(04-21-2019 04:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I don't know why they are having a problem attracting students. As someone mentioned, foreign students represent a big percentage of their total and that group can be volatile in enrollment year to year.

Maybe they should spend more endowment on scholarships to attract students from the US.

Other countries are stepping up to retain their students at home and the new Visa problems/programs are making it tough to remain in US after college. This will make additional recruiting of foreign students difficult.

The number of HS students across the US is declining. Given the Tulsa price tag, there are simply too many colleges, in particular small private schools, competing for an ever shrinking number of Graduating HS students.

Tulsa is not alone but many smaller private school will be in a world of hurt in 10 years. College is simply too expensive

(04-22-2019 03:48 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:16 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I disagree with your entire front porch assertion, there is strong evidence to support it both long term and short term. Picking an undefined time and non correlated data points does not strongly support your arguement. There is better stats to base your position on and.at best the evidence is inconclusive that it is an overall benefit or not. It most likely is dependent on individual schools and sports. I however will not take on the debate either way as your viewpoint at a minimum is valid.

At Villanova, when they won the national championship back in 2016, that front porch effect was visible. Applications were significantly up. Donations across operations were up, too. They could point to this, because they were already running campaigns for numerous projects. Enrollment was generally consistent. The championship(s) boosted those campaigns and spiked applications.

This is a good point. A month or two ago I posted an actual study that tried to find a "front porch effect" and it did so, BUT only at extreme levels of performance.

IIRC, the results showed that if a school's men's hoops team (women's hoops did not matter at all) made the Final 4 there was a statistically significant uptick in applications and donations, and an even stronger effect if the school won the national title. These effects faded out over three years from the date of the big victories.

Likewise, there was the same kind of effect if a school's football team finished in the top 10 of the AP poll, and a stronger effect if it won the national title.

But other results just did not have any impact at all. Merely having a team, even good, winning teams, had zero impact.

You have to win really, really big, and very few do.

One of the disingenuous aspects of college athletics is that, when questioned about exorbitant athletic fees, school Presidents and ADs often invoke "branding" and "front porch" effects to justify them, even though there is precious little scientific evidence to support the claims. And this is a university we're talking about.

(04-22-2019 04:10 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 04:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I don't know why they are having a problem attracting students. As someone mentioned, foreign students represent a big percentage of their total and that group can be volatile in enrollment year to year.

Maybe they should spend more endowment on scholarships to attract students from the US.

Other countries are stepping up to retain their students at home and the new Visa problems/programs are making it tough to remain in US after college. This will make additional recruiting of foreign students difficult.

The number of HS students across the US is declining. Given the Tulsa price tag, there are simply too many colleges, in particular small private schools, competing for an ever shrinking number of Graduating HS students.

Tulsa is not alone but many smaller private school will be in a world of hurt in 10 years. College is simply too expensive

Tulsa's declining international students is dominately the political issues. Our international students come for the petroleum engineering degree although there had been some growth in our cybersecurity / computer areas.

The University is top 3 in the world for petroleum, so take a look at the travel ban list and the countries with the largest representation in Tulsa's student body and it's not hard to see what happened.

Tulsa was running a tiny annual deficit the last few years, the administration was in an aggressive building and expansion phase under the last president, before his retirement. The new president of TU took office in summer of 2016. A lot changed in that first semester that had nothing to do with the University but none the less had a direct negative impact on it.

Tulsa, conservative fiscally, tightened its belt and adjusted. It was likely there would be some cut backs after any signifigant expansion just because of the natural changes in education and needs.

Tulsa is not in danger of any kind. This was simply a necessary budget adjustment. Some don't like what was cut.

(04-22-2019 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:48 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:16 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I disagree with your entire front porch assertion, there is strong evidence to support it both long term and short term. Picking an undefined time and non correlated data points does not strongly support your arguement. There is better stats to base your position on and.at best the evidence is inconclusive that it is an overall benefit or not. It most likely is dependent on individual schools and sports. I however will not take on the debate either way as your viewpoint at a minimum is valid.

At Villanova, when they won the national championship back in 2016, that front porch effect was visible. Applications were significantly up. Donations across operations were up, too. They could point to this, because they were already running campaigns for numerous projects. Enrollment was generally consistent. The championship(s) boosted those campaigns and spiked applications.

