Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Something the Admin needs to read

skibum

skibum

Thou shalt not groom Mary Jane
Club Member
Someone should shell out the $5 and send a copy to every single administrator and regent:
http://nber.org/papers/w18196

Peer-reviewed paper that finds that a winning football team:
-reduces acceptance rates*
-increases donations
-increases applications
-increases academic reputation
-increases in-state enrollment
-increases incoming student SAT scores

*initially counter-intuitive, but this is a good thing, it happens due to a combination of more applications & better qualified applicants.

If a team wins 5 more games during a season:

"This school may expect alumni athletic donations to increase by $682,000 (28%), applications to increase by 677 (5%), the acceptance rate to drop by 1.5 percentage points (2%), in-state enrollment to increase by 76 students (3%), and incoming 25th percentile SAT scores to increase by 9 points (1%)."

Here's the full paper abstract for the real geeks:
Spending on big-time college athletics is often justified on the grounds that athletic success attracts students and raises donations. Testing this claim has proven difficult because success is not randomly assigned. We exploit data on bookmaker spreads to estimate the probability of winning each game for college football teams. We then con- dition on these probabilities using a propensity score design to estimate the effects of winning on donations, applications, and enrollment. The resulting estimates represent causal effects under the assumption that, conditional on bookmaker spreads, winning is uncorrelated with potential outcomes. Two complications arise in our design. First, team wins evolve dynamically throughout the season. Second, winning a game early in the season reveals that a team is better than anticipated and thus increases expected season wins by more than one-for-one. We address these complications by combining an instrumental variables-type estimator with the propensity score design. We find that winning reduces acceptance rates and increases donations, applications, academic reputation, in-state enrollment, and incoming SAT scores.
Click to expand...
 
skibum said:
Someone should shell out the $5 and send a copy to every single administrator and regent:
http://nber.org/papers/w18196

Peer-reviewed paper that finds that a winning football team:
-reduces acceptance rates*
-increases donations
-increases applications
-increases academic reputation
-increases in-state enrollment
-increases incoming student SAT scores

*initially counter-intuitive, but this is a good thing, it happens due to a combination of more applications & better qualified applicants.

If a team wins 5 more games during a season:

"This school may expect alumni athletic donations to increase by $682,000 (28%), applications to increase by 677 (5%), the acceptance rate to drop by 1.5 percentage points (2%), in-state enrollment to increase by 76 students (3%), and incoming 25th percentile SAT scores to increase by 9 points (1%)."

Here's the full paper abstract for the real geeks:
Click to expand...

This claim that the NBER produced peer reviewed research is a slight understatement. This is like saying the 85 Bears played football. The NBER is the platinum standard for economic research. They are a primary source of information for policy makers in the government.

These kind of facts could very well change the minds of the Regents, assuming they are rational.... Having never met them, I don't know whether they are ideologues or not.

Great Find.

I would also be interested in any research that examines the living conditions of the average D1 football player. There is a lot of misinformation out there that they are driving around in fancy cars, when I bet most of them are relying on university meal plans. I get in debates with anti football people and would like more than my own anecdotal evidence.
 
You think the numbnut admin. doesn't already know this? They do...despite that knowledge, they would rather pursue a top notch Aramaic studies professor. My guess is they were always the last ones picked for the dodgeball game in grade school, and never got over it.
 
The admin at CU is scared of what a powerful AD would do. They're worried about becoming another Penn St. I've heard this from more than one source.
 
Benson has even said he agrees that a strong athletic program is good for the university.
 
skibum said:
Someone should shell out the $5 and send a copy to every single administrator and regent:
http://nber.org/papers/w18196

Peer-reviewed paper that finds that a winning football team:
-reduces acceptance rates*
-increases donations
-increases applications
-increases academic reputation
-increases in-state enrollment
-increases incoming student SAT scores

*initially counter-intuitive, but this is a good thing, it happens due to a combination of more applications & better qualified applicants.

If a team wins 5 more games during a season:

"This school may expect alumni athletic donations to increase by $682,000 (28%), applications to increase by 677 (5%), the acceptance rate to drop by 1.5 percentage points (2%), in-state enrollment to increase by 76 students (3%), and incoming 25th percentile SAT scores to increase by 9 points (1%)."

Here's the full paper abstract for the real geeks:
Click to expand...

This isn't like a pro-tobacco study done to show the "health benefits of smoking" either. Homie went to Swarthmore and then MIT -- not exactly juggernauts for athletics. Fascinating paper -- worth the $5.00 for sure.
 
sackman said:
The admin at CU is scared of what a powerful AD would do. They're worried about becoming another Penn St. I've heard this from more than one source.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Some people need to join the planet earth. Are they afraid a new regime will lead to the hiring of a pedophile?
 
Our applications had a huge rise after we beat Oklahoma. I believe that is still the record for most apps on a non-deadline weekend.
 
sackman said:
The admin at CU is scared of what a powerful AD would do. They're worried about becoming another Penn St. I've heard this from more than one source.
Click to expand...
If this is true, we should be focusing on dumping the admins. rather than bitching about the poor play of the team.....If there isn't solid support to put a winner on the field from the decision makers, it is very hard for the average fan to do much except show up and say "here's my wallet, take what you want". Given the product, I am no longer willing to do that.
 
sackman said:
The admin at CU is scared of what a powerful AD would do. They're worried about becoming another Penn St. I've heard this from more than one source.
Click to expand...

