an observation made by my good friend who was a vice-president at Duke. Not only did alums and others make much more generous gifts each year they were in final four, but SAT, MEDCAT, GRE and all standardized test scores of matriculating students went up signicantly the following year. Then if you add all the free TV advertising, the benefits of winning athletics improved all aspects of the University including believe it or not faculty morale. I think out new administration understands this.

In Duke's case, are the benefits of winning athletics, specifically MBB, more attributable to a strategic investment decision or the decision many years to hire Coach K?

Very simple formula. They put out the bucks to get Coach K, they started winning, they got tons of publicity, they got more donations, they got huge increases in applications and from that they were able to pick higher quality candidates, better students get better jobs, make more money, give more to the university, and are happy that their alma mater is winning. Period.

[egbertsouse]

Thanks for acknowledging, but this was an observation made by my good friend who was a vice-president at Duke. Not only did alums and others make much more generous gifts each year they were in final four, but SAT, MEDCAT, GRE and all standardized test scores of matriculating students went up signicantly the following year. Then if you add all the free TV advertising, the benefits of winning athletics improved all aspects of the University including believe it or not faculty morale. I think out new administration understands this.

In Duke's case, are the benefits of winning athletics, specifically MBB, more attributable to a strategic investment decision or the decision many years to hire Coach K?

Very simple formula. They put out the bucks to get Coach K, they started winning, they got tons of publicity, they got more donations, they got huge increases in applications and from that they were able to pick higher quality candidates, better students get better jobs, make more money, give more to the university, and are happy that their alma mater is winning. Period.

Did they put out the bucks to get coach K? Here's a story from last year:
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/from-the- ... /19013447/

"It was 40 years ago this week--March 18, 1980--that Duke hired a little known Mike Krzyzewski with little fanfare. Here is a look at WRAL's one-on-one interview with Coach K on the day he was hired."

I think you have the cart before the horse. Duke hired Coach K, Duke started winning, Duke invested more in basketball. Much like Vandy has done with baseball.

Here's another retrospective on the hiring of Coack K.
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/col ... 32564.html

[commadore]

In Duke's case, are the benefits of winning athletics, specifically MBB, more attributable to a strategic investment decision or the decision many years to hire Coach K?

Very simple formula. They put out the bucks to get Coach K, they started winning, they got tons of publicity, they got more donations, they got huge increases in applications and from that they were able to pick higher quality candidates, better students get better jobs, make more money, give more to the university, and are happy that their alma mater is winning. Period.

Did they put out the bucks to get coach K? Here's a story from last year:
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/from-the- ... /19013447/

"It was 40 years ago this week--March 18, 1980--that Duke hired a little known Mike Krzyzewski with little fanfare. Here is a look at WRAL's one-on-one interview with Coach K on the day he was hired."

I think you have the cart before the horse. Duke hired Coach K, Duke started winning, Duke invested more in basketball. Much like Vandy has done with baseball.

Here's another retrospective on the hiring of Coack K.
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/col ... 32564.html

Doesn't matter. Same result.

[egbertsouse]

Very simple formula. They put out the bucks to get Coach K, they started winning, they got tons of publicity, they got more donations, they got huge increases in applications and from that they were able to pick higher quality candidates, better students get better jobs, make more money, give more to the university, and are happy that their alma mater is winning. Period.

Did they put out the bucks to get coach K? Here's a story from last year:
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/from-the- ... /19013447/

"It was 40 years ago this week--March 18, 1980--that Duke hired a little known Mike Krzyzewski with little fanfare. Here is a look at WRAL's one-on-one interview with Coach K on the day he was hired."

I think you have the cart before the horse. Duke hired Coach K, Duke started winning, Duke invested more in basketball. Much like Vandy has done with baseball.

Here's another retrospective on the hiring of Coack K.
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/col ... 32564.html

Doesn't matter. Same result.

It matters a great deal.

