Bc Gaming Grant Application: Fill & Download for Free

I know plenty of recent PhD grads who have published, yet they perish.Why, you ask?Because academic publishing is simply a small piece of an industry in decline.Allow yourself to imagine a scenario for a moment:The year is 148 BC. A “professor,” who happens to be an itinerant philosopher, is paid directly by students who wish to learn from his scholarship and experience.He speaks the truth, and isn’t afraid to scare some of them away if they are not cut out for the work or if they hold their payment over his head as if to blackmail him into saying what they want.Some of his most dedicated students have recorded his teaching on precious scrolls, and they intend to advance the cause after he is gone.He is poor, but he is honest.…Now the year is 2019. Rather than teaching, or working on his latest research, a professor is writing a grant application—he has to, if he wants to keep his job.The department is making cuts, as the budget has to make room for the new executive suite dormitories for wealthy students.He’s worked too hard, and sacrificed too much to lose his career now.He knows his argumentation is tenuous, but if he wants to fulfil the diversity and inclusiveness criteria he is going to have to make some compromises.In the back of his mind he suspects that nobody will care even 5 years from now about the research he is proposing.Some might accuse him of patronizing and brown nosing.That doesn’t matter.Maybe once he has tenure he will be able to research the things he is really passionate about—he will make a difference one day.He’ll keep his job for a few more years, but he can’t shake the feeling that somewhere along the line he sold his soul.Now, don’t get me wrong:Higher learning, teaching, and excellent scholarship must endure.Some of the greatest scholars throughout history, after all, have not been interested in financial gain.As long as they aren’t starving, scholarship will go on.What is in decline, however, is the high quality of the academic enterprise, and the reason is because the incentives have changed for researchers and teachers.The incentive is no longer to solve the great problems we are faced with.It is to churn through as many students, classes, and publications as possible, guided by whoever is lobbying the powers that be, in order to secure grant money that has been extracted from society.I am not saying individuals’ motives have necessarily changed, only that the incentives they are presented with have changed.How have these incentives changed?Everyone has gotten inconceivably wealthier since the first university was founded in Bologna in 1088.As we all got wealthier, more and more of us could “live the dream” of going to college.Up and up went enrolment, and over time the universities that previously survived through generous patronage became big business (obviously I’m glossing over a lot of complicated social processes—don’t ask me how it all happened!).Now we’re in a tricky situation where higher education is seen as something of a basic human right.Because everyone “deserves” to go to college, the force of taxation must be mobilized to provide this right to the people.You’ve got to give the people what they want.And in this case, they want one thing:Loans.Now, student loan debt is “the new housing bubble.”And as Austrian Economics has told us before every crash in the past, creating false demand results in the Business Cycle—boom, bubble, and bust.Student loans, subsidized and unsubsidized, allow an 18-year-old to finance some or all of the next four years of his or her life, including living expenses.…[Tuition] prices have not fallen or stabilized once since 1977, regardless of economic climate…This symptom may be attributed to cheap and accessible money, and it is becoming an issue now because tuition is still rising but wages have been flat for a decade.…Loans and grants are not necessarily a bad thing, but when the amount of money flooding the industry drives up the demand to the point of the former becoming a market essential, there is an influx of risk.…Millions of students will graduate with the same popular majors and compete for fewer jobs because a significant amount of manufacturing and industry has left the United States.The supply of students entering the job market will be endless, and businesses will lower the base pay of new employees because of their abundance.The other scenario is that businesses will not hire them at all because they are fully staffed, thus creating a bottleneck in the job market.…Whether the student-loan industry is run by the American government or by subsidized lending institutions, the business model is flawed and will continue to force prices upward regardless of whether it makes economic sense.