You can become good at football and have a powerful AD without covering up child rape. The two are not related....that is just dumb.
 
leftybuff said:
You think the numbnut admin. doesn't already know this? They do...despite that knowledge, they would rather pursue a top notch Aramaic studies professor. My guess is they were always the last ones picked for the dodgeball game in grade school, and never got over it.
Click to expand...

They weren't the last ones picked, they were never picked. And for good reason.
I suspect the pipsqueak chancellor is the primary problem. He was responsible for the 5th year.
 
CUBUFF80 said:
Seriously? Some people need to join the planet earth. Are they afraid a new regime will lead to the hiring of a pedophile?
Click to expand...

I'm dead serious. They see what happened at Penn State and are worried that if allowed too much power, the athletic dept here will be allowed to do something similar. Not specifically hide a pedophile, but do something that would taint the entire university. It's all about the image of the university, and they would rather have a piss poor football team than take the chance that they could end up on an episode of "60 Minutes". Pathetic, but I've heard it from more than one source and I believe it to be the absolute truth.
 
sackman said:
I'm dead serious. They see what happened at Penn State and are worried that if allowed too much power, the athletic dept here will be allowed to do something similar. Not specifically hide a pedophile, but do something that would taint the entire university. It's all about the image of the university, and they would rather have a piss poor football team than take the chance that they could end up on an episode of "60 Minutes". Pathetic, but I've heard it from more than one source and I believe it to be the absolute truth.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is I wouldn't be surprised.
 
sackman said:
I'm dead serious. They see what happened at Penn State and are worried that if allowed too much power, the athletic dept here will be allowed to do something similar. Not specifically hide a pedophile, but do something that would taint the entire university. It's all about the image of the university, and they would rather have a piss poor football team than take the chance that they could end up on an episode of "60 Minutes". Pathetic, but I've heard it from more than one source and I believe it to be the absolute truth.
Click to expand...
So we have a bunch of pC wussies running the show, and not a real man among them willing to strive for excellence...great.
 
leftybuff said:
So we have a bunch of pC wussies running the show, and not a real man among them willing to strive for excellence...great.
Click to expand...

This is, I believe, an accurate assessment of our current situation. Not only that, but there's no way a "real man" would be allowed into the mix here. We're fooked. And it's not getting better anytime soon. I sent an e-mail to the two guys running for at-large Regent asking about their view of the role of athletics. One guy didn't bother to respond, the other guy wrote a 3 paragraph diatribe that said nothing at all - basically "a good athletic department is a great thing, but not at the expense of the rest of the school".
 
Everybody in the stadium ought to boo the **** out of Dr. Phil and BB every chance they get then. PSA with Dr. Phil, boo. See his scrawny little mug at the game, boo. See BB at the recruiting luncheon, boo. Peer pressure is all we got apparently. I amnot saying yell at them or hurt them in any way, do not misunderstand, but boos are universally understood...even by those ivory tower types. OK, BB isn't ivory tower, but you know what I mean.
 
sackman said:
I'm dead serious. They see what happened at Penn State and are worried that if allowed too much power, the athletic dept here will be allowed to do something similar. Not specifically hide a pedophile, but do something that would taint the entire university. It's all about the image of the university, and they would rather have a piss poor football team than take the chance that they could end up on an episode of "60 Minutes". Pathetic, but I've heard it from more than one source and I believe it to be the absolute truth.
Click to expand...

It seems as though Stanford and Michigan have been rather successful and managed to maintain relatively high academic standards while avoiding Penn State type of abuse. This is a massive cop out by a bunch of mealy mouthed weasels.
 
CUBUFF80 said:
It seems as though Stanford and Michigan have been rather successful and managed to maintain relatively high academic standards while avoiding Penn State type of abuse. This is a massive cop out by a bunch of mealy mouthed weasels.
Click to expand...

Or Wisconsin, Washington, Texas to name a few
 
OK, I'm not disagreeing with any of you, so please don't take this the wrong way, but Penn State was the model of a school that supposedly balanced high academic standards and athletics at the same time, too. There's no telling what kind of sh!t is going on at Stanford, Wisconsin, Michigan, Texas, etc. There probably isn't anything going on, but there *could* be, and that's what worries these folks. I'm disgusted by the attitude, but I have heard this more than once from people who are in the mix.
 
My issue with the leadership (not that it is the best word to use) at CU is the same issue common to most public/gov't "leaders" in Colorado:

They historically and consistently pander to whichever group is the most vocal. And whenever differing sides of an issue are being vocal, their main goal is simply to appease the groups, without making any significant long term commitments.

They consistently will cave into:

-Internal politics (academia & keeping HaLk around an extra year, for example)
-External politics (RMS in Denver & the "scandal", for example)
-Media pressure & public perception (the "scandal", for example)

Their comments will always revolve around "doing what's best for the university," however when they say that, what they really mean is, "1) doing what best for me to keep my position/control/power; and 2) doing what will keep the most amount of heat away from me."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top