Patterson out as Texas AD

[schoosier 3,455]

Texas views their athletics as the front door to their university. Barely two years into his job at his alma mater, he gets whacked. New president says he's worried about their fans. Also, they are in the middle of negotiating a new shoe deal said to be better than ND's or Michigans. Some universities just get it while others just continue down the road of mediocrity, suspensions and AD's that are star struck of their coaches. I hope when Crean goes so does Glass and McRobbie. Indiana needs to take good notes from Texas and Michigan and end the misery now.

[TheStillman 991]

The front door to the University shouldn't be the athletic department

[TheStillman 991]

Read up a bit on the situation at Texas. The guy brought a toxic environment to the department and alienated his employees. He raised ticket prices and didn't seem to care much for the average fan, just the bottom line.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13665028/steve-patterson-firing-texas-shows-college-ads-all-business

Glass has done the exact opposite of what Patterson and Brandon did at Texas and Michigan. He's made the fan experience at football, basketball and baseball games something the University should be proud of.

[JG84 94]

The front door to the University shouldn't be the athletic department

Agree completely!

[Kepner 1,261]

The front door to the University shouldn't be the athletic department

It shouldn't be must its the case at pretty much any school. Sports raise a lot of money, so most of the funding gets taken from everything else and pushed towards athletics. 

The weird thing about the Texas AD is they had an outside search committee find him for them. The school should be setting it up from within because they know (or should) what they want and desire as an AD. 

[Old Friend 8,389]

The front door to the University shouldn't be the athletic department

It's not the front door.   But it's the window.   Nobody knows Duke University without the basketball team.  Duke would be Elon.  Nobody knows Indiana University outside this area without our basketball program.  Nobody turns on the TV or radio to see or hear anything about the Kelley School of Business.   Donors don't give huge dollars to support Universities unless they see those Universities represented on athletic fields.  (See : T. Boone Pickens, Mark Cuban, John Mellencamp, etc)   

 

It's cute to say "universities don't exist to provide athletic programs," but the reality is, athletic teams are absolutely the world's window into large universities.  Texas' letting this guy go says they understand that.  I'm not sure Dr. McRobbie does.   The Indiana Basketball program is - by far - our most visible entity.  Not even a close second.  So...I'd contend that at Indiana, like Notre Dame, like Duke, like Michigan, Ohio State, Kansas, Georgetown, North Carolina, Boise State, and dozens of other schools...the athletic department or at least a major entity within it are the vehicle used to get the outside world to notice.

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

It's not the front door. But it's the window. Nobody knows Duke University without the basketball team. Duke would be Elon. Nobody knows Indiana University outside this area without our basketball program. Nobody turns on the TV or radio to see or hear anything about the Kelley School of Business. Donors don't give huge dollars to support Universities unless they see those Universities represented on athletic fields. (See : T. Boone Pickens, Mark Cuban, John Mellencamp, etc)

It's cute to say "universities don't exist to provide athletic programs," but the reality is, athletic teams are absolutely the world's window into large universities. Texas' letting this guy go says they understand that. I'm not sure Dr. McRobbie does. The Indiana Basketball program is - by far - our most visible entity. Not even a close second. So...I'd contend that at Indiana, like Notre Dame, like Duke, like Michigan, Ohio State, Kansas, Georgetown, North Carolina, Boise State, and dozens of other schools...the athletic department or at least a major entity within it are the vehicle used to get the outside world to notice.

Are you serious with this? Duke is one of the premiere academic institutions in the country.

Also, check out Kelley, Mauer, and Jacobs. They aren't here for sports. Colleges are for academics first and foremost, and as someone who constantly preaches about the "right way" of the student athlete, I'd expect you to understand that.

[Hovadipo 55,200]

Donors don't give huge dollars to support Universities unless they see those Universities represented on athletic fields. (See : T. Boone Pickens, Mark Cuban, John Mellencamp, etc)

This seriously couldn't be further from the truth.

[Old Friend 8,389]

Are you serious with this? Duke is one of the premiere academic institutions in the country.

Also, check out Kelley, Mauer, and Jacobs. They aren't here for sports. Colleges are for academics first and foremost, and as someone who constantly preaches about the "right way" of the student athlete, I'd expect you to understand that.

Of course I do.  But without the exposure Duke gets from being on TV all the time, only the academic crowd would know about it.  Elon is a fantastic school. It's ranked #1 in masters programs in the south.  It's a top producer of Fulbright scholars.  It's #1 in studies abroad.   And most have no idea because it gets no exposure.   Absolutely Duke is a premier academic institution.  And you think their endowment is even 40% of what it is without their basketball team?  

