UM athletics and budget cuts - article

[LakGriz]

don't know if Barrett has retired as econ prof or not.
believe he is running again for MT state senate as a Democrat; he'll probably face some out-numbered GOP extremist and get re-elected..
so he'll get both a legislator's pension and UM pension.

He'a a graduate of Swarthmore in PA ... another eastern elitist who would like athletics at UM and the Big Sky WITHOUT athletics scholarships -- that money could go to academics. Let's see ... there are 179 scholarships -- NOT fee waivers, right? -- and 320 full-time student athletes, so that's 140 FTE paying their own way -- revenue for UM, not athletics.

Barrett's wife is a former Missoulian reporter who was on the J school faculty, probably retired now on UM pension.

who knows how much UM athletics generates for UM dining? rent paid? money from sale of licensed items?

how many $$ did Barrett generate? How many people pay to watch him teach?

Only NAU and UND get more public support than Bobcats -- UM far behind..

 

[UMGriz75]

It's unfortunate that the way UM allocates revenues makes it exceedingly difficult to assess the impact of the sporting events on overall UM revenues. It's truly bad accounting.

For instance, the athletic department gets no concession revenue. I collided heads on with this about 15 years ago, to no avail. My argument: UM wouldn't earn a nickle in concession sales without the event, the event should at least get a % of the gross. Nope. No way. Food Services gets 100% of the till. Same for licensing of vendors. UM gets the fees, not the event.

Football stadium or Field House? Athletic Department gets to pay for the privilege of renting them from the University. So that money likewise disappears into facilities services. So, it goes down the food chain at the University whereby everybody with a sticky finger gets to benefit from athletic event revenues, and those revenues buoy up all sorts of other auxiliary services making them look better and the athletic department much worse.

Do UM (or MSU) events stimulate the local economy? Absolutely. Studies on NFL games show this conclusively. It may not boost the economy of a whole state, nation or the world, but these events are definite pluses for local economies, and UM's are likely larger, in proportion to the market size of Missoula, than an NFL team's would be on a commensurately larger city. MSU may even have a relatively larger benefit on Bozeman than UM has on Missoula.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2011-09-11/nfl-economy/50339734/1

Game days are insane," says Alice Burns, assistant manager and bartender at Bob Golic's Sports Bar & Grille, owned by a former Browns star. "Last season, we opened at 7 a.m. and were completely packed by 9 or 10."

Game-day sales "keep us going all year," she says. "It's pretty slow summertimes."

Business at John Q's Steakhouse multiplies by five on Browns' game days, says owner Rick Cassara. "It means everything to us," he says. "Everybody downtown does well on a Browns Sunday." When the Browns are playing, he doubles his staff, putting an extra 12 to 15 servers, bartenders and cooks to work.

Positively Cleveland, which promotes tourism to the city, estimated four years ago that every Browns game brought $7.9 million in business to Cleveland — $63 million a year. "No matter how the Browns are doing," says Tamera Brown, the group's vice president of marketing, "they still sell out."

The Browns' appeal and economic clout extend far beyond Ohio's borders. Every game day, around 100 Browns fans descend on the Box Seat sports bar in Hermitage, Tenn., outside Nashville.

 

[UMGriz75]

From UM's Bureau of Business and Economic Research:

The average amount spent by each out-of-town football fan coming in for game day is $177. Fans who stayed one night spent $368 on Missoula businesses. Season-ticket holders with an average number of two persons in the party--staying for two nights or more--spent almost $600. These expenditures were on every conceivable type of business, ranging from restaurants, bars, and motels to retail stores of all kinds and professional services such as legal advice and medical exams.

The patterns for day, one night, and two-plus night trips were similar for basketball fans and visitors to cultural events, although the dollar amounts were lower. However, basketball and cultural event visitors are not usually willing to travel the long distances that football fans do--especially football fans attending Homecoming and the Grizzly-Bobcat game when it's played at the Washington-Grizzly Stadium. Also, visitors to cultural events usually do not stay over night.