[1][1][1][1]What this means in the long run is that the university business model is not treading water.It is drowning.The illusion of prosperity—(for most schools, let’s say, which, by the way, deceptively look like they are crushing it with a butterfly stroke)—propagated by building projects and flashy marketing, masks a rotten underbelly.The business of university education is financed on students’ futures, and it’s the new slavery.Contrary to what the New York Times says (in it’s 1619 project), slavery is not productive.[2][2][2][2]Obviously, slavery is not productive. It rewards the few at the expense of the many.These students are hamstringing themselves before they get out of the gates.When you look at the way publishing affects grant money disbursal (and some other answers have highlighted this already), grant money is seen to be a driving factor in how, why, where, and when scholars publish.There are multiple problems with this scenario.Grants can enable innovation, but only at the expense of other innovation.People are constantly innovating. It’s part of what makes us human.When faced with problems, we create solutions. Sometimes the solutions are simple, and sometimes they are complex, requiring a great deal of working capital. But innovation just keeps coming, and you can’t stop it.When the government takes it upon itself to disburse grant money for research, it sounds so noble.After all, people wouldn’t donate to research that is not glamorous (right?), so it makes sense to set aside tax money for this purpose.But what is really happening, is that the government is taking away capital that would be used to solve problems and determining by fiat that it knows better than everyone else what problems need to be solved right now.When the government takes taxes for research budgets, it is effectively crippling innovation in the name of innovation.The worst part is that, for example, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC—a federal agency here in Canada) is not going to be able to wisely allocate these resources.Say what you will, but self-identification as [insert group identity here] does not mean de facto that your research will be more excellent than research by [insert another group identity here].So in other words, supporting scholarship with grants raised by taxation is bound to be inefficient. If you need more demonstration of this argument, just look at the Socialist Calculation Problem.[3][3][3][3] (Or see a counter-argument, because why not?)As a result of all these things, academic publishing has largely become an exercise in building a CV, getting citations, securing tenure, and, the most powerful motivation of all, getting grant money.So let’s draw everything together here:There is a student loan bubble.Government grants turn the wheels of most academic publishing.What are we left with?The industry, the business of higher education is geared not toward production of valuable research, but toward exploiting coerced funds.Government money (which is unproductive money, money parasitically drawn out of the system) propagates both the loans and the livelihood of professors, and this, my friends, is what an industry in decline looks like.TL;DR“Publish or perish” can therefore be paraphrased:Play the government’s game and you can get a cut of the spoils; only fools follow their dreams.Does this mean academia is doomed? I don’t think so. It just means the future will look different. Crony scholarship will wither, but true scholarship will rise, and it may just surprise us with how it looks.Footnotes[1] The Education Bubble | B. T. Donleavy[1] The Education Bubble | B. T. Donleavy[1] The Education Bubble | B. T. Donleavy[1] The Education Bubble | B. T. Donleavy[2] How Slavery Hurt the U.S. Economy - BNN Bloomberg[2] How Slavery Hurt the U.S. Economy - BNN Bloomberg[2] How Slavery Hurt the U.S. Economy - BNN Bloomberg[2] How Slavery Hurt the U.S. Economy - BNN Bloomberg[3] The socialist calculation problem — Adam Smith Institute[3] The socialist calculation problem — Adam Smith Institute[3] The socialist calculation problem — Adam Smith Institute[3] The socialist calculation problem — Adam Smith Institute