[commadore]

Did they put out the bucks to get coach K? Here's a story from last year:
https://www.wralsportsfan.com/from-the- ... /19013447/

"It was 40 years ago this week--March 18, 1980--that Duke hired a little known Mike Krzyzewski with little fanfare. Here is a look at WRAL's one-on-one interview with Coach K on the day he was hired."

I think you have the cart before the horse. Duke hired Coach K, Duke started winning, Duke invested more in basketball. Much like Vandy has done with baseball.

Here's another retrospective on the hiring of Coack K.
https://www.newsobserver.com/sports/col ... 32564.html

Doesn't matter. Same result.

It matters a great deal.

No, it doesn't.

[Ndorefin]

Duke has had good basketball since WWll and became a national power after Vic Bubas in 1959. As with most all programs, they have gone thru brief periods of mediocrity. They lost in the Finals 2 years before Coach K arrived and made the tourney the following 2 years. Coach K has certainly maintained and built upon their previous success, but it’s not like he had to start from scratch.

[egbertsouse]

Duke has had good basketball since WWll and became a national power after Vic Bubas in 1959. As with most all programs, they have gone thru brief periods of mediocrity. They lost in the Finals 2 years before Coach K arrived and made the tourney the following 2 years. Coach K has certainly maintained and built upon their previous success, but it’s not like he had to start from scratch.

I'd forgotten that Duke was successful prior to Coach K. I still maintain that it is more accurate to say that to the extent Duke has invested heavily in their basketball program it was driven by presence of a great and highly successful coach and not vice versa.

[charlestonalum]

The point is and the experience at Duke was that winning in basketball but other sports too brought in money, better students and institutional pride. The winning preceded the investment unless you count allowing students in on athletics who could never get in otherwise. One of their national champions team had an average SAT score of around 800 when the school average was 1400.

[egbertsouse]

The point is and the experience at Duke was that winning in basketball but other sports too brought in money, better students and institutional pride. The winning preceded the investment unless you count allowing students in on athletics who could never get in otherwise. One of their national champions team had an average SAT score of around 800 when the school average was 1400.

This is the point I've been trying to make.

[vandyhank]

Anyone remember Ron Mercer?

[mathguy]

Thanks for acknowledging, but this was an observation made by my good friend who was a vice-president at Duke. Not only did alums and others make much more generous gifts each year they were in final four, but SAT, MEDCAT, GRE and all standardized test scores of matriculating students went up signicantly the following year. Then if you add all the free TV advertising, the benefits of winning athletics improved all aspects of the University including believe it or not faculty morale. I think out new administration understands this.

I don't have any doubt at all that athletic success can support academic success ... even among non-sports fans, name recognition for Duke or Notre Dame goes a long way.

The question I would always have is ... what sort of ethical choices do you need to make to have that success, and to what extent are you OK with that?

Personally, I am not really OK with the idea of a school like Vandy spending a heavy investment in recruiting players that we *KNOW* will never graduate from the school (for example, "obvious" 1-and-done players). As exciting as it might have been to watch Darius Garland play basketball, I am at least slightly troubled by the fact that we brought in a student who we *hoped* would attend the school for two years before dropping out. The idea of him staying for 4 years and getting a degree, really never crossed anyone's mind.

Now, there is obviously a sliding scale here. Nesmith left early. Pippen may or or may not return for year 3, and will almost certainly not be here as a senior. But for those guys when they arrived on campus we could at least tell ourselves that they *might* be 4-year guys. That was never the case for Garland or Shittu.

I haven't even remotely broached the other ethical issues that are rampant in college sports. Paying players under the table. Recruiting and other violations. The academic standards that don't always seem to apply to athletes at every school.

If being successful athletically would boost our Academic and University profile ... at the expense of the ethics and credibility of our Academic and University profile, I say no thanks. Stanford seems to have a nice balance (to this outsider). Notre Dame seems to have found better balance (though my understanding is returning to their academic principles has coincided with their football team no longer being an every year powerhouse). Duke ... has avoided public scandals, but yet has made me wonder sometimes...

[AuricGoldfinger]

I'm sure the VU admissions office would appreciate anything that artificially drives up the number of applications to further boost the exclusivity of the acceptance rate.