Determining the actual number of visitors from outside Missoula County who attended games, plays, and concerts was challenging. Bureau personnel and students from the School of Business Administration's Ad Club conducted entrance surveys at selected football and basketball games and cultural events. They asked the people attending the games or events whether they lived inside or outside of Missoula County.

From these entrance surveys, the Bureau found that out-of-town visitors at these different events ranged from 10 to 45 percent of the total attendance. The results for football and basketball games were especially dramatic. Approximately 45 percent of the people attending Grizzly football games were from outside Missoula County, a number that is eight times higher than when we last conducted a survey in 1986. Out-of-town attendance at basketball games--both the men's and women's games--averaged 25 percent, almost two times higher than our estimates 10 years ago.

The estimated proportions of outside attendance were applied to the total attendance figures for football, basketball, and cultural events and then factored in to the expenditure data.

These calculations revealed that nonresident visitors to athletic and cultural events spent $28 million in the Missoula economy last year.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Town+and+gown%3A+the+economic+partnership+between+the+University+of...-a020310264

 

[PlayerRep]

Good college athletics are what help college towns and states attract out of state businesses and out of state people to come to states like MT. That has positive economic impact. Missoula and Bozeman are great towns to live in and attract alot of out of staters, and the athletic teams are part of the attraction.

Games attract out of state fans, opposing teams and their fans, and others. This has some positive impact. How many hotel rooms was ESPN needing for the NDSU game?

Playoff games attract in-state and out-of-state fans. No way that in-state fans spend the same amount of money in their towns on playoff game days.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, you're out of your league here.

According to the Dept of Commerce BOEA report, Montana's monthly consumer savings rate is running about 5.1% (a little below national average). Whether consumer's discretionary money is spent on Griz or Cat games, it (or at least 95% of it) IS going to be spent, and the vast majority of it is certainly going to be spent in Montana.

And I didn't click your link, but I presume you're referencing the velocity of M1 vs M2. Yes, as any 3rd grader could tell you, the faster money is spent the greater the impact on the economy. But first, the amount spent is not great enough to be statistically significant. You need billions of dollars spent to even make velocity of money a relevant conversation. Economists don't even consider it a variable at the local level. Second, as noted above, the consumption rate on a monthly basis is 95%. So it's not as if Montanans are holding their cash long term. It's going right back into the economy within 30 days of receipt. The velocity argument is a nonstarter.

Yes, the argument that money not spent at games may be spent elsewhere is valid. But also small enough to be statistically insignificant. I don't think you realize the size of numbers we're talking necessary to impact a state's economy.

Do games impact Montana's economy. Sure. But the amount is minimal.

Don't keep trying to shift the goal posts. The discussion was not about magnitude. It was about whether games in Missoula (and Bozeman) positively impact the local and MT economies. They clearly do. You assertion that games just shift money in the state is not correct. And, you still refuse to recognize the positive economic impact of the acceleration of the spending of money.

 

[signedbewildered]

"It's unfortunate that the way UM allocates revenues makes it exceedingly difficult to assess the impact of the sporting events on overall UM revenues. It's truly bad accounting.

For instance, the athletic department gets no concession revenue. I collided heads on with this about 15 years ago, to no avail. My argument: UM wouldn't earn a nickle in concession sales without the event, the event should at least get a % of the gross. Nope. No way. Food Services gets 100% of the till. Same for licensing of vendors. UM gets the fees, not the event.

Football stadium or Field House? Athletic Department gets to pay for the privilege of renting them from the University. So that money likewise disappears into facilities services. So, it goes down the food chain at the University whereby everybody with a sticky finger gets to benefit from athletic event revenues, and those revenues buoy up all sorts of other auxiliary services making them look better and the athletic department much worse.

