My Case

My argument is that college sports are beneficial to universities.  Most, if not all, colleges lose money on their athletic programs.  For this reason many people believe that athletic programs should be abolished, because in their view that money should be put into academics.  I hope to show that athletic programs are worth their expenses, because Div-1a sports and big time programs allow universities to increase their exposure and publicity.  This allows the university to build a brand image based off of their sports programs.  The positive brand image that results from sports programs increases the perceived value in the minds of consumers and the public.

Research related to my case:
https://www.rulill.rutgers.edu/illiad/RULILL/illiad.dll?SessionID=C201300289S&Action=10&Form=75&Value=303593

https://www.rulill.rutgers.edu/illiad/RULILL/illiad.dll?SessionID=C201300289S&Action=10&Form=75&Value=304069

https://www.rulill.rutgers.edu/illiad/RULILL/illiad.dll?SessionID=C201300289S&Action=10&Form=75&Value=307201

Counter Argument Book Review

Citation:
Dowling, Wiliam C. Confessions of a Spoilsport : My Life and Hard Times Fighting Sports Corruption at an Old Eastern University. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. Print.

The Author:
William Dowling was a professor at Rutgers University, and spent years "fighting corruption" that he believed to stem from Rutger's athletic programs

Summary:
Dowling's argument is that college athletics are not beneficial to colleges and universities.  Dowling believes that the tremendous costs of college athletics would be better spent on academics.  Additionally, Dowling believes that schools with big time division 1A athletic programs attract a certain type of "party animal" student.  This type of student does not necessarily treat their education as their number one priority.  A student body that is not interested in their education will ultimately drive the most tenured and important professors away from a university, and lead to a degradation of the school's academic standing.

The problems with Dowling's argument is that he bases his argument that college athletics are a burden to universities solely on the effects that Div-1a sports can have on an institution's academic reputation.  In today's college culture, privatization is the most powerful force.  Privatization is affecting everything from the budget's of this countries biggest universities, to college admissions.  In a world very much effected by privatization, building a brand image can be much more beneficial than maintaining a spot among the most selective universities.  I do not mean to say that a sound academic reputation is worthless, or that being a college sports powerhouse means everything to a university, but I do maintain that a college sports program will do more for a school's brand image.

Quotes: 
"Academics and big-time athletics can go hand in hand.  A successful athletic program can help draw the community to the campus, and raise the university's profile in the public eye" (Dowling, 166).
This is a quote of Rutgers President Richard McCormick, in which McCormick is expressing his stance on athletics at Rutgers.  The Rutgers 1000, a group of alumni that was fighting hard to remove Div-1a athletics, had hoped that McCormick would remove athletics upon taking over as university president.  When McCormick arrived at Rutgers, he took a pro-sports stance.  As detailed in the explanations in the following quotes, this provides Rutgers with a way to build its brand image.

"It was the Coca-Cola campaign that did the most to teach us that the issue of Div-1a sports was inseparable from the more general issue of university commercialization" (Dowling 84).
Dowling is opposed to commercialization, and therefore privatization.  Today we know that the privatization of colleges and universities is inevitable and necessary.  Privatization is the reason that brand name and brand image are increasingly important.  Elite private schools, such as the Ivy leagues, can use their Ivy League membership to create a positive brand image.  State public institution, although they can be large and academically excellent, cannot claim Ivy league membership to build their brand image.  Bigtime collegiate athletic programs are an option to build a highly visible and marketable brand image.

"Boise State in Idaho...failed even to make the U.S. News rankings of the top 248 institutions in the United States" (Dowling 132).
Then i would ask Dowling, why is it that Boise State is so well known all across America? The answer of course is the recent success of their football program.  Dowling attempts to make the point that having a powerful football program has caused Boise to slip in academic standing.  However, I think it is more likely that without its football program, Boise would be a state school known to few nation wide.  They would not have an academic or athletic reputation in order to back their brand.  Dowling does provide the statistic that Boise is not academically elite, and says the cause for that is its athletic programs.  Boise has no history of being academically elite before it participated in athletics, or before its teams were successful, so saying its recent success can be correlated to its weak academic standing does not make sense.