This is a good point. A month or two ago I posted an actual study that tried to find a "front porch effect" and it did so, BUT only at extreme levels of performance.

IIRC, the results showed that if a school's men's hoops team (women's hoops did not matter at all) made the Final 4 there was a statistically significant uptick in applications and donations, and an even stronger effect if the school won the national title. These effects faded out over three years from the date of the big victories.

Likewise, there was the same kind of effect if a school's football team finished in the top 10 of the AP poll, and a stronger effect if it won the national title.

But other results just did not have any impact at all. Merely having a team, even good, winning teams, had zero impact.

You have to win really, really big, and very few do.

One of the disingenuous aspects of college athletics is that, when questioned about exorbitant athletic fees, school Presidents and ADs often invoke "branding" and "front porch" effects to justify them, even though there is precious little scientific evidence to support the claims. And this is a university we're talking about.

Not necessarily again it will depend on the school not just the sport or the level achieved.

Michigan with its enormous alumni base, its state flagship position, and well established educational traditions will by default see less of a return than a well known academically institution of smaller stature, shorter history etc.

How many people knew Valpo before Drew hit that shot?

It's very difficult to separate out. Would Michigan continue to receive the same level of support if they dropped the sports down a level? Or dropped them entirely? Do they get less support if they were to suffer through a decade of being terrible? How do you compare what happens to other schools in different locations, with a different focus, different history, and a community with different values and emphasis.

It is disingenuous to claim that high level athletics is only a positive. It has negatives to it innately just in the course of legitimate competition, never mind the resource pull. It also offers a unique experience and adds tangible value, and intangible ties.

I am not sure that it is possible to separate the team/program from the institution, particularly in the case of those who have been established longest, the school and its athletics have become far too entwined into the culture of many places. By default that means that those who do not carry such a connection are different and therefore for some people less.

(04-22-2019 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:48 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:16 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I disagree with your entire front porch assertion, there is strong evidence to support it both long term and short term. Picking an undefined time and non correlated data points does not strongly support your arguement. There is better stats to base your position on and.at best the evidence is inconclusive that it is an overall benefit or not. It most likely is dependent on individual schools and sports. I however will not take on the debate either way as your viewpoint at a minimum is valid.

At Villanova, when they won the national championship back in 2016, that front porch effect was visible. Applications were significantly up. Donations across operations were up, too. They could point to this, because they were already running campaigns for numerous projects. Enrollment was generally consistent. The championship(s) boosted those campaigns and spiked applications.

This is a good point. A month or two ago I posted an actual study that tried to find a "front porch effect" and it did so, BUT only at extreme levels of performance.

IIRC, the results showed that if a school's men's hoops team (women's hoops did not matter at all) made the Final 4 there was a statistically significant uptick in applications and donations, and an even stronger effect if the school won the national title. These effects faded out over three years from the date of the big victories.

Likewise, there was the same kind of effect if a school's football team finished in the top 10 of the AP poll, and a stronger effect if it won the national title.

But other results just did not have any impact at all. Merely having a team, even good, winning teams, had zero impact.

You have to win really, really big, and very few do.

One of the disingenuous aspects of college athletics is that, when questioned about exorbitant athletic fees, school Presidents and ADs often invoke "branding" and "front porch" effects to justify them, even though there is precious little scientific evidence to support the claims. And this is a university we're talking about.

Id need to look closer, but my guess is that study almost certainly failed to look into how many students have no interest in attending a school with no football program. My guess is that many, view it like buying a car without automatic transmission or air conditioning.

Yes, high levels of performance are likely needed for a FBS school to create an noticeable uptick in current applications---but my guess is a significant segment of the applicants arent even going to consider a school with no football team. They perceive the game day experience as part of college---even if they end up not going to many games. I mean--in some cases---some kids are big fans of a given schools sports program long before they ever step foot on campus. Such a high school senior already knows where they are going to college long before they ever receive a brochure from any university.

In the final analysis, there are only 130 FBS universities. Thats a relatively exclusive club given the thousands of higher education options. My guess is that being in that relatively small, relatively well known, FBS club has a value in terms of applications that is probably difficult to assess. For prospective students, they have heard the names of those 130 schools literally hundreds or thousands of times more often than their non-football playing competition due to random sports mentions on tv, newspaper, and in casual conversation. I think its very unlikely that that brand awareness doesnt play a role in the students selection process---even if its a completely unconscious bias.

Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

Bwahahaha I can't even. You're a *** san jose st fan. First I didn't know they exist, second you're clueless about Tulsa's athletic history or the dynamic between school and community or its student participation. 100 years in a conference lol...I think Tulsa has more ten win seasons before 2000 than San Jose St does in its entire history

But please continue to Google statistics.

Oh and top 3 in the world for petroleum engineering, Google Oil Capital of the World and suddenly the countries contributing international students makes sense. The vast majority of which aren't chinese, lol this isn't Cali.

Our foundation is controlled by old oil money, as in the money that built the Gathering Place and was the single largest private donation given to a city. The Warren's, Gilchrist's, and Phillips give us the big dollars. All Oklahoma people, where we show pee wee football repeats on cable in the summer, high school football is a way of life and we fly our high school teams to other states to kick their ass.

*** new years day bowls, hall of famers, NCAA record holders. How is a fan of a school that we have more actual asses in a seat at a basketball game than they do at their football games is talking about picking a hot team. BYU came to Glenn Dobbs and Tulsa to learn the passing game, first team to 5 straight New Years day bowls, playing since 1895.

San Joser fan

(04-22-2019 10:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

Bwahahaha I can't even. You're a f'n san jose st fan. First I didn't know they exist, second you're clueless about Tulsa's athletic history or the dynamic between school and community or its student participation. 100 years in a conference lol...I think Tulsa has more ten win seasons before 2000 than San Jose St does in its entire history

But please continue to Google statistics.

Oh and top 3 in the world for petroleum engineering, Google Oil Capital of the World and suddenly the countries contributing international students makes sense. The vast majority of which aren't chinese, lol this isn't Cali.

Our foundation is controlled by old oil money, as in the money that built the Gathering Place and was the single largest private donation given to a city. The Warren's, Gilchrist's, and Phillips give us the big dollars. All Oklahoma people, where we show pee wee football repeats on cable in the summer, high school football is a way of life and we fly our high school teams to other states to kick their ass.

F'n new years day bowls, hall of famers, NCAA record holders. How is a fan of a school that we have more actual asses in a seat at a basketball game than they do at their football games is talking about picking a hot team. BYU came to Glenn Dobbs and Tulsa to learn the passing game, first team to 5 straight New Years day bowls, playing since 1895.

San Joser fan

So an Ohio State and San Jose State grad can’t have an opinion on Tulsa or just any other school for that matter? Using your logic then you can’t have an opinion on anything P5 related since Tulsa is a G5 school.

(04-22-2019 08:51 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 11:43 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 11:10 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Tulsa's case for FBS is totally centered around playing in a mid sized metro that is not big enough for the pros and remote enough from other population centers that the community will get behind it.

They are more on the level of the top CUSA programs like Marshall and So Miss in this regard than having a lot athletically in common with the public schools of the AAC.

Case? What are you talking about case? Tulsa has always been FBS and has orange and sugar bowls.

The metro is a million people.

It has a great deal in common with SMU, Tulane, and Navy. Is the longest running rivalry for Houston, has been in a conference with UCF, ECU, and Tulane, and Houston for 16 years.

It was with Memphis, Cincy, and WSU in the Valley. SMU and Tulsa went to the WAC and back together.

Tulsa has no or little history with UConn and USF who are relatively new programs. It also didn't have a history with Temple.

While in the WAC, C-USA, and the AAC Tulsa has won the most conference titles in each.

While in C-USA and the same division with Tulane, Memphis, and SMU; Tulsa or Houston won a share of the division every year. Tulsa played ECU and UCF (3x) for the title going 2-2.

Tulsa competes with Oral Roberts in the same town, but they also have NE Oklahoma State and Rogers State sharing the same metro. Both public schools have more students than Tulsa, and they are in D2.

Tulsa is higher on the food chain than them, I would certainly think.

WAC 16 I thought was the perfect conference for Tulsa.

(04-22-2019 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:48 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:16 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I disagree with your entire front porch assertion, there is strong evidence to support it both long term and short term. Picking an undefined time and non correlated data points does not strongly support your arguement. There is better stats to base your position on and.at best the evidence is inconclusive that it is an overall benefit or not. It most likely is dependent on individual schools and sports. I however will not take on the debate either way as your viewpoint at a minimum is valid.