 

I'll give you and Hovadipo an example.   Check out aerial photos of Butler (also a fantastic academic institution - in 2014 recognized as one of only three schools nationwide listed in 5 categories measured for " nation's finest" in US News, and in more categories than all other Indiana Universities combined, and that includes Notre Dame ) before 2010 and then another taken this year.  Where do you think all of the money to build all those new buildings came from?   You got it...donations following trips to the Final Four.

 

Applications for admission to Butler increased by 40% after that.  They set a goal to increase their endowment by 5x from $150 million to $750 million.  You think that happens without basketball success?  

 

The facts are all right here.  You can disagree all you want, but I think you're being a little myopic.     https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/tiny-butlers-ncaa-tournament-success-provided-a-bounce-beyond-basketball/2013/03/20/8f749926-8ca3-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

[Old Friend 8,389]

This seriously couldn't be further from the truth.

See above, and read this.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/tiny-butlers-ncaa-tournament-success-provided-a-bounce-beyond-basketball/2013/03/20/8f749926-8ca3-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

 

I'm not sure we're really talking about the same thing and you're perhaps taking the debate a direction I didn't intend, but the example of Butler is really all anyone should need.  Athletic success matters....a lot.   And the money and exposure provided to universities via athletic endeavors are the windows to the outside world.   Harvard and other schools like them are known almost exclusively for academics.  Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Johns-Hopkins, etc.  Stanford was in that category for a long time until they started to succeed consistently on the athletic field.   They raised $930 million a year ago.  $271 million in 1998.   Lots of football success since then.  I don't think that's coincidental.

 

Edit : To clarify, I am by no means suggesting that "no donors give."  I didn't say that very well.  Of course they do.  But T. Boone Pickens isn't giving $335 million to Oklahoma State because he loves the geology school.  He had the football stadium named after him.  Mark Cuban just gave IU $5 million....for use by the athletic department.  And he didn't build broadcast.com so he could listen to IU's orchestra.    Cindy Simon didn't give IU $40 million to build a new fountain on campus or add to Ballentine Hall.   I know some donors (such as Mickey Maurer) do; but I also don't think Mr. Maurer builds a new law school with $35 million if Indiana University isn't the presence it is; and it's not without the decades of exposure provided by the basketball team.

 

I am also not suggesting that universities exist or should exist for purposes of supporting athletic teams.  Not at all.  But...I AM saying that a smart athletic director understands that his teams are by and large a significant window to the world for their university.  Look at games on the Big Ten Network for example.  When IU plays, there's always some advertisement for a research project going on, the school of music, the business school....    Those don't get on TV during "American Ninja Warrior" or "The Family Guy."   That exposure is 100% due to the football and basketball teams; and it helps if you - as mentioned above - do things the right way, and/or have success.  

[Hovadipo 55,200]

See above, and read this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/tiny-butlers-ncaa-tournament-success-provided-a-bounce-beyond-basketball/2013/03/20/8f749926-8ca3-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

I'm not sure we're really talking about the same thing and you're perhaps taking the debate a direction I didn't intend, but the example of Butler is really all anyone should need. Athletic success matters....a lot. And the money and exposure provided to universities via athletic endeavors are the windows to the outside world. Harvard and other schools like them are known almost exclusively for academics. Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Johns-Hopkins, etc. Stanford was in that category for a long time until they started to succeed consistently on the athletic field. They raised $930 million a year ago. $271 million in 1998. Lots of football success since then. I don't think that's coincidental.

Edit : To clarify, I am by no means suggesting that "no donors give." I didn't say that very well. Of course they do. But T. Boone Pickens isn't giving $335 million to Oklahoma State because he loves the geology school. He had the football stadium named after him. Mark Cuban just gave IU $5 million....for use by the athletic department. And he didn't build broadcast.com so he could listen to IU's orchestra. Cindy Simon didn't give IU $40 million to build a new fountain on campus or add to Ballentine Hall. I know some donors (such as Mickey Maurer) do; but I also don't think Mr. Maurer builds a new law school with $35 million if Indiana University isn't the presence it is; and it's not without the decades of exposure provided by the basketball team.

I am also not suggesting that universities exist or should exist for purposes of supporting athletic teams. Not at all. But...I AM saying that a smart athletic director understands that his teams are by and large a significant window to the world for their university. Look at games on the Big Ten Network for example. When IU plays, there's always some advertisement for a research project going on, the school of music, the business school.... Those don't get on TV during "American Ninja Warrior" or "The Family Guy." That exposure is 100% due to the football and basketball teams; and it helps if you - as mentioned above - do things the right way, and/or have success.

Stanford really isn't the greatest example. The technology boom in Silicon Valley since 1998 (thanks to many Stanford grads) has made quite a few million and billionaires. You sure that isn't part of the spike in donations as well?

