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.
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.
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.
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.
