UCAFANS.COM | GO UCA BEARS!

The NCAA has concluded a study of programs moving from Division II to Division I and found that while revenue increased by $2.5 million (nearly $2 million of that increase came from the school itself), expenses increased by an average of $3.5 million.

In an interesting note. Schools that are Division II if they increase their spending on athletics the increase will not be recovered by new revenue. On average each extra dollar of athletic spending for a Division II school nets only 60 cents, losing 40 cents per dollar of investment. If memory serves a similar study in Division I found that the ROI in Division I ranged from 80 cents per dollar to $1.10 depending the type of school. For example a BCS school adding luxury suites can expect an ROI of around $1.10 but a non-football school beefing up its program can expect to lose 20 cents for every extra dollar (couldn't find the link to the Div I study... sorry).

The report does note that pure financial reasons aren't the only reason for shifting Divisions.



Here is the article.
http://www2.ncaa.org/media_and_events/p ... y_rls.html

WOW!!! 2.5 million ooowwww la la

WOW!!! Man it's a good thing we're going to start drawing these 20,000 person crowds otherwise we'd never be able to afford a move.

lol very true

The problem with the huge financial rewards the richest six conferences in I-A enjoy is that it has become so big and so lucrative that college athletics are no longer valued for their contribution to student life, their value in keeping alumni tied to the school, or for providing opportunities for an education that create a more diverse student body (not just race, but in experiences, interests, background).

Athletics are judged by the balance sheet instead of those intangible benefits. If the financial bottom line were the true and correct measure of the worth of athletics there would be no more than 100 schools across the country playing and many schools would carry far fewer sports. Stanford wouldn't sponsor 28 sports they would sponsor 18 or so if it were really just about money.

I don't think we are going to be pulling in a 20,000 folks. We will lose money anyway.

Why do you have a picture of a possum on this website? Dumbest looking animal I have ever seen.

What Possum?

Victoria and Victor E. Bear look like possums! Why can't anyone please come up with a real looking bear? Not like there isn't half a million universities with the "bear" mascot!

That's what I thought you were saying.

Man we need to get live bear!! I mean if North Alabama can have a real lion, then we need a real BEAR!!!!

OH i'M OFFENDED! haha Ok, I know you are jealous because you aren't in the bear suit, I can make that happen! Just let me know when you are available and you can play bear for the day!!!!

Baylor has the best Bear setup I have seen,with their own zoo type cages and living areas for their Bear mascots, it's pretty sweet...

As far as the original reason for this whole thread, I am guessing/assuming we would lose money either way moving off, especially in the early years. I have thought this all along, especially if we start playing games in LR, because we won't be selling out that place anytime soon, unless we play Hogs, and you (everyone) and I all know that will NEVER happen.<That was used for a hypothetical situation ONLY.)

I do agree with you about the rewards and how athletics are based purely on finanacial gains these days. But chances are if you are winning, that will lead to more money, and more winning will draw more students and get them more excited, thus also contributing to their student life. Like the last few years since UCA has won more in football, compared to the end of the Isom era, more sutdents are showing up and getting more excited about the school and going to games, and thus spending a little more money on the university and related apparel. Same is the case with basketball the last couple of seasons as well. That said we are apparently spending tons of money in the athletic dept. as well, and I'm not sure how we are doing on the plus or minus side of 0 in the budget. But I'm guessing we are a LOT closer to the minus side compared to the plus side.

I've also read and heard that that is how Uconn got so big in basketball. Once the women started winning national titles, people wanted to go to school there from all over the country, general students from all over. Because they knew their programs would have a chance at winning and have a chance to support winners. Same has occured at Duke over the years and other schools who have won national titles in various sports. The winning and national titles have led to an increase of national applications for admissions to their respective universities. I don't have any numbers for football schools that way, but I do know those stories about Duke and Uconn.

But yes I am agreeing with you that athletics are judged by the balance sheet instead of those intangible benefits. But overall winning helps the balance sheet as well in some cases so that should be considered as well, in that it helps contribute some to student life and over all impression of their school, and can lead to a more diverse student body if people from all over are wanting to be admitted.

Too bad my examples are only D1 stories and I don't think it will matter much in UCA's case. It will be all about the money, and then maybe a more prominent name in Arkansas and throughout the South I guess. Which means we are likely to lose huge chunks of money.

I'm sorry Go Bears....I didn't mean to get rid of you, I was just saying that we should get a real one and have you too!

Article on Log Cabin today (6/30) about the original post on this thread.


(Admin Edit: Tomorrow it will be on the June archive page on the newsstand)