<p>Folks are making the case for Coach Bill Snyder and Kansas State University. There have been similar stories regarding basketball at Gonzaga and Georgetown. But KSU supporters feel that Coach Snyder's success was reverberated significantly in economic development as well as in greater recognition and support for KSU academics. From everything I've read before, Coach Snyder is an outstanding individual, but do you think his effect (and that of Nick Saban at Alabama or Frank Beamer at Virginia Tech) has been exaggerated? Even it it's true, is it troubling that colleges that otherwise provide a sound education are ignored by community and business leaders until the school establishes a winning athletics program?</p>
<p>I can see it happening. Sports victories lead to more $ for the school, and not just in the sport. Alumni donate more, more “Football U” shirts are sold with some % of sales to the U. The reputation of the school is burnished; there is a positive vibe about it. Better students apply. Voila! The school becomes stronger academically. </p>
<p>It is too bad if the community hadn’t taken notice of the school until it started winning football games. </p>
<p>It never hurts when a school gets its name out to the public in a positive way such as winning athletics. And winning teams in major sports typically do lead to an increase alumni donations.</p>
<p>It helps to increase applications and to make the school more selective. </p>
<p>I’d like to know if research grants and similar awards to KSU increased after the start of the Bill Snyder era. I understand that KSU was thought to be a solid STEM school before the football team began to slap around its B8 and B12 opponents.</p>
<p>The literature suggests that in most cases, the answer is no or at least “not significantly.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.knightcommission.org/collegesports101/chapter-8”>http://www.knightcommission.org/collegesports101/chapter-8</a></p>
<p>I doubt research grants are tied to sports success except indirectly. Winning can certainly increase alumni donations and selectivity, which means that the next generation of alumni would be more successful and donate more. </p>
<p>Athletic success certainly had something to do with Duke’s rise a few decades ago and Vandy’s rise recently, IMO.</p>
<p>Also OSU’s and PSU’s rise to respectability over decades.</p>
<p>Also probably UChicago’s and UMich’s rise to prominance a century ago.</p>
<p>Heck, the creation of the Ivy League football conference was a marketing masterstroke for those 8 schools. Having winning football programs in the early part of the 20th century did not hurt.</p>
<p>The $15M or so UA gives in merit scholarships (lots to OOS students) got to be coming from somewhere. The $80M or so it makes from the football program can’t hurt.</p>
<p>@NoVADad99 UA is spending a lot more than $15M a year on merit scholarships!. Most of the funding is coming from Tuition (though others sources of funding is also used).</p>
<p>UA 2013 expenditures on Scholarships and Fellowships were $119,038,938. That’s out of a total expenditure of $689,282,101. That can be compared to the $252,000,000+ on Instruction, $42,000,000+ on Research, $61,000,000 on Operations and Maintenance, etc. </p>
<p>Most of UA’s revenue comes from Tuition and Fees, $422,035,107. </p>
<p>Don’t underestimate the importance of exposure to these schools. When TAMU made the leap to the SEC, the main stated reason was exposure. </p>
<p>PurpleTitan, what I was asking was whether or not the enhanced public profile of KSU athletics brought more attention to the university as a whole, causing grant makers to “take note” more now than in the past when a KSU grant proposal landed on their desks. Perhaps the folks who dish out federal and corporate grants, all else being equal, don’t notice such things.</p>
<p>Most football money stays in the athletic departments. There is certainly overflow to the university (parking lot rental on game day, exposure, food sales from campus venues), but for the most part that money belongs to the athletic department and it builds facilities, hires coaches and employees, funds scholarships, replaces equipment. Nick Sabin’s salary comes from the athletic department, not from the University general funds.</p>
<p>Schools benefit from almost all publicity. Both Lynn and Centre gained attention after hosting the presidential debates.</p>
<p>@LakeWashington:</p>
<p>The people giving out grant money care far more about the details of the research grant proposal and the people asking for the money than the football team of the university those people work at.</p>
<p>In KSU’s case, total R&D expenditures have gone from $114,327,000 in 2003 to $176,141,000 in 2012.</p>
<p><a href=“http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&fice=1928&id=h1”>http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=report&fice=1928&id=h1</a> </p>
<p>From the KSU/Snyder article:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s about a 27% increase, which leads to a significant increase in tuition and funding for the University. This funding is used to recruit faculty and build facilities. The faculty and facilities help to make it easier for KSU to win research grant proposals. About 2/3’s of KSU’s funding is from tuition, the other 1/3 is from state appropriation. Increasing enrollment has been huge for KSU, and (winning) football has played a role. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.k-state.edu/budget/5-KSU%20Appendices-Main%20Campus-FY15.pdf”>http://www.k-state.edu/budget/5-KSU%20Appendices-Main%20Campus-FY15.pdf</a></p>
<p>I’m sure KSU also took several other steps to build up it’s enrollment, but I’m sure the football program has played some role.</p>
<p>But, to take one quick comparison, in the same year, Iowa State’s external funding hit $360 million, and the Cyclones are . . . ummmmmmm . . . football-challenged. The Frank study and the Knight Comission reports are worth reading. </p>
<p><a href=“Iowa State’s external funding reaches $360.2 million in fiscal year 2012 • News Service • Iowa State University”>http://www.news.iastate.edu/news/2012/07/16/externalfunding12</a></p>
<p>Surely the alumni tossed a few more donations to Iowa State after they beat (nearly beat?) Texas a few years ago? LOL. In any event, Iowa State has been a great STEM school for quite a while.</p>
<p>Doug Flutie</p>
<p>The needle is easier to move at smaller schools.</p>
<p>Villanova after their national championship win over Georgetown</p>
<p>Winning sports teams attract alumni support and donations if there is a preexisting sporting culture already. If there isn’t, investment in, say, football at the expense of direct academic expenditures, as Rutgers University has done, is an expensive waste. New Jersey is never going to love football like Kansas does. Rutgers should not have wasted money in a fruitless attempt at mimicking Penn State.</p>
<p>Neither of my kids schools even have football teams, and we couldn’t be happier with their experience.</p>