MBB: Michigan Intercollegiate Athletic Association

[KnightSlappy]

I don't think that adding football would negatively impact Calvin's enrollment unless by adding football it became necessary to increase tuition to cover the costs of having added football.  The key issue is how many incremental students is Calvin going to get because it added football?
It is also necessary to know what the costs of operating a football program are, and also you need to know what other costs the college incurs by adding a student.  One can't assume that any increased revenue generated by adding a "footbasll" student can automatically be totaly assigned to offsetting the costs of operating the football program. 

Rather than adds sports Calvin could improve it's Commish,  Learfield etc. cup results by making sure the teams it already has perform to the highest levels.  Looking at the roster of teams that made post season play this past school year there is one team that is conspicuously absent.  Just like it has been for too many years. 

I know the softball team needs to get better, but you need to lay off of them.

What's the marginal cost of the last 50 or 100 students to the college? I can't imagine it's a whole heckuva lot.

[formerd3db]

Ultimately I think the question will come down to economics.  All the other issues (culture, injuries, title IX, etc.) make for interesting discussion, but the bottom line will be revenue.  And I'm not talking about ticket revenue here. (Even Calvin basketball undoubtedly loses money, btw.  I'd bet that over half of the fans at any given game are students or faculty/staff and their families and they attend for free.  Just look at the drop off in attendance when it becomes tournament time and everyone has to pay the MIAA or NCAA.)  It's about net tuition revenue.  If, by adding football, Calvin is confident it can add enough tuition paying students to more than offset the costs (several coaches' salaries, uniforms, trainers, travel, insurance, etc.) I believe it will get the green light.  But I personally think that in today's higher ed economic environment, that's going to be a tough sell--which is why I'd be surprised if it happens this time.

One of the advantages of living through more than one generation is having the opportunity to experience similar weak arguments one thought had been retired long ago. I'm old enough to remember when none of the traditional feeder schools to Calvin had football. Going by dim memory, GR South Christian was the first local Christian high school to get football followed soon after by GR Christian (actually Central Christian and East Christian). At the time some "conservatives" objected to football (that included my parents) because they feared the "change in culture" that would flow from the acquisition of football as well as the violence of the sport. The Chimes writer doesn't express concerns exactly as I remember them when I was a kid, but his aren't all that different either--and no more persuasive. It's surprising that in today's world, with pretty much every student at Knollcrest having attended a high school with football, there would be much objection to starting the sport at Calvin. Right now, if a high school student is capable of and interested in playing D3 football, Calvin is simply not an option. My son was a good enough high school football player to get more than one recruiting letter from Dean Kreps (imagine the sight of oldknight in the Hope cheering section at Holland Stadium--yikes!). If Calvin had football available I can't say he would have become a Knight but I think he would have considered it, especially if I could have lined him up with a quality professor from the computer science department. My son recently expressed what I interpreted as regret for not having pursued that avenue. The availability of football might have been enough to bring him to the East Beltline.

Bob:
You make legit points.  I would just point out that it has worked for Adrian in bringing in hockey and lacrosse (of course, it helped that two alumni donated a couple million dollars each to build the on-campus ice hockey area ).  Whether it would work for Calvin, it is difficult to say.  Obviously, you and the others know much more about those "inside" issues.  It will be interesting to see what transpires in the longterm with this.  I will say, however, that I will be disappointed if Calvin decides not to add football, yet, I will certainly understand.

[Ralph Turner]

Ultimately I think the question will come down to economics.  All the other issues (culture, injuries, title IX, etc.) make for interesting discussion, but the bottom line will be revenue.  And I'm not talking about ticket revenue here. (Even Calvin basketball undoubtedly loses money, btw.  I'd bet that over half of the fans at any given game are students or faculty/staff and their families and they attend for free.  Just look at the drop off in attendance when it becomes tournament time and everyone has to pay the MIAA or NCAA.)  It's about net tuition revenue.  If, by adding football, Calvin is confident it can add enough tuition paying students to more than offset the costs (several coaches' salaries, uniforms, trainers, travel, insurance, etc.) I believe it will get the green light.  But I personally think that in today's higher ed economic environment, that's going to be a tough sell--which is why I'd be surprised if it happens this time.

I'm not sure the economics arguments is even valid anymore.  Right here in our state schools are adding football,  Concordia and Sienna Heights.  I seriously doubt either of those two schools is going to add enough students to cover the costs of football.