At Villanova, when they won the national championship back in 2016, that front porch effect was visible. Applications were significantly up. Donations across operations were up, too. They could point to this, because they were already running campaigns for numerous projects. Enrollment was generally consistent. The championship(s) boosted those campaigns and spiked applications.

This is a good point. A month or two ago I posted an actual study that tried to find a "front porch effect" and it did so, BUT only at extreme levels of performance.

IIRC, the results showed that if a school's men's hoops team (women's hoops did not matter at all) made the Final 4 there was a statistically significant uptick in applications and donations, and an even stronger effect if the school won the national title. These effects faded out over three years from the date of the big victories.

Likewise, there was the same kind of effect if a school's football team finished in the top 10 of the AP poll, and a stronger effect if it won the national title.

But other results just did not have any impact at all. Merely having a team, even good, winning teams, had zero impact.

You have to win really, really big, and very few do.

One of the disingenuous aspects of college athletics is that, when questioned about exorbitant athletic fees, school Presidents and ADs often invoke "branding" and "front porch" effects to justify them, even though there is precious little scientific evidence to support the claims. And this is a university we're talking about.

Id need to look closer, but my guess is that study almost certainly failed to look into how many students have no interest in attending a school with no football program. My guess is that many, view it like buying a car without automatic transmission or air conditioning.

Yes, high levels of performance are likely needed for a FBS school to create an noticeable uptick in current applications---but my guess is a significant segment of the applicants arent even going to consider a school with no football team. They perceive the game day experience as part of college---even if they end up not going to many games. I mean--in some cases---some kids are big fans of a given schools sports program long before they ever step foot on campus. Such a high school senior already knows where they are going to college long before they ever receive a brochure from any university.

In the final analysis, there are only 130 FBS universities. Thats a relatively exclusive club given the thousands of higher education options. My guess is that being in that relatively small, relatively well known, FBS club has a value in terms of applications that is probably difficult to assess. For prospective students, they have heard the names of those 130 schools literally hundreds or thousands of times more often than their non-football playing competition due to random sports mentions on tv, newspaper, and in casual conversation. I think its very unlikely that that brand awareness doesnt play a role in the students selection process---even if its a completely unconscious bias.

That's probably true of the elite teams. Nobody seriously doubts that football has earned a lot of money and fame and students for Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Alabama. Those are famous, celebrity football brands.

But for FAU, Eastern Michigan, and Bowling Green? Come on.

Football and athletics probably has value at schools with deep traditions, regardless of level. E.g., HBCUs like Grambling and Southern and FAMU, all FCS, are largely defined by their football teams, which go back 100 years, and their marching bands. Football culture is deeply rooted there, but not at a place like FIU. It would have 30,000 students regardless of football, just like USF and UCF had 30,000 students (and growing) before they had football.

I think it extremely unlikely that the presence of a football team influenced more than 1 in 300 students who decided to attend Western Michigan, Tulsa, or San Jose State. Heck, if you care so much about football, you'd go to a school with an actual football culture and history, one of the A5 schools in your area.

Seems like defenders of football and "big time" athletics in general are always trying to *avoid* research on their claims, by positing conditions that are impossible to test, etc. They just want it taken on faith that charging students big fees is good for the university.

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

I can't believe a third of Tulsa's undergrads are foreign students. That is not a good ratio. That is something they must work on.

(04-23-2019 08:53 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

I can't believe a third of Tulsa's undergrads are foreign students. That is not a good ratio. That is something they must work on.

Tulsa has been a good basketball school for ages. They were a good choice given the options. Either you get a smaller budget MAC school who didn't really fit the east coast/gulf coast footprint and who didn't have the basketball consistency, or you get Southern Miss with a better football program but smaller budget.

(04-23-2019 08:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 08:42 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 06:26 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:48 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 03:16 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  I disagree with your entire front porch assertion, there is strong evidence to support it both long term and short term. Picking an undefined time and non correlated data points does not strongly support your arguement. There is better stats to base your position on and.at best the evidence is inconclusive that it is an overall benefit or not. It most likely is dependent on individual schools and sports. I however will not take on the debate either way as your viewpoint at a minimum is valid.

