Fan in Chicago Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 Not sure the conclusions will stand up to the scrutiny of a statistical evaluation, but a fun read anyway. Premise is that schools that do well in sports see applications for admission increase. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_...s/flutie_effect
The Dean Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 While I would need to see the methodology and raw data to make a judgment on the conclusions of the study, it certainly makes sense, at an obvious level. But, my guess is, the effect is probably a little more basic: Exposure to massive amounts of publicity on matters important to the prospective student/parent/advisers/etc leads to increased admissions. There isn't a lot of concentrated massive publicity regarding any university, outside of sports. Also, sports tend to be important to many people, on some level.
UConn James Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 I'm available to testify that it sure happened at UConn. Now get over 20,000 applications for fall semesters. Don't know how much is attributable to the championships and how much to the ginormous capital improvements... but then again, the capital improvements have a root in the attention from athletic success, so it's a chicken-egg kind of thing.
Dan Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 I would say this is a no brainer. Of course, schools that do well athletically get promoted and people hear all about them. Hence, the free rides to top athletes. I just don't get why its called the Flutie Effect. Surely, Unversities noticed this trend well before Flutie?
PromoTheRobot Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 Not only could Flutie have won a SB for Buffalo, he would have saved the economy! PTR
Cynical Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 Not only could Flutie have won a SB for Buffalo, he would have saved the economy! PTR And bring peace to the middle east.
FistingBot Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 If you'd like to read it, there is a copy of the working paper on Jaren's homepage: http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jcpope/working_papers.htm The econometric specification they used is fairly simple, but IMHO seems reasonable. BTW - The term "Flutie Effect" is only mentioned in a footnote in this paper (BC supposedly saw a 30% spike in applicants the year after Flutie won the Heismann)
stuckincincy Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 While I would need to see the methodology and raw data to make a judgment on the conclusions of the study, it certainly makes sense, at an obvious level. But, my guess is, the effect is probably a little more basic: Exposure to massive amounts of publicity on matters important to the prospective student/parent/advisers/etc leads to increased admissions. There isn't a lot of concentrated massive publicity regarding any university, outside of sports. Also, sports tend to be important to many people, on some level. That...along with bragging and belittlement of others being new, prized society values. Narcissism rules today.
The Dean Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 That...along with bragging and belittlement of others being new, prized society values. Narcissism rules today. There is nothing new in these values, and they were practiced and taught by your generation (and my generation), as well.
The Dean Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 If you'd like to read it, there is a copy of the working paper on Jaren's homepage: http://filebox.vt.edu/users/jcpope/working_papers.htm The econometric specification they used is fairly simple, but IMHO seems reasonable. BTW - The term "Flutie Effect" is only mentioned in a footnote in this paper (BC supposedly saw a 30% spike in applicants the year after Flutie won the Heismann) I'm about halfway through it. I'll look at it again, later. So far, it is pretty much as I expected. Someone should tell the authors that "data" is plural, though.
stuckincincy Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 (edited) There is nothing new in these values, and they were practiced and taught by your generation (and my generation), as well. No, not new - but much more widespread. I think discussion of this is best in a separate thread...which I'll do a later date - I'm busy repainting my kitchen. A big job - wall scrub, wallpaper removal (ugh), prime coats, 2 topcoats...and then onto the tedium of cabinet re-coating. One of those projects where you ask yourself...Why did I start this? EDIT: Editorial from the Cincy Enquirer, that touches on college admission "anxiety": http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...20324/1020/EDIT Edited March 24, 2008 by stuckincincy
Beerball Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 While I would need to see the methodology and raw data to make a judgment on the conclusions of the study, it certainly makes sense, at an obvious level. But, my guess is, the effect is probably a little more basic: Exposure to massive amounts of publicity on matters important to the prospective student/parent/advisers/etc leads to increased admissions. There isn't a lot of concentrated massive publicity regarding any university, outside of sports. Also, sports tend to be important to many people, on some level. It's the cheerleaders ya mook.
Lv-Bills Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 Not sure the conclusions will stand up to the scrutiny of a statistical evaluation, but a fun read anyway. Premise is that schools that do well in sports see applications for admission increase. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080323/ap_on_...s/flutie_effect Ummmm, no sh--. I grew up in western Pennsylvania. I was being recruited by three D-1 teams to play baseball. Purdue, Ball State and West Virginia in 1989-90. I took a recruiting visit over the weekend at Ball State and they were playing PUrdue in basketball at home. We beat Gene Keady and the Boilers by 30 at our place and I had a great time on campus that weeknd. So, later that year, I'm at home and Pitt draws Rick Majerus and the Ball State Cardinals in the NCAA tourney. Pitt was a threeway Big East Champ against this fatass coach and the school I visited. BSU kicked their ass in the tourney. I heavily leaned toward BSU. Next year, my senior year in High School, Ball State went 29-3 in basketball and went to the sweet sixteen where they faced eventual champion UNLV. Ball State had the ball with 10 seconds left in the game, and was down 69-67. We took a wide open three at the buzzer and just missed off the front of the rim. UNLV went on to smash Duke by 25 or 30 in the national championship game and won it all that year. From that, I figured if BSU sports were that good in basketball, it must be a good place to play baseball too, so I went there. Had BSU hoops sucked, I most likely would have gone to Purdue and received a lot less money to play there. It was a hell of a lot of fun.
stuckincincy Posted March 24, 2008 Posted March 24, 2008 It's the cheerleaders ya mook. The tv coverage of same leaves a lot to be desired...only a few seconds of coverage, panning camera shots, logos and promotions on the screen etc. Title IX needs to be enforced !!!
Recommended Posts