I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a Minnesota fan,
but the Wings rule!  I can't tell you how happy I am with the way they
are playing, and the level of appreciation being shown by the media on
how well the Detroit Red Army is playing.  I would like to see the
Flyers (with Trent Klatt-UMinn :-)) put up a bit of a fight, and make
Saturdays game into overtime, so Detroit can win that game too.
 
>----------
>From:  Eeyore[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Friday, June 06, 1997 1:23 AM
>Subject:       Re: another issue re: football and cost effectiveness yadda
>yadda...
>
>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.
>
>
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.