Toggle sidebar

Long term returns

NWADawg

NWADawg

Senior
May 4, 2016
1,190
663
113
This was prompted by a thread on ED. So which of the following do you think has a greater impact on academics and overall health of the university:

1. $100M gift given to education

2. $20M/year for 5 years given to football NIL (this is assuming an extra $20M would buy more/better talent and result in W's)

Does the increased football revenue, student population growth (winning brings in students), etc bring more benefit to education long term?
 
OG Goat Holder

OG Goat Holder

Heisman
Sep 30, 2022
13,740
12,576
113
Football, simply because the money going to education wouldn't move the needle. I mean our endowment is 1B as it is, and it would take a LONG time to shed our reputation as a value school.

Assuming we are winning a national championship over those 5 years, or at least elevating our perception of being able to win one, that would increase enrollment and create more eyeballs on MSU. Especially short term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDawg-Pound and Darryl Steight
dorndawg

dorndawg

Heisman
Sep 10, 2012
9,216
10,344
113
How much is Indiana or texas tech spending? You could almost set up a real-time experiment versus another similar school that isn't spending much on football but has recently drastically increased academic-side gifts/spending to the point they are moving up drastically in rankings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maroon Eagle
J

johnson86-1

All-American
Aug 22, 2012
15,004
5,548
113
NWADawg said:
This was prompted by a thread on ED. So which of the following do you think has a greater impact on academics and overall health of the university:

1. $100M gift given to education

2. $20M/year for 5 years given to football NIL (this is assuming an extra $20M would buy more/better talent and result in W's)

Does the increased football revenue, student population growth (winning brings in students), etc bring more benefit to education long term?
Click to expand...
I don't think there's any doubt that the football would be a better return for the school. It sounds really odd, but when you think about it in terms of marketing and as an amenity, a winning football program is a huge amenity that attracts students.

The problem is that $20M doesn't necessarily buy you a better football team. It should, but there's no guarantee.

I think if I had $100M to give, I'd rather it just fund scholarships. That $100M would fund about 38 in state cost of attendence scholarships per class. Or you could do 160 $5k per year scholarships. Not sure how much that would actually attract students versus make it cheaper for the ones that would come either way.

But if every student you get with the $5k scholarhip is a student that woudln't have otherwise come, you're increasing the freshman class by under 4%. You can do better than that with having a good football team over time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheDawg-Pound
Villagedawg

Villagedawg

All-Conference
Nov 16, 2005
2,350
2,374
113
1. And I don't see how it could even be close. If the question was which would be more fun and entertaining, then it's 2 and not close. Winning is fun and makes a lot of money for some people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dorndawg
mstateglfr

mstateglfr

All-American
Feb 24, 2008
16,694
6,507
113
If I had $100MM, that means through private scholarship 400 students could receive $10k per year in perpetuity(rising alongside inflation). That would be in addition to whatever the university offers.

- That could go to academically solid students who otherwise wouldnt attend a 4 year because of cost.

- That could go to academically solid students who otherwise wouldn't attend MSU, but now will because they will be make money by attending.




Even if $20MM per year for 5 years was effective for football, year 6 means we are right back where we were before it.
Where will that amount come from in year 6? Even if we won 2 championships in those 5 years, there wouldn't be $20MM additional being donated by fans and corporations in year 6.

It'd be a fun 5 years, but nah- I'll go with what is sustainable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RocketDawg, Maroon13 and Maroon Eagle
D

DoggieDaddy13

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2017
3,818
2,172
113
I think we all know that it's not really about education.

It's not what you know, but who you know.

You get further in life by tailgating with winners!

Go #2!
 
Maroon Eagle

Maroon Eagle

All-American
May 24, 2006
18,451
8,320
102
The correct answer is 1. Education.

Dawgstudent started a thread earlier this week debating the sustainability of Indiana.

If we’re debating that the National Champions might not be sustainable over the long term; then we know Mississippi State ain’t gonna be doing well as the Hoosiers in football
 
R

RocketDawg

All-Conference
Oct 21, 2011
19,483
2,369
113
Villagedawg said:
1. And I don't see how it could even be close. If the question was which would be more fun and entertaining, then it's 2 and not close. Winning is fun and makes a lot of money for some people.
Click to expand...
Agree, given that by far the reason for having a university is for education.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maroon Eagle
aTotal360

aTotal360

Heisman
Nov 12, 2009
22,344
15,825
113
Maroon Eagle said:
The correct answer is 1. Education.

Dawgstudent started a thread earlier this week debating the sustainability of Indiana.

If we’re debating that the National Champions might not be sustainable over the long term; then we know Mississippi State ain’t gonna be doing well as the Hoosiers in football
Click to expand...
I'll push back and say the Saban Era did more for Bama and Tuscaloosa than any other cash injection to education could have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDawg-Pound, bddawg and Mayor of Little London
J

johnson86-1

All-American
Aug 22, 2012
15,004
5,548
113
aTotal360 said:
I'll push back and say the Saban Era did more for Bama and Tuscaloosa than any other cash injection to education could have.
Click to expand...
Yea, there are two questions rolled into one in the originally question. Which is better for academics and which is better for the health of the university. Looking at it financially and ignoring the argument that a focus on sports and the type of student that attracts makes a university less healthy in non economic ways, then the answer is a better football program. I’m not sure $100M is going to really change the academics of a school, but it would at least attract some better students and has a more direct line to improving academics.
 
aTotal360

aTotal360

Heisman
Nov 12, 2009
22,344
15,825
113
johnson86-1 said:
Yea, there are two questions rolled into one in the originally question. Which is better for academics and which is better for the health of the university.
Click to expand...
Better financials would hopefully mean you can hire better professors and expand programs.
 
L

leeinator

All-Conference
Feb 24, 2014
2,666
1,925
113
I'd give the 100 million to education, but would designate where I would want it to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Maroon and White

Latest

  1. 01 Maroon and White Mississippi State RB Kolin Wilson Q&A
  2. 02 Maroon and White Mississippi State LB Zakari Tillman Q&A
  3. 03 Maroon and White Jakheem Shumpert-Perkins Q&A
  4. 04 Maroon and White Sanfrisco Magee: Mississippi State practice a "battle every day"
  5. 05 Maroon and White Mississippi State OL LJ Prudhomme Q&A
Top Bottom