At Villanova, when they won the national championship back in 2016, that front porch effect was visible. Applications were significantly up. Donations across operations were up, too. They could point to this, because they were already running campaigns for numerous projects. Enrollment was generally consistent. The championship(s) boosted those campaigns and spiked applications.

This is a good point. A month or two ago I posted an actual study that tried to find a "front porch effect" and it did so, BUT only at extreme levels of performance.

IIRC, the results showed that if a school's men's hoops team (women's hoops did not matter at all) made the Final 4 there was a statistically significant uptick in applications and donations, and an even stronger effect if the school won the national title. These effects faded out over three years from the date of the big victories.

Likewise, there was the same kind of effect if a school's football team finished in the top 10 of the AP poll, and a stronger effect if it won the national title.

But other results just did not have any impact at all. Merely having a team, even good, winning teams, had zero impact.

You have to win really, really big, and very few do.

One of the disingenuous aspects of college athletics is that, when questioned about exorbitant athletic fees, school Presidents and ADs often invoke "branding" and "front porch" effects to justify them, even though there is precious little scientific evidence to support the claims. And this is a university we're talking about.

Id need to look closer, but my guess is that study almost certainly failed to look into how many students have no interest in attending a school with no football program. My guess is that many, view it like buying a car without automatic transmission or air conditioning.

Yes, high levels of performance are likely needed for a FBS school to create an noticeable uptick in current applications---but my guess is a significant segment of the applicants arent even going to consider a school with no football team. They perceive the game day experience as part of college---even if they end up not going to many games. I mean--in some cases---some kids are big fans of a given schools sports program long before they ever step foot on campus. Such a high school senior already knows where they are going to college long before they ever receive a brochure from any university.

In the final analysis, there are only 130 FBS universities. Thats a relatively exclusive club given the thousands of higher education options. My guess is that being in that relatively small, relatively well known, FBS club has a value in terms of applications that is probably difficult to assess. For prospective students, they have heard the names of those 130 schools literally hundreds or thousands of times more often than their non-football playing competition due to random sports mentions on tv, newspaper, and in casual conversation. I think its very unlikely that that brand awareness doesnt play a role in the students selection process---even if its a completely unconscious bias.

That's probably true of the elite teams. Nobody seriously doubts that football has earned a lot of money and fame and students for Notre Dame, Ohio State, and Alabama. Those are famous, celebrity football brands.

But for FAU, Eastern Michigan, and Bowling Green? Come on.

Football and athletics probably has value at schools with deep traditions, regardless of level. E.g., HBCUs like Grambling and Southern and FAMU, all FCS, are largely defined by their football teams, which go back 100 years, and their marching bands. Football culture is deeply rooted there, but not at a place like FIU. It would have 30,000 students regardless of football, just like USF and UCF had 30,000 students (and growing) before they had football.

I think it extremely unlikely that the presence of a football team influenced more than 1 in 300 students who decided to attend Western Michigan, Tulsa, or San Jose State. Heck, if you care so much about football, you'd go to a school with an actual football culture and history, one of the A5 schools in your area.

Seems like defenders of football and "big time" athletics in general are always trying to *avoid* research on their claims, by positing conditions that are impossible to test, etc. They just want it taken on faith that charging students big fees is good for the university.

Yes. I can honestly say, were it not for football (and to a lesser extent, their other athletic programs) I would likely have absolutely no idea that Bowling Green, FIU, or W Michigan even existed.

(04-22-2019 11:46 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

Bwahahaha I can't even. You're a f'n san jose st fan. First I didn't know they exist, second you're clueless about Tulsa's athletic history or the dynamic between school and community or its student participation. 100 years in a conference lol...I think Tulsa has more ten win seasons before 2000 than San Jose St does in its entire history

But please continue to Google statistics.

Oh and top 3 in the world for petroleum engineering, Google Oil Capital of the World and suddenly the countries contributing international students makes sense. The vast majority of which aren't chinese, lol this isn't Cali.

Our foundation is controlled by old oil money, as in the money that built the Gathering Place and was the single largest private donation given to a city. The Warren's, Gilchrist's, and Phillips give us the big dollars. All Oklahoma people, where we show pee wee football repeats on cable in the summer, high school football is a way of life and we fly our high school teams to other states to kick their ass.