This is me simply stating facts for those haters who want throw hate on neymar and discredit all that he has done so far and his impact on both club and country teams. Im a PSG fan but this needs to be said..This whole Mbappe is better than Neymar bs needs to end. Neymar is light yeras ahead of mbappe, and if im being honest neither will never be on the level of the two: Messi and CR7 are once and a lifetime players…who tend to be taken for granted bc of their consistent ability to dominate the game of futbol unlike anyone before. (For example: the only 2 players who are truly worthy of this years Ballon d’or which is supposed to be an award based off of skill and individual performance for a calendar year would be imo… Messi and Ronaldo. Not Modric anymore bc of RM’s embarrassing play of late. And for those who say mbappe or Verane you need to realize that the WC is a month long tournament that is a team game and the WC Isn’t even the highest level of futbol anymore, let’s not forget tht the award has lost its credibility where the voting results have been leaked….lol) BUT for my original point here you go: They compared Neymar to Messi for a reason, this is bc he is a playmaker now where at Barca he was only worried about scoring goals which we all know… but Now he sets his teammates up unlike at Barca where that role was for Alba and Messi. Your hater application has been submitted. In 47 matches, he has 42 goals and 23 assists. I can understand the amount goals but the amount assist are just ridiculous. He’s shown up against big teams his entire career especially recently against Liverpool. Mbappe has still failed to show that he can even score a goal from outside the box, where he relies too much on speed and natural physical ability whereas his dribbling and other skills are nowhere near Neymar’s right now and those of Messi/Ronaldos when they were 19. Also, Mbappe has failed to perform at the level that many claim that he is at in the UCL this season. In the 4 games of the UCL that they’ve played, Neymar has been the best player for PSG in each outing . Where even against Liverpool Mbappe scored off of Neymars playmaking and off of Neymars assist… not to mention Mbappe’s dumbass turnover literally led to the game winning goal for Liverpool. They both played under par that game, but Neymar followed that game with a hat trick then followed his hat trick with 2 MOTM performances against Nappoli where he set up Mbappe and Cavanni to score on multiple occasions and neither of them could finish. UCl goals so far Neymar has 3 Mbappe has 2 (both off a Neymar assist btw)……. Lets not forget that Neymar spent the end of 2017 hurt…he broke a bone between his ankle and his foot. Majority of ppl in they’re right mind would understand if he had decided not to play in the WC, but bc of how coveted the WC is and it only happens once every 4 years it is understandable why he chose to do so. Eden Hazard even praised Neymar for even playing in the 2018 WC and scoring 2 goals in the tournament after suffering the injury. Where the only reason Neymar essentially had a bad WC individually would be bc of his “diving antics” . At the end of the day Neymar imo when healthy is currently the 3rd Best player in the world and if he decides to return to Barca which I hate to say but it’s tru: Barca fits him better than PSG does. This is due to PSG’s questionable midfield and the lack of competition in Ligue 1, of he was to return to the camp Nou he would take the thrown of the best player in the world very soon. Neymar will win multiple Ballon d’ors in the future while Mbappe on the other hand has a chance to do the same there no doubt about that, but to say that he will be a “ successor” to players like Messi and Ronaldo is a stretch. The only reason I kind of have no problem saying this when this comes to Neymar is bc he has consistently been in the conversation of being one of the top 5 or even top 3 best players in the world for multiple years now…not just after one season and a month long tournament lol ( The WC) Neymar also is tied for the most UCL goals by any Brazilian futbol player ever. That stat alone speaks for his talent and ability in itself…. nonetheless, There are other young players who have similar skill and talent to Mbappe but play in harder leagues and they dont get the press that they desreve but should be in the conversation as the future of futbol as ewually as he is right now. (To name a few: Dybala, Rashford, Pulisic, Dembele, Jesus, Alli, Sancho, and etc)

Q. How much is a 6% increase of college applications to their universities worth for teams in the Final Four?College goes to Final Four --> 6% increase the following year in high school students who send their SAT score to college (14% increase for black high school students). Figure below shows increase in scores sent for the year of sports success and 1, 2, and 3 years after success.Devin Pope‏ @Devin_G_Pope http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/devin.pope/research/pdf/Website_Sport Econ Attention.pdfA. TL;DR Bumps public awareness and number of applications.Wichita State (Final Four 2013): 30% increase in applications. Publicity worth $450M. School is more selective.Doug Flutie Effect: Connection between on-field athletic success and university prominence. In 1984 beat U of Miami. Two year bump for Boston College.Free advertising, especially small schools. National Exposure (in state applicants already aware, smaller bump). More out of state applicants, more tuition (Rutgers spends/loses money in athletics because of this reason). More donation, more merchandise sold.Florida Gulf Coast (Sweet Sixteen 2013): 27.5%Virginia Commonwealth University (Final Four 2011) 20%more applications. More out of state students. $3.4M more in tuition.Butler University (Championships 2011 and 2012): $1.2B worth advertising. 