I want Mark Jackson

HAND DOWN........MAN DOWN !

I've been told that the retention rate is now around 75%. One out of four students do not come back for a second year. So while enrollment might be up a bit, these kids aren't staying.

The school offering a buyout package to full-time employees across all five of its campuses speaks for itself. Some big names, other than Ron Rutledge, whom have been a part of the athletic office for a long time have accepted this buyout.

That's just first-year retention.
 According to latest stats available, out of an average freshmen class, 41.7% won't graduate.

http://www.stjohns.edu/about/ir/retention
The school does a great job of tracking students' retention-breaking them down by commuter/resident, GPA, race,etc.

I hope the school realizes that with all the money they're sinking into upgrading academic and residential facilities, NONE of those upgrades can give 1/1000th of the type of marketing that a winning basketball program can.  In terms of marketing the University, if they turn their attention to that, they will find success.  Look at how much $$ Marquette is pouring in. 

You get out what you put in, in most circumstances.

I hope the school realizes that with all the money they're sinking into upgrading academic and residential facilities, NONE of those upgrades can give 1/1000th of the type of marketing that a winning basketball program can.  In terms of marketing the University, if they turn their attention to that, they will find success.  Look at how much $$ Marquette is pouring in. 

You get out what you put in, in most circumstances.

Any proof that any of this is true? That enrollment or applications are tied to the success of the basketball team? (Both are up at SJ despite BB's moribundity.) That there is any great increase in revenue to be had? (Most of the money comes through revenue sharing.) Any reason to think the people who run the university haven't crunched the number and found them wanting?

Quote from: TRabinowitz on March 08, 2010, 01:19:27 AM

I hope the school realizes that with all the money they're sinking into upgrading academic and residential facilities, NONE of those upgrades can give 1/1000th of the type of marketing that a winning basketball program can.  In terms of marketing the University, if they turn their attention to that, they will find success.  Look at how much $$ Marquette is pouring in. 

You get out what you put in, in most circumstances.

Any proof that any of this is true? That enrollment or applications are tied to the success of the basketball team? (Both are up at SJ despite BB's moribundity.) That there is any great increase in revenue to be had? (Most of the money comes through revenue sharing.) Any reason to think the people who run the university haven't crunched the number and found them wanting?

I think there is plenty of reason to think the people at the University aren't very good at math.

I think there is plenty of reason to think the people at the University aren't very good at math.

That's one "I have no evidence" then.

Quote from: TRabinowitz on March 08, 2010, 01:19:27 AM

I hope the school realizes that with all the money they're sinking into upgrading academic and residential facilities, NONE of those upgrades can give 1/1000th of the type of marketing that a winning basketball program can.  In terms of marketing the University, if they turn their attention to that, they will find success.  Look at how much $$ Marquette is pouring in. 

You get out what you put in, in most circumstances.

Any proof that any of this is true? That enrollment or applications are tied to the success of the basketball team? (Both are up at SJ despite BB's moribundity.) That there is any great increase in revenue to be had? (Most of the money comes through revenue sharing.) Any reason to think the people who run the university haven't crunched the number and found them wanting?

When George Mason went to the Final Four, applications skyrocketed 20% the following year.  Good basketball/football programs = the best kind of publicity you can have for a college.

When George Mason went to the Final Four, applications skyrocketed 20% the following year. Good basketball/football programs = the best kind of publicity you can have for a college.

A single anecdote is not proof. It's not even evidence.

Between 2006 and 2008, applications to Lewis and Clark College increased 30 percent. Sorry, skyrocketed 30 percent. I don't recall them making the Final Four.

In 2008 applications to Tulane increased 100 percent, five times the purported increase at GM. That have anything to do with the final four?

The number of applicants to SJ increases every year despite no football and futile BB.

I asked if you had any evidence. I'll take it that you do not.

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx

"Fraternal researchers Jaren and Devin Pope recently completed their study of the impact of college sports success on admissions, finding that the number of applications increases between 2 percent and 8 percent for the top 20 football schools and top 16 basketball schools each year.

The variation in the percentages can be attributed to the schools' rankings in their respective sports. For example, the team finishing first in either sport will likely experience the 8 percent applicant pool increase, whereas the schools finishing 16th or 20th will see the 2 percent rise."

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/11027/athletic-success-leads-to-admissions-influx

"Fraternal researchers Jaren and Devin Pope recently completed their study of the impact of college sports success on admissions, finding that the number of applications increases between 2 percent and 8 percent for the top 20 football schools and top 16 basketball schools each year.

The variation in the percentages can be attributed to the schools' rankings in their respective sports. For example, the team finishing first in either sport will likely experience the 8 percent applicant pool increase, whereas the schools finishing 16th or 20th will see the 2 percent rise."

So a top 20 football program sees a skyrocketing 2 percent increase in applications and the difference between winning a national championship in football and not having a football program at all is an 8 percent rise in applicants? That two percent increase you think proves that sports is "the best publicity" money can buy? Because if that's your justification I think it makes a case for eliminating sports altogether.