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!

We now take you to USC, UA, Okie Lite, Auburn, Da U, KANSAS, & NC State

Okay. Scary, but I have a thought. More like a question. Football and men's basketball are self sustaining sports. The AD is funded by their revenue and, generally speaking, do not get funding from the school. So, what is the incentive for the school administration to control the AD? What is their stake in the game? I mean, there is honor and reputation and all that, but say Louisville men's basketball gets the death penalty. What is the cost to the university? And is that cost incentive enough to stay on top of what's going on behind the AD's door? Seems like the AD gets punished and not the University.
 
DBT said:
Okay. Scary, but I have a thought. More like a question. Football and men's basketball are self sustaining sports. The AD is funded by their revenue and, generally speaking, do not get funding from the school. So, what is the incentive for the school administration to control the AD? What is their stake in the game? I mean, there is honor and reputation and all that, but say Louisville men's basketball gets the death penalty. What is the cost to the university? And is that cost incentive enough to stay on top of what's going on behind the AD's door? Seems like the AD gets punished and not the University.
Click to expand...
Arghhhh.... I feel like you've been willingly ignoring everything RG and a majority of the posters here have been saying for years. It's about two things- brand and marketing.

"Brands" are worth many millions of dollars in some instances because you can monetize a logo that is, almost literally, worth nothing tangible. If we take your point to its logical conclusion- that by not regulating the AD, the AD ceases to exist- the university loses any brand equity created by the athletic department. By having an athletic program, the university increases the brand visibility and therefore the brand equity. It's literally free money.

Secondly, the AD acts as a marketing tool for two extremely valuable sets of "consumers" to universities- prospective students and potential donors (and perhaps the most valuable segment- alumni donors). There is a direct correlation to applications from athletic success (at least in revenue sports) and increased applications means decreased acceptance rate, which in turn enhances the perception of academic prestige. Colleges also form lasting bonds to potential alumni donors and emotional connections to non-alumni donors, and those donations spread to the academic side of the school. There are far more donors that donate to both athletics and academics than there are that donate exclusively to the academic arm of most universities.

So, any "scandal" damages the brand and also lowers donations to the academic side of the house, which is why CU is (****ing finally) investing in athletics in a way that they should have previously.
 
Denver_sc said:
Arghhhh.... I feel like you've been willingly ignoring everything RG and a majority of the posters here have been saying for years. It's about two things- brand and marketing.

"Brands" are worth many millions of dollars in some instances because you can monetize a logo that is, almost literally, worth nothing tangible. If we take your point to its logical conclusion- that by not regulating the AD, the AD ceases to exist- the university loses any brand equity created by the athletic department. By having an athletic program, the university increases the brand visibility and therefore the brand equity. It's literally free money.

Secondly, the AD acts as a marketing tool for two extremely valuable sets of "consumers" to universities- prospective students and potential donors (and perhaps the most valuable segment- alumni donors). There is a direct correlation to applications from athletic success (at least in revenue sports) and increased applications means decreased acceptance rate, which in turn enhances the perception of academic prestige. Colleges also form lasting bonds to potential alumni donors and emotional connections to non-alumni donors, and those donations spread to the academic side of the school. There are far more donors that donate to both athletics and academics than there are that donate exclusively to the academic arm of most universities.

So, any "scandal" damages the brand and also lowers donations to the academic side of the house, which is why CU is (****ing finally) investing in athletics in a way that they should have previously.
Click to expand...
Good points. But is the risk of ignoring your teams doing what it takes to win worth the reward?
 
Buffnik said:
Yeah. That's the guy who got the HC job at UC Santa Barbara and is killing it on the recruiting trail. Beat out CU for Sow, nabbed Bryce Peters via transfer, etc. Something smells.
Click to expand...

Smells like cash money
 
Buffnik said:
Yeah. That's the guy who got the HC job at UC Santa Barbara and is killing it on the recruiting trail. Beat out CU for Sow, nabbed Bryce Peters via transfer, etc. Something smells.
Click to expand...

Tad's program seems to smell clean, and as frustrating as it has been to see guys like XJ, Wes, and Peters miss games due to discipline and Peters, Thomas (others?) transfer following discipline problems; I'm proud to root for a program that (at least as far as we know) has done it the right way and not tolerated bad behavior.

Tad's success has been moderate by power conference standards, but unprecedented in Boulder. If staying clean means turning a bunch of 3 star recruits with the occasional 4-star recruit into a program that makes the NCAA tourney more often than not, I can live with it.
 
DBT said:
Good points. But is the risk of ignoring your teams doing what it takes to win worth the reward?
Click to expand...
One can definitely calculate the numbers if one wanted to- you'd need to know variables like how much each incremental win was worth to the brand and in projected increased donations, how many incremental wins a player would project to contribute, the 'cost' for each player, and the overall risk of getting caught. Until earlier this week, pay for play seemed to be a fairly widely-known secret that wasn't punished at all, so the 'risk factor' would have been almost zero. Now it's much higher for guys on a personal level.
 
DBT said:
Seriously? Are you sure? Looks pretty real to me.
Click to expand...

this is the original (Jan 2013):

marshall_hendersonauburn.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top