52% increase applications.George Mason University: ($677,474,659 in free media attention and advertising. Admissions increased by 350%. Out-of-state applicants increased by 40%. 25% increase in alumni activity/donations.University of Florida championship account for 79% increase in applicants.Villanova: Private schools 2–4X increase over public schools. Better reputation, better quality applicants, more selective. Final Four 2009. $6M worth free advertising.Georgetown: Patrick Ewing 45% rise 1983–1986How March Madness Affects AdmissionsHow March Madness success boosted admissions for 5 universitiesWhat College Basketball Success Means for Schools Like VillanovaMarch Madness Payout: Final Four Schools Surge In ApplicationsAcademic Spending versus Athletic Spending: Who wins? (deltacostproject.org)How March Madness Affects AdmissionsFlorida Gulf Coast University basketball players at the 2013 NCAA TournamentMichael Perez / APHAYLEY GLATTER MAR 16, 2017Brackets are about to be busted.It is not a question of if, so much as one of when and by whom. Maybe Iona College will make a deep run; a plucky Winthrop University team will pick off Butler; or Florida Gulf Coast University will put together another string of upsets. As the NCAA tournament sets off at its maddening pace, lower-profile colleges will surely capture the national spotlight. And the admissions offices of the schools that play their way into Cinderella’s glass slippers could have some extra work come next application season.According to a recent analysis of federal Department of Education data by Bloomberg, schools that beat performance expectations during March Madness receive a bump not only in public awareness, but also in the number of applications they receive. For example, as Bloomberg points out, after then-15th-seeded Florida Gulf Coast’s wild run through Georgetown and San Diego State to advance to the Sweet Sixteen of the 2013 tournament, applications to the Fort Myers, Florida, campus spiked 27.5 percent. A similar trend was observed at Lehigh University after it bounced perennial tournament contender and then-second-seeded Duke from the first round of the 2012 tournament. And it’s not just one shocking upset that results in more applications: If a team makes it further into March than expected—such as Wichita State’s surprising Final Four berth in 2013—it can also experience increased interest. Wichita State, for its part, received almost 30 percent more applications following its success on the court in 2013, Bloomberg reports.RELATED STORIESWhy Sports and Elite Academics Do Not MixThe increased interest in these so-called Cinderella teams, however, may not be all that surprising. Certainly the magnitude of the application spikes is dramatic, but these findings from Bloomberg fall within the expectations of the so-called “Flutie effect,” which draws a connection between on-field athletic success and university prominence. In 1984, Doug Flutie—then the quarterback of the Boston College Eagles—threw a miraculous Hail Mary pass to upset the University of Miami Hurricanes. After the electrifying, last-minute victory, Boston College saw a surge in applications. The game between the Eagles and the Hurricanes took place the Friday after Thanksgiving and was broadcast to a national audience, perhaps allowing Boston College’s victory to pique the interest of students around the country. The NCAA Tournament’s Cinderella stories can benefit from a similar national reach: March Madness games are live streamed on NCAA.com – The Official Website of NCAA Championships, and the NCAA inked a $10.8 billion deal with CBS Sports and Turner Broadcasting. Schools like Georgetown, Boise State, and Texas Christian University have also seen a rise in applications after successful basketball and football campaigns.And it’s not just the quantity of applications that is affected by athletic success. According to a 2013 study published by Marketing Science, an application pool’s quality also changes. Doug J. Chung, the author of the study, noted that although students with lower SAT scores are more likely to be swayed by a school’s athletic prominence, the number of applications from high-achieving students also increased following on-field achievement. And these Cinderella stories may have yet another thing going for them in terms of favorability: People love underdog stories. Studies