F'n new years day bowls, hall of famers, NCAA record holders. How is a fan of a school that we have more actual asses in a seat at a basketball game than they do at their football games is talking about picking a hot team. BYU came to Glenn Dobbs and Tulsa to learn the passing game, first team to 5 straight New Years day bowls, playing since 1895.

San Joser fan

So an Ohio State and San Jose State grad can’t have an opinion on Tulsa or just any other school for that matter? Using your logic then you can’t have an opinion on anything P5 related since Tulsa is a G5 school.

You can can have an opinion about anything you want and still get laughed at for it just like anyone else.

Just because you can have an opinion, doesn't mean that it has to be respected.

There is no such thing as the G5 it is literally a made up term.

You completely ignored all of the rebuttals, but as a person from Ohio St or San Jose St that's not a surprise, you didn't know anything about the situation and then got embarrassed by someone pointing it out.

(04-22-2019 06:30 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 04:10 PM)billings Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 04:48 PM)Big Frog II Wrote:  I don't know why they are having a problem attracting students. As someone mentioned, foreign students represent a big percentage of their total and that group can be volatile in enrollment year to year.

Maybe they should spend more endowment on scholarships to attract students from the US.

Other countries are stepping up to retain their students at home and the new Visa problems/programs are making it tough to remain in US after college. This will make additional recruiting of foreign students difficult.

The number of HS students across the US is declining. Given the Tulsa price tag, there are simply too many colleges, in particular small private schools, competing for an ever shrinking number of Graduating HS students.

Tulsa is not alone but many smaller private school will be in a world of hurt in 10 years. College is simply too expensive

Tulsa's declining international students is dominately the political issues. Our international students come for the petroleum engineering degree although there had been some growth in our cybersecurity / computer areas.

The University is top 3 in the world for petroleum, so take a look at the travel ban list and the countries with the largest representation in Tulsa's student body and it's not hard to see what happened.

Tulsa was running a tiny annual deficit the last few years, the administration was in an aggressive building and expansion phase under the last president, before his retirement. The new president of TU took office in summer of 2016. A lot changed in that first semester that had nothing to do with the University but none the less had a direct negative impact on it.

Tulsa, conservative fiscally, tightened its belt and adjusted. It was likely there would be some cut backs after any signifigant expansion just because of the natural changes in education and needs.

Tulsa is not in danger of any kind. This was simply a necessary budget adjustment. Some don't like what was cut.

A tiny amount. Iran and VZ are or were on the travel ban but 95% of Foreign students at Tulsa are from countries not on the "travel ban".

(04-23-2019 08:53 AM)Big Frog II Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

I can't believe a third of Tulsa's undergrads are foreign students. That is not a good ratio. That is something they must work on.

I think IF u visit the top 100 College Campus's around our country, U'll quickly notice that most campus's have around @ minimum, around 25% foreign students.

4 the snowflake generation college attendance is actually down 12% as compared to previous generations

A few tidbits, Tulsa was proactive yrs ago & bought up all the surrounding neighbored Real Estate (depressed area at bargain prices) & well over 50% of the FT Student population lives in Univ of Tulsa owned housing.

Go ahead & throw all the MUCK @ Tulsa. We ain't going anywhere. We will just continue 2 win & B competitive in the AAC (Tied w/ UCF 4 most All Sport AAC Conf Championships since joining the conference)

Can't wait 2 surprise some folk's this fall, Coach Monty's boys will B bowl bound.











Tulsa will continue 2 B competitive in the AAC.

From the article: "The default course load for all professors at TU will shift from 3/2 to 4/4"

WOW. A 60% increase in workload for faculty members?

How would you tell your employees that they were expected to perform 60% more work than they were hired for?

The message is that Tulsa has abandoned all pretense of producing research and hiring quality faculty. A 4-4 load is the highest you'll find at any 4-year university in the country.

How can a school with a $1.1 billion endowment justify this?

(04-23-2019 10:55 AM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 11:46 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:58 PM)Foreverandever Wrote:  

(04-22-2019 10:13 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  Attackcoog,

That is definitely not the case at Tulsa. Who in the wide world grows up a Tulsa Hurricane Football fan?

