(03-14-2019 06:32 PM)TDenverFan Wrote: (03-14-2019 05:23 PM)Pete24 Wrote: Here’s my point. Why is making the NCAA Tourney such a Holy Grail? What has it done for Virginia schools like Hampton U or Radford? Has it raised their overall stature? And what about George Mason & VCU, both of which had Final 4 runs in ‘06 & ‘11, respectively? Did it raise their academic profile? I don’t think it did.
It definitely raised their national profile. The year after VCU's Final 4 run, they saw a 20% increase in applications, and an increase in out of state students (who pay more in tuition).
George Mason estimated that they got close to $700 million worht of free advertising by making the final four. Their applications have rose 350% (though it would be foolish to attribute all of that to basketball). They saw more out of state students apply, and an uptick in alumni donations.
https://www.educationdive.com/news/how-m...es/234331/
Who here was familiar with Butler University before their final four runs?
(03-14-2019 08:24 PM)ttgwm02 Wrote: i'm also not sure the schools cited as positive examples of a post-NCAA tournament "bump" are peer institutions. Butler and VCU and George Mason focus on a very different type of student. Butler closer, but still quite distinct. Reality, not arrogance. And these schools all made significant runs.
Time to jump in on this. ttgwm02 is right about this. First off, a "run" is usually considered to be to the Elite Eight or to, at least, the Sweet Sixteen. The GMU, VCU, and Butler runs you are talking about were all to the FINAL FOUR! Yes, that got them some publicity - duh! - but not analogous to what our none-or-one win first appearance would be. Moreover, VCU has actually gone to the dance for about the last eight straight years, so their exposure is more of the long-term type (they would like to be Gonzaga). However, W&M making their first trip to the dance is going to be just like
most other first-timers: starry-eyed and deer in the headlights and a quick exit. It will take several trips close to each other before a school/team would feel comfortable enough to actually play their best game and expect one or two wins
every year. W&M is not going to reach that stage in my lifetime (although obviously Huge and Rowe want to get there - but it is a pipe dream). Until then, we would be a media darling for a few weeks and then fade from public consciousness. Now that Northwestern broke through two years ago, does anyone remember that now (or care)?
However, what really prompted me to write was all this talk of increased applications. In so far as that would apply to W&M,
SO WHAT?! W&M already gets
thousands more
quality applications now than they could possibly admit (based on school size limitations). We are already getting the cream of the crop both in state and out of state -- and turning more than 50% of them away. All of the smart kids already know about W&M and are already applying there if they are interested. So why in the heck do we need thousands of more applications (of probably lower quality students because we were already attracting most of the top tier) that we will just wind up rejecting anyway? To bolster some phony algorithm like what favored TCU?
The "exposure" thing is the same way. It is just transitory -- especially so and especially shorter for no-wins-or-one-win teams.
W&M already is on every list of the top colleges in America. That is the kind of exposure that a university needs, not the kind that comes from fleeting athletic prowess and sacrificing your morals for winning.
Now, I will agree that there are some benefits to making the NCAAs. Alum and fan morale is a top one. That also leads to another top one: increased alumni giving, donations, and merchandise sales. I am all aboard for those. There is one last one -- which is the one that I think that Rowe/Huge are most enamored with -- which is the extra money a school gets for every NCAA share. Each game is worth a share so obviously the more you win the more shares you get. I think it is their plan to completely fund the athletic department with all the money they think they will get from shares. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT, IN PRINCIPLE. That is, a self-funding athletic department would be beyond great. However, as I have said, it is how they went about it (firing Tony) that leaves me in shock and frightened that W&M will fall into that inescapable maw of corruption that is big-time college athletics. Firing the winningest coach in your basketball history pursuing this dream makes me wonder if the culture they are spawning to gain it is worth it.