Dr. Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
-------------------
-------------------
Wichita, Ks
RE: The Empirical Effects of Collegiate
Athletics: An Interim Report
Dear Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy,
The following is my analysis of the captioned paper you
provided for my review:
I. QUESTION PRESENTED FOR ANALYSIS:
Did WSU's Suspension of Football in 1986
Cause the Loss of Students, and the
Continual Inability of WSU to Attract
Students Even to the Level of Approximately
17,000 Students we Enjoyed in 1986; and
Does the Captioned Report Offer any
Relevant Evidence Applicable to the Question?
II. Results of Review of the Captioned Report
In summary fashion, it is unnecessary to exhibit the analysis
of the entire report, in order to respond to the presented
question.
The report purports to be an independent analysis (I do not
suspect the claim of independence to be pure as the driven snow) of
"empirical effects". When I was in engineering school, we
considered empirical analysis to be the study of data and the
results exhibited by the data, not the result of subjective
opinions. My dictionary defines "empirical", thus:
"Relying upon or derived from observation or experiment.
Guided by practical experience and not theory."
In the present matter, we have the most relevant evidence, in
short, what in fact happened to WSU, statically, student-wise,
subsequent to president Armstrong's suspension of football. We
have the actual practical experience to observe, and do not need
a priori theories or assumed axioms, or to consider whether other
folks studies and statements are relevant to our experienced
situation.
But you query and posit whether there is in fact a
relationship between Armstrong's suspending football, the
subsequent significant loss of some 3000 students, and the
continued inability for the last 18 years to even overcome the
loss, let alone to grow additional students beyond our original
almost 17,000 level, to the equal level of K-State that we had
obtained in 1986 (less 442 students), which K-State 17,000 level
has now grown to 23,050. Rather than being compatible with K-
State, we are now some 8000 students less than K-State.
¶X---------------------------------------------------------X
¶X---------------------------------------------------------X
But how then does the report consider the presented issue?
The answer is that each of the 10 "Hypothesis" of the report, are
unrelated to the question of loss of football having a cause and
effect relationship to the loss of students, and inability to grow
students.
However, in Section I, discussing "Existing Empirical
Literature", the report cites, acknowledges, and affirmatively
supports the relationship, on page 11 paragraph 2, thus:
"Athletic success may also affect applications and
enrollment... For schools not at capacity or for
schools with the ability to expand capacity, increased
applications could translate into increased enrollment
and higher general revenue. The literature generally
finds that athletic success is associated with increased
applications and enrollment: Murphy and Trandel (1994),
using panel data on schools in major conferences from
1978 to 1987, find that schools with more successful
football teams receive more applications, although the
effect is relatively modest. Zimbalist (1999) similarly
finds, using panel data from 1980 through 1995, that
athletic success is associated with increased
applications. Mixon and Hsing (1994) find that out-of-
state students prefer schools with larger sports
programs. Mixon and Rand (1995) find that doubling the
number of NCAA basketball tournament games played would
lead to a six percent increase in out-of-state
enrollment. Goff (2000) finds that dropping football
can have measurable, negative effects on enrollments,
even for second-tier schools." (Emphasis added) p.11
causa finita est.
Given the specifically on point observable empirical experience and
data, and results of exactly the opposite decisions being made in
the exact same year, 1986, for K-State and WSU, with the exact
opposite observable empirical results over the last 18 years, and
with no even reasonable suggestion of any other factors effecting
the obvious observable empirical data; in reason, we should not
have to struggle to look for outside a priori theories or other
outside factual analogies to teach us what it is our own experience
clearly demonstrates. (See, Dictionary of Theories, causal
realism, causal theories, and causal principle, p.81) That is
unless the intent is to attempt to avoid the obvious, and simply
use verbal subjective gymnastics, as rationale to support not
solving our fundamental problem of loss of students and our
inability to substantively increase our enrollment over an extended
18 year period of time, notwithstanding we buy students with mil-
levy funded scholarships. But even the outside empirical data in
fact support our own experience, as cited above.