Sure, there are some donors that are sports fans. And the people you named in your first post I quoted (Mellencamp, Cuban, Pickens, etc) donated largely to athletics programs. Do you think James Hodge (high-level investor that donated $15 million for the Kelley school expansion) made his donation because of sports? Doubtful. At that time, our big sports flat out sucked. The Kelley School, however, did not. So saying that donors don't give their money unless they see teams on the field is a generalization that just won't stick. There are some major academic institutions that don't field high-level athletic teams but are still top-shelf schools, partially thanks to donations.

[Yogi'sBicep 1,048]

Of course I do. But without the exposure Duke gets from being on TV all the time, only the academic crowd would know about it.
]

So without basketball, only those who care about a prestigious academic institution would know of the prestigious academic institution?

And I suppose, the academic crowd knows of it for the academics, because that's what their main concern is--- which should be every future & current college student.


Athletics are, and SHOULD BE behind athletics. In this era, in the U.S., sports have taken on the term of "life" and that's so wrong.

[LIHoosier 25,920]

Read up a bit on the situation at Texas. The guy brought a toxic environment to the department and alienated his employees. He raised ticket prices and didn't seem to care much for the average fan, just the bottom line.

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/13665028/steve-patterson-firing-texas-shows-college-ads-all-business

Glass has done the exact opposite of what Patterson and Brandon did at Texas and Michigan. He's made the fan experience at football, basketball and baseball games something the University should be proud of.

The all business approach has a better chance of working if the Texas and Michigan teams respectively were contending for conference and national titles. Since Patterson and Brandon had football teams that were playing below their historical capability, they couldn't use that leverage to suck every dollar out of their fan base.

 

It shouldn't be must its the case at pretty much any school. Sports raise a lot of money, so most of the funding gets taken from everything else and pushed towards athletics. 

The weird thing about the Texas AD is they had an outside search committee find him for them. The school should be setting it up from within because they know (or should) what they want and desire as an AD. 

That's the purpose of the firm, to be the 'fall guy' if the coach/AD/president end up being a failure. Typical pass the buck mentality.

[Old Friend 8,389]

Stanford really isn't the greatest example. The technology boom in Silicon Valley since 1998 (thanks to many Stanford grads) has made quite a few million and billionaires. You sure that isn't part of the spike in donations as well?

Sure, there are some donors that are sports fans. And the people you named in your first post I quoted (Mellencamp, Cuban, Pickens, etc) donated largely to athletics programs. Do you think James Hodge (high-level investor that donated $15 million for the Kelley school expansion) made his donation because of sports? Doubtful. At that time, our big sports flat out sucked. The Kelley School, however, did not. So saying that donors don't give their money unless they see teams on the field is a generalization that just won't stick. There are some major academic institutions that don't field high-level athletic teams but are still top-shelf schools, partially thanks to donations.

Like I said...I didn't mean "all donors."  That's why I clarified it, and we agree.  But....that doesn't change the fact that athletics are the window to universities for a huge percentage of people.  There's a reason new conferences are created, that teams want to join bigger conferences, etc.   TV exposure for their universities and the money that goes with it.  AD's have to understand the value of their brand, and the exposure of that brand is increased immeasurably by their exposure on television.  

[Old Friend 8,389]

So without basketball, only those who care about a prestigious academic institution would know of the prestigious academic institution?

And I suppose, the academic crowd knows of it for the academics, because that's what their main concern is--- which should be every future & current college student.


Athletics are, and SHOULD BE behind athletics. In this era, in the U.S., sports have taken on the term of "life" and that's so wrong.

The world of "should" and the world of "is" are very different.   How much do you know about Harvey Mudd?  It's the #1 engineering school in the country, so people "should" know a lot.  But go do a survey on the street today.  Ask them what they know about Harvey Mudd.  (most will say "who's he?")  Then ask the same people about Duke.  If I'm wrong, you "should" get similar responses.  If I'm right, far more people will be able to tell you more about Duke.  I'm not making an argument based on what "should" be.  All I'm saying is when an AD says his athletic department is a door to the university, I think he's wrong.  The door is academics.  But....the front window?  How millions of people see in and learn about your institution?   Absolutely.

[TheStillman 991]

Some good discussion here but I think a major point needs to be made to those who say that athletics is a way for the University to generate dollars.  This is data from 2008 since that is the latest I could find with a quick search but the trends and proportions likely stayed true over the past 7 years.

 

IU athletics brought in $57.1 million in FY 2008 versus the total University revenue base of $2.4 billion (about 2% of total revenues).  IU's expenses in FY 2008 for athletics were $50 million.  So if we consider that $7.1 million as the net revenues of the department we are looking at $7.1 million made for the University (.30% of the University's total revenue base). 

 

We all love athletics here but the University would do just fine without it from a monetary perspective.  Yes it does provide marketing at a below market value cost but the University as a whole is much bigger than the athletic department and if not for athletics the University would find other ways to market itself since getting a college education by and large is considered a standard in the US. 