Do UM (or MSU) events stimulate the local economy? Absolutely. Studies on NFL games show this conclusively. It may not boost the economy of a whole state, nation or the world, but these events are definite pluses for local economies, and UM's are likely larger, in proportion to the market size of Missoula, than an NFL team's would be on a commensurately larger city. MSU may even have a relatively larger benefit on Bozeman than UM has on Missoula."

Interesting points.

 

[UMGriz75]

Good college athletics are what help college towns and states attract out of state businesses and out of state people to come to states like MT. That has positive economic impact. Missoula and Bozeman are great towns to live in and attract alot of out of staters, and the athletic teams are part of the attraction.

Even more than that.

College athletics programs represent a multibillion dollar industry and are integrally linked to school branding and reputation. And while individual sports programs -- even in Division I schools -- don’t necessarily turn a profit, the many other benefits to colleges have far-reaching implications for students, faculty and community. Athletics programs drive enrollment and heighten college profiles, often resulting in financial windfalls for the institutions that happen far away from fields and arenas.

http://education.seattlepi.com/importance-college-athletic-programs-universities-1749.html

In an actual scientific study, done at UC Berkeley of all places, the researchers found:

We find that winning reduces acceptance rates and increases donations, applications, academic reputation, in-state enrollment, and incoming SAT scores.

http://are.berkeley.edu/~mlanderson/pdf/Anderson%20College%20Sports.pdf

 

[UMGriz75]

Since winning athletic teams are a plus to University enrollment, you might reflect in horror at what would be likely happening to UM over the past five years, enrollment-wise, if UM did NOT have a successful athletic record of state and national renown. Now, there's an economic fact to consider .... as Engstrom looks to cut athletic funding because of enrollment declines ....

 

[EverettGriz]

PR, you're out of your league here.

According to the Dept of Commerce BOEA report, Montana's monthly consumer savings rate is running about 5.1% (a little below national average). Whether consumer's discretionary money is spent on Griz or Cat games, it (or at least 95% of it) IS going to be spent, and the vast majority of it is certainly going to be spent in Montana.

And I didn't click your link, but I presume you're referencing the velocity of M1 vs M2. Yes, as any 3rd grader could tell you, the faster money is spent the greater the impact on the economy. But first, the amount spent is not great enough to be statistically significant. You need billions of dollars spent to even make velocity of money a relevant conversation. Economists don't even consider it a variable at the local level. Second, as noted above, the consumption rate on a monthly basis is 95%. So it's not as if Montanans are holding their cash long term. It's going right back into the economy within 30 days of receipt. The velocity argument is a nonstarter.

Yes, the argument that money not spent at games may be spent elsewhere is valid. But also small enough to be statistically insignificant. I don't think you realize the size of numbers we're talking necessary to impact a state's economy.

Do games impact Montana's economy. Sure. But the amount is minimal.

Don't keep trying to shift the goal posts. The discussion was not about magnitude. It was about whether games in Missoula (and Bozeman) positively impact the local and MT economies. They clearly do. You assertion that games just shift money in the state is not correct. And, you still refuse to recognize the positive economic impact of the acceleration of the spending of money.

Explain how I've moved the goal posts. Your point is wrong. Football games have extremely limited (read completely insignificant) economic impact on the state of Montana. Do they add other intangible value? No question. Do they provide a stimulus to the state? Unequivocally no, and none of your bullshit will change that fact.

And I did recognize the impact of the velocity of money. It's a basic economic principle. It doesn't apply here as I clearly, distinctly and correctly proved above. But I'm well past expecting you to accept facts proving you to be incorrect.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

 

[GrizLA]

If ever there was a time for the old adage "you have to spend money to make big money" it is UM at this time. Instead of looking for cuts why not look for ways to increase funds that are not limited by old ways of thinking like UM. For example, this article from the Kaimin. Journalism as we knew it is dead yet UM sticks with it, instead of looking to NAU and the progressive schools that offer considerably more in mass communications. Why not look at at LaVern here in SoCal...Emerson College, even the New School. Creative management takes leadership and from the little communication I get from UM, it is woefully lacking in Missoula.