......add Finlandia to the list of Michigan schools that have added football.

Try this for economics...

$30,000 per year times 70% (which usually represents the real amount that the student pays after financial aid) = $21,000

75 players = $1.575M.  Most consultants suggest that an additional 0.2 students will come along with their football playing friends, so that makes 90 kids. 

You are looking at another $2M in revenue and an improvement in the Male:Female ratio of the school.

[Happy Calvin Guy]

I have no doubt that if Calvin could find a named donor to foot the one-time costs for a football facility that the college would find itself financially ahead over time.  

Here's the revenue:  1.  tuition from additional students (~50 football players any given season that otherwise would not go to Calvin + any students for whom attending a college with a football team is a factor--this is impossible to quantify but would have to be a positive number).  Potentially $1M/yr  extra revenue  2.  Ticket sales and merchandising.  This is a smaller number but possibly in the 100k-200k/yr range annually.  3)  (this one has not been mentioned yet) Potentially increased alumni donations.  I know this can go either way but studies show that colleges/universities with successful football programs do generate more alumni giving.  I can't imagine that any donors would actually pull their financial support from the college b/c they don't like football.  

Costs:  Equipment, travel, field maintenance, and coaching staff.  I would contend that there are very few marginal costs (professors, facilities, etc are all fixed costs) from having extra students enrolled on a campus that currently has excess capacity.

My best guess is that on an ongoing basis football would be cash flow positive for the college, although there is no way to ever measure the effects for sure.  Even it is merely a break-even proposition financially, I'd like to see it happen.  

[Gregory Sager]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

[KnightSlappy]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

My college-age self would have said that adding male students would not have improved the ratio. In fact, just the opposite!

[ziggy]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

A quick estimate based on personal experience tells me somewhere in the range of 7% of students are in the engineering program. I doubt that is enough for a dramatic sway of the dude:skirt ratio. Combine it with computer science (size unknown) and potentially some other male-heavy program I can't think of at the moment and you might be on to something.

[sac]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

A quick estimate based on personal experience tells me somewhere in the range of 7% of students are in the engineering program. I doubt that is enough for a dramatic sway of the dude:skirt ratio. Combine it with computer science (size unknown) and potentially some other male-heavy program I can't think of at the moment and you might be on to something.

7% of Calvin's student population is roughly 280.........thats a swing of 4 to 5% roughly in male/female ratio.    That's of course making the absurd assumption that all 280 students are 'dudes'.

Without delving into it much further, I think you could safely make the claim engineering probably improves Calvin's 'dude:skirt' ratio.  Probably much more than football ever could, mostly because you are dealing with a much larger D3 enrollment.......football just isn't going to change much at a school of 4,000 vs say, an Albion or Kzoo with around 1200 students.

[goodknight]

Yet another promising recruit in the Calvin fold:
T.J. Huizenga, 6-4 wing, from Wisconsin state champion Randolph High School, averaged over 15 ppg and more than 6 rpg.
http://www.maxpreps.com/athletes/PzyIODnKZkS90S2DD8gGDA/basketball-winter-10-11/profile-tj-huizenga.htm

[ziggy]

Yet another promising recruit in the Calvin fold:
T.J. Huizenga, 6-4 wing, from Wisconsin state champion Randolph High School, averaged over 15 ppg and more than 6 rpg.
http://www.maxpreps.com/athletes/PzyIODnKZkS90S2DD8gGDA/basketball-winter-10-11/profile-tj-huizenga.htm

Looks like he has plenty of room to fill out, although he also played football so he figures to come along with some toughness

[KnightSlappy]

Yet another promising recruit in the Calvin fold:
T.J. Huizenga, 6-4 wing, from Wisconsin state champion Randolph High School, averaged over 15 ppg and more than 6 rpg.
http://www.maxpreps.com/athletes/PzyIODnKZkS90S2DD8gGDA/basketball-winter-10-11/profile-tj-huizenga.htm

Looks like he has plenty of room to fill out, although he also played football so he figures to come along with some toughness

So now you're starting the rumors that they sold him on being able to also play football down the road. 

[Gregory Sager]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

A quick estimate based on personal experience tells me somewhere in the range of 7% of students are in the engineering program. I doubt that is enough for a dramatic sway of the dude:skirt ratio. Combine it with computer science (size unknown) and potentially some other male-heavy program I can't think of at the moment and you might be on to something.

