Washington State University recently announced they would be upgrading their football stadium. Jim Sterk, WSU’s athletics director announced last week that the university will be able to move forward with the project because construction costs have dropped. The new stadium will be very luxurious with 16 luxury suites, 21 boxes, and 1,200 club seats. The total cost of the project is estimated at $30 million and they plan to pay for it without state help. The university is relying on donations and the money made from the sale of the premium seats that are sold. WSU hopes to have the stadium ready for the 2012 season. Here is a link with more information about the stadium upgrade.
In Stinson and Howard’s article Winning Does Matter we learned that people are more likely to donate to athletic programs over academic ones. This did not really surprise me because as we have learned thus far in the semester people love sports and can often feel connected to teams. By donating directly to these sports teams I think people feel like they helped the team win and are part of the success story. The article goes on to say that teams that do well are more likely to receive donations: “Both an NCAA tournament appearance and the one-year lagged variable of an NCAA appearance are associated with an over $400 increase each in the average total gift” (Stinson & Howard 9). Why do you think WSU is able to move on with this stadium upgrade? Do you think it has to do with fandom?
When reading the article about WSU’s new stadium I was surprised that they have already received about $16 million through various donations. The team has not been playing well and is 3-13 in the past two seasons. If they team was playing better and winning more games I am sure they would be able to raise the funds quicker. However I also thought back to when we discussed the idea of fandom and what a major part of peoples life sports can be, especially football. I am sure many people donated money to have a closer connection with the team.
When reading this article I also wondered if the women’s facilities are as nice as the men’s and when was the last time one of their stadiums was updated. The other article we read for class, NCAA Website Coverage looked to see if women’s athletics receive the same about of coverage as men’s on schools web pages. The research showed that in most cases there was an equal amount of coverage: “In fact, outside of a couple of coverage discrepancies between men’s and women’s soccer, the data show that men’s and women’s sport teams received comparable allocations” (Cooper 237). Do you think that most schools provide women with the same quality facilities as men? Or is there simply a different in facilities necessary between men and women’s sporting events?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When talking about how much the importance of donations are, one must include the gender roles as well. I agree with Kyle’s post when he explains from reference to the article, how schools are being able to build more because the cost of construction has dropped. For instance, the year I left my high school they started to rebuild. Now two years later, it practically looks like a college campus. However the major spot that was mostly redone were the areas in which athletics took place. Now if you think about this it makes sense, at least for my school. The things that brought in the most money for the school were the football games. Not the alumni events, it was the booster club for the football team. And this agrees with the “Winning Does Matter” article when it’s stated in the discussion section, that “it is clear that successful athletics programs often lead current donors to make larger gifts, and perhaps more importantly, attract additional donors to the institution. As a student athletic trainer for the football team I received shirts upon shirts and shorts, jackets, etc. all for free. Not to mention transportation, game meals, snacks etc. and my high school team wasn’t even that good. My dad jumped on the band wagon when he came to the game and saw the advertisements for everything on the fences and in the program. My dad, himself put out a seasonally $2000, which included parking, tickets, banquet dinner, advertisements, and the annual golf game with some famous football players from my high school, like Todd Johnson, Drew Miller and more. I feel that since our school and boosters take such good care of our athletes, when the student athletes grow older they want to give back. For instance Todd Johnson bought all of the 99 jerseys for home and away, specialized just to give back to Coach Anderson, who is still there to this day.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it also mentions, how “donors in most cases attracted by athletics programs appeared to only support athletic programs with their giving. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that it may be possible for these institutions to build upon the established athletic relationship to also solicit gifts in support of academic programs” (Stinson and Howard 18). Therefore by schools getting more advertisements from establishments and companies it will bring more people into the schools and maybe they will see how some of the athletes need academic help to participate in sports and how important academics are to athletes.
In the “Winning Does Matter” article when it’s stated in the discussion section, that “in the absence of a football program, men’s basketball appears to replace football as the most influential sport.” I know this study is based on the college aspect, but I have to continue to relate it to my own familiar circumstances in high school. After football, was not men’s basketball. It was women’s basketball. Again I feel that it has to do with the success of the team. More students, teachers, parents supported the women’s team because they were state champions, runner’s up, etc. for many years in a row. You knew that if you were going to their games it would be a good one.
This agrees with Coyte Coopers “Gender Coverage on NCAA College Websites” were it was seen that softball had more online than high school baseball. I feel that this may be because softball is not really seen as a pro sport, like baseball is. Therefore softball doesn’t have to compete with the pro-leagues like baseball does, which takes away from the intercollegiate for baseball. Again I’m going to go back to it all depends on how well the team plays as to how much coverage or money they bring in. For instance, our baseball team here is well known because of the amount of times they’ve been highlighted on ESPN. I feel like I never hear anything about any other sports as much as I do about baseball. Yeah baseball doesn’t get as much spectators at Quinnipiac as say hockey does, but it does draw in money from areas outside of the Quinnipiac community when it plays on ESPN highlights.
It seems that at many schools the facilities that men’s and women’s programs have are of generally the same quality. At Quinnipiac, the basketball court and hockey rink are used by both men and women, and, as the previous blog alluded to with the Cooper quote, this trend is common at other schools too. Cooper goes on to say, “The allocations are also promising because they far exceed the allocations previously afforded to women in ‘for-profit’ media outlets” (237). The number of women involved in sports at the collegiate level is quickly approaching the number of men, so the coverage of women’s sports is also on the rise. To accommodate for this increase, women and men playing the same sport will in many cases play on the same field or court, which will also save schools the hassle of having separate facilities. Cooper also says that “athletic departments are providing women and men with similar opportunities to brand their product” (237). The best way for these teams to “brand their product” is to have a place to play that will allow that to happen.
ReplyDeleteAlthough men and women may have similar facilities and opportunities to brand their product, I do believe there is a difference in the donations of successful and unsuccessful athletic programs. According to Stinson and Howard, “A case study of giving to Clemson University indicated that increased winning by the football team led to increased donor support of athletics programs. Winning percentages and television appearances were identified as significant predictors of alumni giving at Mississippi State University, while other studies have linked appearance and outcomes in postseason events, most notably football bowl games, and the NCAA basketball tournament, to increased levels of private support” (4). The more a team wins, the more fans want to feel like they had a hand in the winning, and donations are one of the many ways to feel linked to a team.
Even though all donations are made based on fandom, the more dedicated followers are the ones who will donate even when a team is not doing successful. In the case of WSU, I think that they have a strong enough core base to afford a new stadium based on their donations, and that they are hopeful that this new stadium will lead to future success.