 

[UMGriz75]

If ever there was a time for the old adage "you have to spend money to make big money" it is UM at this time. Instead of looking for cuts why not look for ways to increase funds that are not limited by old ways of thinking like UM.

I think in general, people are looking for some hint, some ray of light, that there is a plan, an optimism, a turn-around that creates a forward energy and momentum. But after five years, it is obviously not going to come from Royce Engstrom. It's just not in him.

The irony is that this may begin to affect athlete recruitment, team performance, and then poof, the positive effect that athletic success brings to UM disappears as well. Enrollment is already a disaster; "you ain't seen nuttin' yet" may be the watchword as these cuts have a synergy all to themselves.

The J-School is a pretty good example, all right. They hired Florio. When I went there, major professors were Rhodes Scholars, Washington Post editors, and well-known names from NBC news. And, they hire Florio? To teach "reporting?" That's practically a caricature you might expect from "The Onion." Apparently Stephen Glass was unavailable.

The Law School isn't much better. Most of the faculty now consists of long-time retainers hired mostly based on political viewpoints, who don't have courtroom experience, have never argued a case in oral argument before any appellate court anywhere, and have academic publishing credentials at the bottom of what would be considered justifying a faculty member with little practical experience. One of the most prolific, Carl Tobias, published more in five years than this entire current faculty has ever published and left out of frustration. One of the best known, Rob Natelson, who constantly appears in national commentary as a genuine constitutional scholar, much published on key issues of the day, was essentially driven out because he was "too conservative" for this "faculty."

I knew Dick Hugo and represent his literary estate, but I have no idea who is at the Creative Writing program any more. It seems to have vanished. So it goes in department after department. If there is good news, it is not getting out.

So, Engstrom wants to cut athletics. The good news.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR, you're out of your league here.

According to the Dept of Commerce BOEA report, Montana's monthly consumer savings rate is running about 5.1% (a little below national average). Whether consumer's discretionary money is spent on Griz or Cat games, it (or at least 95% of it) IS going to be spent, and the vast majority of it is certainly going to be spent in Montana.

And I didn't click your link, but I presume you're referencing the velocity of M1 vs M2. Yes, as any 3rd grader could tell you, the faster money is spent the greater the impact on the economy. But first, the amount spent is not great enough to be statistically significant. You need billions of dollars spent to even make velocity of money a relevant conversation. Economists don't even consider it a variable at the local level. Second, as noted above, the consumption rate on a monthly basis is 95%. So it's not as if Montanans are holding their cash long term. It's going right back into the economy within 30 days of receipt. The velocity argument is a nonstarter.

Yes, the argument that money not spent at games may be spent elsewhere is valid. But also small enough to be statistically insignificant. I don't think you realize the size of numbers we're talking necessary to impact a state's economy.

Do games impact Montana's economy. Sure. But the amount is minimal.

Don't keep trying to shift the goal posts. The discussion was not about magnitude. It was about whether games in Missoula (and Bozeman) positively impact the local and MT economies. They clearly do. You assertion that games just shift money in the state is not correct. And, you still refuse to recognize the positive economic impact of the acceleration of the spending of money.

Explain how I've moved the goal posts. Your point is wrong. Football games have extremely limited (read completely insignificant) economic impact on the state of Montana. Do they add other intangible value? No question. Do they provide a stimulus to the state? Unequivocally no, and none of your bullshit will change that fact.

And I did recognize the impact of the velocity of money. It's a basic economic principle. It doesn't apply here as I clearly, distinctly and correctly proved above. But I'm well past expecting you to accept facts proving you to be incorrect.

You haven't moved the goalposts; you just tried to. Again, and read carefully, the discussion started by Barrett's quote is not about the magnitude of the economic impact of UM/MSU athletics. It's about whether UM/MSU athletics increases state economic activity, or just redistributes it around the state. After you could see that you were losing the argument over increasing, as opposed to distribution, you responded by saying the athletics-related economic benefit was small. Again, that was not the discussion; therefore goalpost-shifting.