Conclusion:
In chapter 4, Dowling offers ways in which exposure from athletics is not useful for building a brand image. He calls his theories things such as: "Everyone knows O.J.", "The Flutie Factor", "What About Duke", "Rose Bowl Bump", and "Big Rock Candy Mountain".  With these theories, Dowling aims to say that the attention and publicity from Div-1a sports is bad attention.
Much of the information from Brian Goff's "Effects of University Athletics on the University: A Review and Extension of Empirical Assessment", as well as other sources, takes a stance against Dowling.  In fact, Goff uses a lot of statistical analysis to show that what Dowling says is not entirely accurate.  Overall, Dowling does do a good job of displaying the counter argument against the argument I hope to make.

Visual

This visual image is from my second book review, and pertains to some of the statistical evidence from that source that has to do with how athletics increases exposure for a university.

1995 was a year of tremendous football success for Northwestern University, because their football team reached the Rose Bowl.  Northwestern saw a tremendous spike in newspaper mentions in 1995.  Newspaper mentions were the mechanism used to measure exposure.  In 1995, Northwestern's newspaper mentions jumped by 185%

Western Kentucky University in a year of no noteworthy or noble athletic success only averaged 2 or 3 newspaper mentions per year among the eight leading newspapers used in this study.  In 1992 and 1993 both men's and women's basketball teams had noteworthy success.  In 1992, WKU had 30 newspaper mentions, and 13 in 1993.

Book Review #2

Goff, Brian. "Effects of University Athletics on the University: A Review and Extension of Empirical Assessment." Journal of Sport Management 14.2 (2000): 85. Print.

Summary:

Goff talks about the effects that college athletics has on universities.  A major part of what he talks about, and the part that is most relevant to my research is the impact that exposure related to athletics has on universities.  Goff researched newspaper article mentions about universities in years of athletic success.  In 1995 Northwestern University, known for graduate programs and research, had a very successful football season which concluded with a trip to the rose bowl. During 1995, Northwestern University was mentioned 185% more times in 8 leading newspapers. Even in 1992, a year in which Northwestern University had no notable academic success, 70% of Northwestern Universities’ newspaper mentions were athletic related. These statistics serve to show the effect of college athletics on the amount of name exposure a university receives.

Goff also debunks the notion that negative athletic performance can degrade a school’s reputation.  Goff looks as Southern Methodist University, which due to NCAA rule violations had a “death penalty” placed on its football program for the 1987 and 1988 seasons.  In 1987 and 1988, 8 leading newspapers mentioned SMU 133 times, as compared to an average on 5 to 8 mentions in years prior.   Despite the negative publicity, SMU’s endowment did not fall in post penalty years.

Author:

Brian Goff is affiliated with the Department of Economics at Western Kentucky University.  This publication was published in an academic journal.

Keywords:

For the purpose of Goff’s work, synonymous key words such as publicity and exposure refer to newspaper mentions in eight leading newspapers.

When Goff refers to brand name, branding, or brand equity, he is referring to the attractiveness of a school based on its reputation.  Much of Goff’s analysis refers to how sports improve a university’s brand name.

Quotes:

“Even for institutions with highly regarded academic reputations, many potential doners and potential students are more likely to become aware of, and interested in, the institution due to its participating in a major bowl game or the NCAA “Sweet Sixteen” than they are due to the work of a Nobel-Prive winning Chemist” (Goff, 91).

With this quote, Goff summarizes the draw that athletics can have on the general public towards the university.  Athletics are generally more in the spotlight than academics.  For this reason, participation in athletics often creates more publicity for a university than does academics.  In terms of building a more desirable brand name athletics often weighs more than academics because athletic programs are more visible than academics.

“Dropping football can have measurable, negative impacts on enrollments and possibly other indirect variables (e.g. giving) even for universities that do not have top tier programs” (Goff, 101).