7% of Calvin's student population is roughly 280.........thats a swing of 4 to 5% roughly in male/female ratio.    That's of course making the absurd assumption that all 280 students are 'dudes'.

The Scotty:Velma ratio among American engineering undergrads is about 5:1. If Calvin is typical among American schools in that regard, it means a cumulative gain of about 180 to 190 males for Calvin in terms of its ratio, a swing of 4.5% of the overall undergrad population. That's definitely big enough to make Calvin a noticeably more gender-balanced school than is the norm for a liberal arts college.

[ziggy]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

A quick estimate based on personal experience tells me somewhere in the range of 7% of students are in the engineering program. I doubt that is enough for a dramatic sway of the dude:skirt ratio. Combine it with computer science (size unknown) and potentially some other male-heavy program I can't think of at the moment and you might be on to something.

7% of Calvin's student population is roughly 280.........thats a swing of 4 to 5% roughly in male/female ratio.    That's of course making the absurd assumption that all 280 students are 'dudes'.

The Scotty:Velma ratio among American engineering undergrads is about 5:1. If Calvin is typical among American schools in that regard, it means a cumulative gain of about 180 to 190 males for Calvin in terms of its ratio, a swing of 4.5% of the overall undergrad population. That's definitely big enough to make Calvin a noticeably more gender-balanced school than is the norm for a liberal arts college.

I'm not familiar with the typical menu of programs at other liberal arts colleges, although I always figured that Engineering and Nursing tended to balance each other out at Calvin. I believe engineering is a larger department than nursing but that is still a lot of skirts to balance out number of dudes.

[KnightSlappy]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

A quick estimate based on personal experience tells me somewhere in the range of 7% of students are in the engineering program. I doubt that is enough for a dramatic sway of the dude:skirt ratio. Combine it with computer science (size unknown) and potentially some other male-heavy program I can't think of at the moment and you might be on to something.

7% of Calvin's student population is roughly 280.........thats a swing of 4 to 5% roughly in male/female ratio.    That's of course making the absurd assumption that all 280 students are 'dudes'.

The Scotty:Velma ratio among American engineering undergrads is about 5:1. If Calvin is typical among American schools in that regard, it means a cumulative gain of about 180 to 190 males for Calvin in terms of its ratio, a swing of 4.5% of the overall undergrad population. That's definitely big enough to make Calvin a noticeably more gender-balanced school than is the norm for a liberal arts college.

Trying to remember my engineering class of '08 off the top of my head. I seem to remember there being 64 students in the program with a 58-6 split. At the Fresh, Soph, levels there were more females, but there were more males as well.

[Gregory Sager]

Improving the male:female ratio is often cited as a reason for adding football by the schools that do so. It's an important consideration in an era of American higher education in which female students dramatically outnumber male students among the general undergraduate population. Interestingly, however, Calvin's imbalance is a lot less drastic than it is for most comparable liberal arts colleges; it's only 46:54 according to www.petersons.com. I wonder if Calvin's various engineering programs have something to do with that, since males constitute the vast majority of engineering majors in America.

A quick estimate based on personal experience tells me somewhere in the range of 7% of students are in the engineering program. I doubt that is enough for a dramatic sway of the dude:skirt ratio. Combine it with computer science (size unknown) and potentially some other male-heavy program I can't think of at the moment and you might be on to something.

7% of Calvin's student population is roughly 280.........thats a swing of 4 to 5% roughly in male/female ratio.    That's of course making the absurd assumption that all 280 students are 'dudes'.

The Scotty:Velma ratio among American engineering undergrads is about 5:1. If Calvin is typical among American schools in that regard, it means a cumulative gain of about 180 to 190 males for Calvin in terms of its ratio, a swing of 4.5% of the overall undergrad population. That's definitely big enough to make Calvin a noticeably more gender-balanced school than is the norm for a liberal arts college.

I'm not familiar with the typical menu of programs at other liberal arts colleges, although I always figured that Engineering and Nursing tended to balance each other out at Calvin. I believe engineering is a larger department than nursing but that is still a lot of skirts to balance out number of dudes.

Not really, in terms of comparison between Calvin and other liberal arts college, because nursing is a very popular major at many such schools.