Oh, and you haven't proven anything, other than you don't know what you're talking about on this subject. It appears that your knowledge on this subject is down there with your knowledge on football. As with football, you are in way over your head on this one.

 

[EverettGriz]

JFC, you truly are a certifiably insane person.

My position has been rock solid consistent since my very first post on the matter: football games have an extremely negligible impact on the state's economy, and they do not drive any meaningful or measurable economic benefit at that level. I've never wavered. I've never been unclear. I've never been obtuse. My message has been 100% consistent. And more importantly, 100% accurate and proven time and time again.

And yes, yes I have proven EVERYthing. I've even provided you studies to support the position that the dollars spent at football games are going to be spent in Montana whether or not there are games. I can't really do much more to prove an obvious economic point understood by most high school juniors. But since you're simply one of those people who will never admit they're wrong, even when they don't have the slightest fucking idea what they're talking about, I'll give you what you want: you're right (at least in your own disturbed mind), and the rest of the entire world's body of economic study is wrong, pr. :roll:



There, I trust that someone giving validity to your ridiculous (and wildly incorrect) position makes you feel better about yourself. I hate to see people suffering through mental illness.

 

[PlayerRep]

JFC, you truly are a certifiably insane person.

My position has been rock solid consistent since my very first post on the matter: football games have an extremely negligible impact on the state's economy, and they do not drive any meaningful or measurable economic benefit at that level. I've never wavered. I've never been unclear. I've never been obtuse. My message has been 100% consistent. And more importantly, 100% accurate and proven time and time again.

And yes, yes I have proven EVERYthing. I've even provided you studies to support the position that the dollars spent at football games are going to be spent in Montana whether or not there are games. I can't really do much more to prove an obvious economic point understood by most high school juniors. But since you're simply one of those people who will never admit they're wrong, even when they don't have the slightest f***[*] idea what they're talking about, I'll give you what you want: you're right (at least in your own disturbed mind), and the rest of the entire world's body of economic study is wrong, pr. :roll:



There, I trust that someone giving validity to your ridiculous (and wildly incorrect) position makes you feel better about yourself. I hate to see people suffering through mental illness.

This is a quote from your first post after the recent article, and it is wrong:

"But otherwise it's just redistribution of Montana dollars." The otherwise refers to you coming to Missoula for a game.

75 has provided information indicating that you are also wrong on the economic impact of games and athletics. You haven't addressed 75's information. I assume that's because you can't and you afraid that 75 will thoroughly run circles around you.

You haven't proven a thing, other than you want to change the discussion when you are losing the debate.

Does insinuating that someone is mentally ill make you feel better about yourself?

 

[EverettGriz]

JFC, you truly are a certifiably insane person.

My position has been rock solid consistent since my very first post on the matter: football games have an extremely negligible impact on the state's economy, and they do not drive any meaningful or measurable economic benefit at that level. I've never wavered. I've never been unclear. I've never been obtuse. My message has been 100% consistent. And more importantly, 100% accurate and proven time and time again.

And yes, yes I have proven EVERYthing. I've even provided you studies to support the position that the dollars spent at football games are going to be spent in Montana whether or not there are games. I can't really do much more to prove an obvious economic point understood by most high school juniors. But since you're simply one of those people who will never admit they're wrong, even when they don't have the slightest f***[*] idea what they're talking about, I'll give you what you want: you're right (at least in your own disturbed mind), and the rest of the entire world's body of economic study is wrong, pr. :roll:



There, I trust that someone giving validity to your ridiculous (and wildly incorrect) position makes you feel better about yourself. I hate to see people suffering through mental illness.

This is a quote from your first post after the recent article, and it is wrong:

"But otherwise it's just redistribution of Montana dollars." The otherwise refers to you coming to Missoula for a game.