Here is an undergraduate breakdown

2150 Domestic (52% Oklahoma, 16% Texas, 20% from Kansas, Missouri and Arkansas)
1047 International
- 9.6% of the student body is from PRC (437 total -- very likely a few more are Chinese from places like HK, Taiwan, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam; part of the connected Chinese families throughout Southeast Asia)
- 3.0% Saudi Arabia (147 total ... this is a sharp decline from 215 in 2014-15)
- 2.0% Oman (115 total)
- India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Iran, Venezuela, Nepal, Nigeria (~170) are the other significant ones

The one sports positive, more males (1,784) than females (1,412). However this can largely be accounted for by the unbalanced gender from international students. There are likely under 1000 undergraduate males from the US. No shock females have far lower interest rates in sports, but higher than international (international males have interest, but mostly in European Soccer).

As a Liberal Arts heavy school, their domestic enrollment is shifting female, and international interest is declining, since those are not useful skills - why choose Tulsa if you want your son to be an Engineer or Entrepreneur for your family business in China, Venezuela or Saudi Arabia?

Tulsa was institutionally a terrible choice by the American. It was a case of "fan decision making." They choose a program that was hot for a couple years and had a good sized budget, without considering the core fan base for sustainability. But now they are stuck with them for the next 100 years.

As for Tulsa, they will make the moves necessary to survive and thrive. They need to be more like Rice long term to survive. It's a brutal competition for the wealthy children of the billionaire families of the Chinese Communist Party elite, and the parallel ruling families in the Oilogarchies like Venezuela, Russia, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. These families give massive donations and are far more important than football fans. After all football money goes to the athletic department, international donations to the foundation go to the institution itself and are far larger.

Bwahahaha I can't even. You're a f'n san jose st fan. First I didn't know they exist, second you're clueless about Tulsa's athletic history or the dynamic between school and community or its student participation. 100 years in a conference lol...I think Tulsa has more ten win seasons before 2000 than San Jose St does in its entire history

But please continue to Google statistics.

Oh and top 3 in the world for petroleum engineering, Google Oil Capital of the World and suddenly the countries contributing international students makes sense. The vast majority of which aren't chinese, lol this isn't Cali.

Our foundation is controlled by old oil money, as in the money that built the Gathering Place and was the single largest private donation given to a city. The Warren's, Gilchrist's, and Phillips give us the big dollars. All Oklahoma people, where we show pee wee football repeats on cable in the summer, high school football is a way of life and we fly our high school teams to other states to kick their ass.

F'n new years day bowls, hall of famers, NCAA record holders. How is a fan of a school that we have more actual asses in a seat at a basketball game than they do at their football games is talking about picking a hot team. BYU came to Glenn Dobbs and Tulsa to learn the passing game, first team to 5 straight New Years day bowls, playing since 1895.

San Joser fan

So an Ohio State and San Jose State grad can’t have an opinion on Tulsa or just any other school for that matter? Using your logic then you can’t have an opinion on anything P5 related since Tulsa is a G5 school.

You can can have an opinion about anything you want and still get laughed at for it just like anyone else.

Just because you can have an opinion, doesn't mean that it has to be respected.

There is no such thing as the G5 it is literally a made up term.

You completely ignored all of the rebuttals, but as a person from Ohio St or San Jose St that's not a surprise, you didn't know anything about the situation and then got embarrassed by someone pointing it out.

You can have an opinion and get a rebuttal for it, that’s the way it should be. However, you stated since he’s a San Jose State fan, his opinion regardless if he’s right or wrong shouldn’t be taken seriously. If that’s the case you as a Tulsa fan shouldn’t be taken seriously on any P5 related thread since your school is not part of the cartel.

As far as G5, it exists and it’s been that way since the BCS era when five conferences were categorized as nonAQ or nonBCS. The only thing that changed is that the WAC disappeared (football) and the football side of the Big East now the AAC got demoted and took the WAC’s spot.

(04-23-2019 11:48 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  From the article: "The default course load for all professors at TU will shift from 3/2 to 4/4"

WOW. A 60% increase in workload for faculty members?

How would you tell your employees that they were expected to perform 60% more work than they were hired for?

The message is that Tulsa has abandoned all pretense of producing research and hiring quality faculty. A 4-4 load is the highest you'll find at any 4-year university in the country.

How can a school with a $1.1 billion endowment justify this?

So a massive exodus of faculty should be expected?