WestWYOPoke wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2017 5:17 pm
I know I'm mainly preaching to the choir here, but found an interesting article talking about Temple University and the exposure their football team had in the 2016 season.
In fact, Temple hired a media tracking firm to count the equivalent dollar value of every piece of media exposure related to Owls football over just the 2016 football season — from broadcasts on ABC and ESPN to local broadcasts in, say, Orlando after a Temple-UCF game — and found Temple University would have to spend $38 million to garner such a reach.
Football Equals Exposure
$38 million!!! The proposed budget in 2016 for the ENTIRE Temple athletic department was only $26.6 million.
The next time you see anyone spouting off about how athletics don't do anything for the University, tell them about this.
The problem is that it doesn't report on the impact of those dollars spent. It simply compares the cost of football to the would be cost of gaining "exposure" on various TV platforms.
In the case of UW, has enrollment gone up because of football? Has recruiting class rankings gone up after Josh Allen? Has non-state revenue increased because of football or after Josh Allen.
I love football and fully supportive of college football; however, I also feel the "value" is greatly overestimated especially at smaller schools. Direct institutional support, student fees, state appropriations, etc. should not be counted in revenues. Ticket sales, apparel, sponsorships, donations, NCAA appropriations, game payments, etc. are all that should count. Actual appreciable and measurable metrics should be used to show benefit of exposure (increased enrollment, others?).