75 has provided information indicating that you are also wrong on the economic impact of games and athletics. You haven't addressed 75's information. I assume that's because you can't and you afraid that 75 will thoroughly run circles around you.

You haven't proven a thing, other than you want to change the discussion when you are losing the debate.

Does insinuating that someone is mentally ill make you feel better about yourself?

It does just redistribute money which is going to be spent elsewhere in Montana. We've proven that fact. I've never wavered on that point, nor would I. The facts to support that are beyond question. The rest of that sentence is gibberish so I don't know what you're trying to say (a fairly common occurrence).

And are you sure about that? Here's what 75 posted:

Do UM (or MSU) events stimulate the local economy? Absolutely. Studies on NFL games show this conclusively. It may not boost the economy of a whole state

That would appear to completely support my point. Perhaps you need to address his posts.

As pointed out clearly above to anyone with an IQ over 60, I have never once changed the discussion. Nor, for that matter, am I "losing the debate" (which made me laugh so hard I fell off my fucking chair).

No. Being accurate makes me feel better about myself. Obviously not admitting you have no clue must do the same for you. I feel sad for you.

 

[LongTimeCatFan]

Have to agree with Everett on this (duh) and am reminded of the broken window fallacy

[youtube]http://youtu.be/hXC9FI1nAqs[/youtube]

If people didn't spend money on football games, what could that money have been spent on to grow capital?

 

[PlayerRep]

Here are some studies that show the significant net economic benefit to states, from college athletics.

This Oregon athletics study shows significant net benefit to the State of Oregon. http://goducks.com/fls/500/AthleticEconomicImpact.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=500

“Statewide Economic Impact
Nebraska Athletics also has a substantial economic impact on the State of Nebraska. The overall annual economic impact on the State of Nebraska during the 2013-14 fiscal year is estimated to be $149.5 million in output; $54.7 million in worker income; 1,890 jobs, and $2.351 million in direct sales tax revenue for state and local government. The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics, however, is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area because many of the fans who attend Husker events are from other parts of the state. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area economy, but not to the Nebraska economy.”
http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=209781186

 

[EverettGriz]

Good grief. Look, no one has or will argue that there isn't some gain by states (especially ones such as NE and OR). But even your link above seems to further the point. It would appear that much of the gain they're counting for the state comes from wages and salaries paid by the athletic department (which would seemingly be net neutral, but who knows how they do their accounting). And this section from the link is precisely Barrett's point, which I fully agree with:

Fans attending Nebraska Athletics home events also contribute to the Lincoln economy with purchases at local restaurants, hotels, retail stores, gasoline service stations and other business activities on game days....The statewide economic impact of Nebraska Athletics, however, is less than the economic impact on the Lincoln Metropolitan Area because many of the fans who attend Husker events are from other parts of the state. These fans bring new spending to the Lincoln Metropolitan Area economy, but not to the Nebraska economy.

 

[Grizbeer]

The real issue with Barrett's statement really has nothing to do with State Vs local benefit from Griz athletic tourism, but rather the source of the statement. Barrett was part of the Tom Powers school of economics at UM - the "experts" who for 30 years told us the extraction economy was dead in Montana, and we need to transition to a "clean" tourism economy. They touted huge economic numbers from tourism, despite most Montana tourism visitors are Montanans. If they were justifying shutting down logging to increase tourism it didn't matter if the tourist came from Billings or New York, it was a new economy. Of course they totally missed the building boom for the first 8 years of the millennium, the Bakken energy boom, or record metal prices. They just insisted the resource economy was so last century. Barrett today is carrying the water for the Editorial letter writing campaign railing against the study from the UM BBER that the new EPA limits on CO2 emissions will shut down the coal industry in Montana, costing thousands of jobs. But to Barrett and Powers it really doesn't matter if it shuts down resource jobs, because tourism will make up for it. Unless of course the tourist are coming for Griz football, then it doesn't count, because apparently only people from Kalispell come to Missoula to watch football.