Greg R. Berge wrote:
>
> Alums give boatloads of money to their schools.
>
> Alums really, really like to see their schools win in their favorite
> sports.
>
> Football is probably at least ten times more popular than hockey.
>
> I would guess football "makes" money at every school.  The revenue the
> program generates from gate and merchandise is chicken feed compared to
> what it actually sucks in from the alums; you have to consider that, and of
> course it is not an easily measured amount.  But it's there.
>
> Now, will someone *please* wake the Flyers up so we can have hockey for an
> extra week...?
 
First off, your Flyers are dead.  The Wings killed Colorado, and we'll
bury you, too.  (I can talk pretty big when my team is up 3-0)
 
Second, your assessment of alumni giving is wrong.  My sources on this
are three-fold.  There are quotes from people involved in donor
relations from a number of schools across the country.  Second (though
elated to the first), my mother has worked in donor relations in several
departments as well as the central administration at the University of
Michigan.  Third, there have been studies conducted on the level of
giving at schools during successful and unsuccessful football seasons as
well as before and after universities have cancelled their football
programs altogether.
 
In short, alumni relations professionals at almost any institution (from
Michigan and Notre Dame to Podunk U.) will tell you that alumni giving
to the general funds at the university are very sceptical of a school
with a powerful football program.  They seem to think that this is an
indication that the school does not take academics seriously, thus
causing them to donate less money.
 
The anecdotal evidence is backed up by more rigorous study.  A 1979
study by two sociologists at the University of Kentucky sociologists
(Lee Sigelman and Robert Carter) of 138 Division I schools found "no
relationship between athletic success and giving.  Some evidence that
success depresses giving."  A 1983 follow-up reinforced this conclusion.
 Granted, they found that athletic success does contribute to giving to
the athletic department as a seperate entity, but this doesn't help the
school as a whole.  This is not the only study that finds no link
between successful athletics and alumni donations.  But then again,
would anyone who looks at the history of the University of Chicago
really believe that it does?
 
J. Michael Neal
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.