Moreover, the Goff (2000) study is specifically and directly
on point, exhibits the answer to our presented question, and
deserves to be repeated for emphasis, thus:
"Goff (2000) finds that dropping football can have
measurable, negative effects on enrollments, even
for second-tier schools." (Emphasis added).
The Bibliography of the report lists the Goff (2000) study, thus:
"Goff, Brian, "Effects of University Athletics on
the University: A Review and Extension of Empirical
Assessment," Journal of Sport Management, 2000, volume
14, pages 85-104."
I suspect this Goff study to in fact involve WSU and Long Beach
State, as well as other "second-tier schools", perhaps Div. 1-AA
etc. The Journal of Sport Management should be available to you or
your athletic director, and the article should be obtained for its
"measurable" data, and conformation of the conclusions of the
study. This study may in fact encompass the entire envelope of
schools that have dropped football. And, Goff says the
"measurable" results show "negative effects on enrollments".
While I say it is unnecessary to look to outside experience
when we have our own more relevant facts and data, nevertheless the
Goff study additionally supports our own experience, and may in
fact include our experience along with all other schools who have
dropped football.
Neither do any of the 10 Hypothesis of the report considered,
provide any conclusions to the contrary, and most are entirely
irrelevant to our presented question, although some indirectly
support the suggested solution to our problem, which simply is to
solve the economic funding issues, and reinstitute a viable
moderate Div. I-A football program probably at about the WAC level.
Nor do I find in my review, any statement in the report that
would support any negative conclusions to the above issues.
But you will say: in Section V: "The Effects of Athletic
Spending", under "Other quantifiable effects" paragraph 1, p. 31,
states:
"Part of the supposed Flutie effect is that athletic
programs generate other benefits for institutions
of higher education. These benefits could manifest
themselves in a variety of ways, including increased
applications, increased student quality, and increased
annual giving. ... Our analysis, for example, suggests
... no robust relationship between football spending
or success and the university's acceptance rate (that
is, the percentage of applicants accepted by the
university). As noted above, the existing empirical
literature on these issues is mixed." (Emphasis added).
Please note the use of the subjective word "robust", implies
there is some relationship, but the report writer doesn't want to
plead that case. (In my subsequent analysis letter, I will deal
with this bias as a function of the perceived basis of the NCAA's
requested and paid for study in the first instance).
But more importantly, "acceptance rate" -- the percentage of
applicants accepted -- is not the issue. For example, if a
university accepts 85 or 100 percent, etc, of 500 applicants, and
thereafter expends additional moneys in some fashion resulting in
greater football success, and thereafter accepts 85 or 100 percent,
etc, of 1000 applicants, the acceptance rate -- the percentage of
applicants accepted, remains unchanged. But the number of
applicants doubled, and so did the absolute number of students
accepted, thereby increasing the student body population.
While I suspect this quoted statement above to be the basis of
your concern, that this report might suggest increased spending on
football does not lead to additional students; that statement in
fact does not say that, or anything at all about whether or not
there is associated with additional spending on football and
football success, additional applications by prospective students.
It only speaks to the "percentage" of applicants accepted, not
whether there are additional applications associated with spending
and success. But while the quoted sentence doesn't speak to the
issue, on p. 11 the report specifically found a positive
relationship, as partially quoted here, and fully quoted above, as
to various reports in the literature, thus:
"The literature generally finds that athletic success is
associated with increased applications and enrollment:"
And, as to the issue of increased giving, we would be remiss
if we did not keep in mind our experience, that when we determined
to save and renovate Cessna stadium in its 30,000 plus seat
capacity, for $3.2 million of which $2.2 million was public mil-
levy money; the results were we were then able to obtain about half
the money by gift to build phase IV of the baseball stadium, which
probably had the result of maintaining Gene Stephenson as our
baseball coach; and, Charles Koch, when he contributed $6 million
towards the round house project, specifically stated as rationale
for his gift:
"I am now convinced the university is headed
in the right direction." (Emphasis added).
Mr. Koch was previously copied on all our papers on the football
stadium issue, as well as were 100 other community leaders, and it
is apparent he supported saving Cessna stadium, although we never
ask him for his involvement or for any contribution to save Cessna
stadium. But once he saw the university striving to do the right
thing and solve the problems, he provided the seed money and
leadership that resulted in additional contributions and a $26
million dollar renovation to what is now Charles Koch Arena, a
massive positive contribution to the university and this community.