The effect of removing football from a school’s athletic department causes decreases in enrollment and other factors, such as donations, because dropping a football program results in a decrease in name exposure.  College sports, in particular football, are a part of the entertainment business in America.  Even if a small school with a non-top tier football program gets one game televised per year, they create a huge amount of exposure for themselves they otherwise would not have.  This is particularly important for small schools that do not generate publicity through their academic reputation.  The same conclusions made for schools that drop their football can be drawn for schools that do not have football programs, and that is that these schools miss out on a tremendous amount of exposure.

“Even in years without special success, athletic articles were an important part of exposure” (Goff, 92).

Expanding on this quote leads to the conclusion that athletic success is not necessarily the key to building a more attractive brand name for a school.  Because college athletics are a part of the entertainment business, mere participation generates exposure, and exposure creates a more attractive image under the pre-tense of being a well-known institution.

Conclusion & Relating this work:

Goff is a direct expansion on my previous book review of Kelley Frans’ work.  Goff adds a statistical analysis to what Frans’ talked about.  Goff provides statistics that support how athletic programs increase a university’s exposure.  This information directly supports the idea I hope to prove, which is how exposure through athletics is beneficial to a university despite its high costs.  Goff expands on the material from my first book review, puts adds some new points, such as the effects of removing football from an athletic department, and adds vital statistics to support my position.

Post #8 More Sources

Roy, Donald P., Timothy R. Graeff, and Susan K. Harmon. "Repositioning A University Through NCAA Division I-A Football Membership." Journal Of Sport Management 22.1 (2008): 11-29. Academic Search Premier. Web. 6 Mar. 2012

Dowling, William C. Confessions of a Spoilsport: My Life and Hard Times Fighting Sports Corruption at an Old Eastern University. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2007. Print.

i already had confessions of a spoilsport listed, but i now determined how it fits into my arguement.  Dowling's arguement fits well into the conversation/ controversy criteria of my arguement, because he argues against the usefullness of college sports.

Post #7- Book Review 1

Frans, Kelly Ashley. "Ways in which Intercollegiate Athletics Contribute to University Success." NCSU Digital Repository (2002)Print. 


Kelly Frans' article "ways in which intercollegiate athletics contribute to university success" outlines some of the ways that college sports benefit universities.  Frans acknowledges that most athletic programs are not profitable, but maintains that they are valuable for other reasons.  The main reason is that college sports allows schools to expose themselves to the public, and gain greater visibility.  This allows the school to build a brand name.  A brand name is important for the school, because it allows them to search for more fundraising and spread word about the university.  During years of athletic success many schools also see an increase in the number of applicants that apply.  Frans says that exposure and brand name are not directly tied to winning, and that even unsuccessful programs benefit from the exposure they receive from simply participating in athletics.


The author Kelly Frans is published on the North Carolina State University website.


The terms brand, brand image, or brand name all refer to a schools reputation, perceived worth and value, and attractiveness to the general public.


"national publicity is the lifeblood of institutional prestige, and this is what college sports can offer a university" (page 16)
this quote explains that publicity from having and participating in college athletics is what can put schools in the national spotlight.  College sports are apart of the entertainment business, so participating allows millions of viewers the opportunity to hear the school talked about for the length of a game.  Schools that go through the expense to compete at the highest level of NCAA athletics can create an image of a "big time" school in the minds of viewers, which puts the school on a national (and therefore recognizable) level.


"sports promotes the name and identity of the university, which is especially true if the university does not have a nationally distinguished academic reputation"(page 16)
Schools that are not known for being academically elite need to create exposure in some way,  Athletics can certainly do that for a school.  One would have to wonder if schools like Boise State University or University of South Florida would be nationally known if not for their athletic programs.


"achievements in athletics appear to substantially increase general giving to the universities" (page 19)
This quote pertains to the amount of donations that a school receives.  The author talks about a study that correlated an increase in athletic donations to an overall increase for the school overall.  Athletic donations do not usually increase without increasing amounts of overall donations as well.  This goes to show how athletics builds that brand of the school overall, not just the brand of the sports teams.


This source is directly connected to the topic of brand name or brand image.  Participating in college sports creates a positive brand image, and therefore it is worthwhile to do so.  Brand image in very important for an institution, because it gets the institution recognized, which opens the door for the university to grow, expand, and compete in the privatized and competitive system of higher education.