 

Further, the situations at Texas and Michigan are so different than Glass at IU.  It does not indicate that those universities are more committed or anything like that.  It means that they made bad hires who did not care about the university mission and only cared about the dollars which created a toxic environment.  To me Glass hits a good mix between understanding the mission and generating dollars to support the athletic department.  I also respect the hell out of what he has done with the Student-Athlete Bill of Rights.

 

To any point that people don't know Harvey Mudd College or Elon or whoever and that somehow shows that IU should emphasize athletics equally with academics I think you're putting forth a false narrative.  People know what is relevant to them.  If I was interested in going to an elite grad program that either of those schools offered I would know about it.  Just like I would know about it at Duke or IU.  If you're seeking out an education you will do your due diligence given the long term costs and benefits from making this choice.  For some on the margin the athletics program may drive this decision but for most it will not.   

[Old Friend 8,389]

Some good discussion here but I think a major point needs to be made to those who say that athletics is a way for the University to generate dollars.  This is data from 2008 since that is the latest I could find with a quick search but the trends and proportions likely stayed true over the past 7 years.

 

IU athletics brought in $57.1 million in FY 2008 versus the total University revenue base of $2.4 billion (about 2% of total revenues).  IU's expenses in FY 2008 for athletics were $50 million.  So if we consider that $7.1 million as the net revenues of the department we are looking at $7.1 million made for the University (.30% of the University's total revenue base). 

 

We all love athletics here but the University would do just fine without it from a monetary perspective.  Yes it does provide marketing at a below market value cost but the University as a whole is much bigger than the athletic department and if not for athletics the University would find other ways to market itself since getting a college education by and large is considered a standard in the US. 

 

Further, the situations at Texas and Michigan are so different than Glass at IU.  It does not indicate that those universities are more committed or anything like that.  It means that they made bad hires who did not care about the university mission and only cared about the dollars which created a toxic environment.  To me Glass hits a good mix between understanding the mission and generating dollars to support the athletic department.  I also respect the hell out of what he has done with the Student-Athlete Bill of Rights.

 

To any point that people don't know Harvey Mudd College or Elon or whoever and that somehow shows that IU should emphasize athletics equally with academics I think you're putting forth a false narrative.  People know what is relevant to them.  If I was interested in going to an elite grad program that either of those schools offered I would know about it.  Just like I would know about it at Duke or IU.  If you're seeking out an education you will do your due diligence given the long term costs and benefits from making this choice.  For some on the margin the athletics program may drive this decision but for most it will not.   

1)  What you can't ever measure is how much revenue comes in to a university because of the exposure it gets due to athletics on TV.   Another narrative is measuring ONLY the money that comes in directly to athletics as the basis for a revenue debate.  That's not close to reality.  I just gave you $45 million from Cindy Simon and Mark Cuban, but those numbers didn't count toward your $57 million.   This is a bigger picture conversation than money specifically earmarked toward the athletic department.   I don't believe all other money sent to the IU Foundation is sent there because of academics alone.  Everyone wants their teams to do well, and when they do, donations largely spike.   See : Butler.  

 

2)  I'm also not arguing what's important to Harvey Mudd.  I'm only saying a very small percentage knows anything about Harvey Mudd because they don't get any exposure.   The point is whether or not athletics are a window into universities; not whether universities should "emphasize" athletics.   My point really is that Indiana should be very careful about their brand, and our AD should be pretty concerned about the off-court garbage, along with the success of the basketball team because that entity is - by far - Indiana's most visible.   It has nothing to do with "mission."  In written form with limited time, it's difficult to really make the point the way I should have; but I'm not speaking of mission or purpose at all.  I'm not even speaking of emphasis.  I'm just saying our basketball team builds the Indiana brand for a huge percentage of the country.  Just like Duke basketball does.   Very few pay attention to what bulds Harvey Mudd's brand, or Elon's brand.  Hundreds of millions pay attention to what builds Indiana's.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

In support of Old Friends first point, think about all the people you've heard of who "will never donate again" until BK is back or Crean is fired. That money adds up.

[HoosierTrav 7,741]

Let's simplify this debate:

How much donor revenue would schools like Duke, Indiana, UK, etc receive if their flagship athletic programs were to dissolve/dissapear?

I have no idea as to what the real numbers are. I'm genuinely interested. If I had to guess, I'd say these universities would take a major hit.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

Let's simplify this debate:

How much donor revenue would schools like Duke, Indiana, UK, etc receive if their flagship athletic programs were to dissolve/dissapear?

I have no idea as to what the real numbers are. I'm genuinely interested. If I had to guess, I'd say these universities would take a major hit.

I can tell you this. But-for Indiana basketball, I never would have attended IU and I'm a donor. If it all were about academics I would be a Cornell alumni instead.