And, it is only a matter of time until this sports expenditure
results in increased basketball success and increased basketball
revenue and alumni giving. In fact, last year has already seen the
beginnings of the resulting benefits.
III. CONCLUSION
In partial conclusion, I should emphasize that I do not
believe there is anything in the report that is contra to the
obvious exhibited results of our own experience vis-a-vis K-State.
In fact the report cites with agreement other studies in the
literature specifically supporting our experience. If you still
think there is some statement or exhibited rationale that is contra
to the conclusion that: suspending football caused our loss of
students; and more importantly, the lack of football has continued
over the last some 18 years to preclude our ability to project as
a traditional university and to grow and attract additional
students; I would appreciate your drawing to my attention a
citation to specific language of the 50 page report.
It is simply incredible that over a period of 18 years, while
KU and K-State and other schools in Kansas have continued to
experience additional student body growth, that WSU over the same
period and under the same state economic conditions, cannot even
return to our student body status we had at the time of the
disastrous unconscionable decision to suspend football.
And, I shall gratuitously add that it is also incredible, that
the Board of Regents has not seemed, at any time for the last 18
years, to be profoundly concerned with the loss of student problem
they created for WSU, in the very process and opposite decisions
they made, to solve the same loss of student problem for K-State.
The hypocrisy reeks. They were then profoundly concerned with
K-State's loss of students -- so said Chairman and Regent Sondra
McMillian -- but they now seem more than willing to except our loss
of students for the same reason, particularly when a significant
portion of said loss goes to KU and K-State.
It is my serious opinion, that unless we solve this problem,
the university will never reach its full potential, and will
further be lucky to survive additional attacks to relegate WSU to
a lesser status in the State than KU and K-State, as evidence by
unjust consistent lesser per capita State spending at WSU vis-a-vis
KU and K-State per capita State spending. And this is so even
ignoring KU's medical school (including that portion of the KU
medical school the KU Board of Regents xxxxx -- excuse me,
transferred -- from WSU) expenditure, which expenditure is half of
the total KU State expenditure, the results of which were, the last
time I checked the numbers, that only about 8 percent of the
graduating class of doctors, stay in the state. So, out of a class
of 54 graduating students, only 4 doctors stayed in Kansas. As I
recall, at the time the cost of the KU medical school to the Kansas
taxpayers was over $311,000,000/year -- I think the year was 1995.
Lets see $311,000,000 divided by 4 ... well, you get the idea. We
could buy more than four doctors a year for $311,000,000. Where is
it do you suspect the evidence suggests the Board of Regents
interest lies?
I have said this is a partial conclusion, for the reason that
I have carefully read the entire report, and have other comments.
They are however not necessary for the analysis relating to our
question presented. There are additional comments that indirectly
support my position and conclusions I have drawn, that I will try
to present in a follow on general analysis of various aspects of
the report.
One caveat is that I do not intend to deal with any
substantive analysis of the data contained in the Appendices. I
must candidly admit that I am not familiar with the equations or
methods the equations represent in this area, and would have to
take a class to be taught the equations, rationale and processes of
the study approaches, or to otherwise potentially read a book or
books on the subject matter and teach myself, in order to
potentially have the ability to substantively comment upon the
methods and equations being used. And, to accomplish that process
would be of great time consumption, and in any case I do not see
that it would probably impact the conclusions I have presently
drawn. I in fact rely upon the authors' representations of what
the equations and data exhibit. But as time permits, I intend to
follow up with some additional general comments that might be of
benefit in considering the rest of the report that I have not dealt
with.
In appreciation of your consideration of the above, we are
with,
Kind regards,
Shocker Black & Golds
By:
Fred Marrs
p.s. On 12 Dec. '02, I wrote Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx a similar analysis
letter of an Ohio State Football article he asked me to review and
comment upon, which letter I copied you on. Since it deals with
the football issue, and is relevant in part to the above, I am
inclosing a copy for the convenience of filing should you wish to
keep a separate file on this subject matter.
Subscribe