Re: cost vs benefit
Yes, because all college administrators have magic crystal balls and can predict exactly how long each 16 year old will end up staying in college.
You act like you think administrators and coaches don't think about these things. Can you offer any proof of that? At least some evidence? Anecdotes, even? I'm sure that every administrator wants the athletic department to produce winning teams while staying in budget, and that the coaches do, too. The coaches probably put a little more emphasis on winning and the administrators a little more on budget, but that's just a difference of degree - the administrators know that if the AD doesn't have enough budget, it won't produce winning teams, while the AD knows that if it consistently goes over budget, people will eventually be fired. This is true for schools that graduate every player and for schools that have some one-and-dones.
It's also ludicrous to try to weigh something like "athletic benefit" against the economic costs involved. What does that even mean? If you're talking about the player's impact on the team's winning percentage, then it's hopeless, because that's a value judgement - each school, each administrator, and each coach will put a different value on winning. At some schools, it's probably considered perfectly okay to spend $50k per extra win, while at some schools, it's not. At some schools (looking at you, Union ) it's considered perfectly okay to have a .500 record and make a little noise in the conference tournament, while at some schools, it's not. By plotting record vs. budget, I think you can already get a pretty good idea which schools are which, so it doesn't take some special study to determine which schools think it's worth spending extra money to improve the record.
Originally posted by Osorojo
View Post
You act like you think administrators and coaches don't think about these things. Can you offer any proof of that? At least some evidence? Anecdotes, even? I'm sure that every administrator wants the athletic department to produce winning teams while staying in budget, and that the coaches do, too. The coaches probably put a little more emphasis on winning and the administrators a little more on budget, but that's just a difference of degree - the administrators know that if the AD doesn't have enough budget, it won't produce winning teams, while the AD knows that if it consistently goes over budget, people will eventually be fired. This is true for schools that graduate every player and for schools that have some one-and-dones.
It's also ludicrous to try to weigh something like "athletic benefit" against the economic costs involved. What does that even mean? If you're talking about the player's impact on the team's winning percentage, then it's hopeless, because that's a value judgement - each school, each administrator, and each coach will put a different value on winning. At some schools, it's probably considered perfectly okay to spend $50k per extra win, while at some schools, it's not. At some schools (looking at you, Union ) it's considered perfectly okay to have a .500 record and make a little noise in the conference tournament, while at some schools, it's not. By plotting record vs. budget, I think you can already get a pretty good idea which schools are which, so it doesn't take some special study to determine which schools think it's worth spending extra money to improve the record.
Comment