show that people have a propensity to root for and ascribe positive qualities to entities they think are less likely to prevail or inherently disadvantaged. Perhaps college applicants are attracted to the inspiring, surprising disruption Cinderella stories bring to the NCAA tournament.Thirty-six percent of freshmen who enrolled in college for the first time in fall 2015 applied to at least seven schools.What’s unclear, however, is if this spike in applications results in an increase in enrollment. The ever-elusive yield rate (the percentage of admitted students who attend a specific school) for schools that surprise the country during March Madness is not clear. The schools may become more selective (Chung notes in his study that admissions rates “decline by 4.8 percent with high-level athletic success”), but that does not mean an institution skyrockets to the top of an applicant’s list because its team advances in the tournament. In these cases, an increase in selectivity is only natural: Applications to an institution may increase, but the number of slots in a freshman class does not.If Google search data is any indication, smaller schools participating in the NCAA Tournament may already be reaping the benefits of national attention. Trend data shows a spike in searches for schools including Iona and Winthrop during the month of March. Certainly much of this could be coming from sports fans trying to make the most informed bracket selections in their office pool, but prospective students may also be finding their way to these institutions’ websites. And so, as more students apply to multiple colleges (36 percent of freshmen who enrolled in college for the first time in fall 2015 applied to at least seven schools), perhaps applicants will tack onto their lists a school whose basketball spark burned hot for a few triumphant days in March.How March Madness success boosted admissions for 5 universities (educationdive.com)It’s almost time to go dancing — in the NCAA Tournament, that is. For many schools, appearances are routine: The last time Duke University didn’t make the tournament was 1995. But what happens when a school not known for its athletics makes a big, unexpected run in the tourney? An admissions boost.Almost every tournament brings a Cinderella story of sorts. The admissions surge that follows such runs is commonly referred to as the “Flutie effect,” after Boston College quarterback Doug Flutie, who threw a Hail Mary pass to beat Miami in 1984. This enormous win began a two-year jump in application rates for BC. Since then, numerous schools have recorded a significant uptick in admissions after successful football or basketball seasons.Making it far enough in the NCAA Tournament creates a huge, invaluable boost in media attention. Essentially, these schools get free advertising on a national level. This is especially beneficial for smaller schools that can’t normally afford a level of exposure that allows them to go from being no-names to household names in a span of about two weeks. As a result, becoming an NCAA Cinderella story often means a sizable boost in admissions and, more often than not, an increase in out-of-state applicants that translates to more tuition dollars. Taking this into consideration, it's easier to understand why schools like Rutgers, despite criticism, would spend millions on athletic programs that actually lose money.Here are five schools that benefited from such boosts.1. Florida Gulf Coast UniversityThe most recent example of a school benefiting from the Flutie Effect is Florida Gulf Coast University, which became the first school in history to be seeded 15th and make it to the Sweet 16. As of November, FGCU has seen an admissions increase of roughly 27%. While it is still too early to tell how big the increase will ultimately be — FGCU’s admissions period does not end until May 1st — the numbers seem to be following the trend of Cinderella schools that preceded FGCU.2. Virginia Commonwealth UniversityVirginia Commonwealth University’s admissions statistics offer an even clearer picture of the effect successful tournament runs can have on admissions. In 2011, VCU made it to the Final Four. The following year, its team made a third round appearance. By 2012, VCU saw a 20% increase in applications. And while an increase in applications is important, it is the difference between in-state and out-of-state applications that really matters. In 2008, VCU reported that 92% of freshmen were from Virginia. In 2012, that percentage had dropped to 85. This 8% difference meant almost $3.4 million more in tuition for the school during the 2012-13 academic year.3. Butler UniversityButler University made two impressive back-to-back runs in 2010 and 2011, both times making it all the way to the championship game. Since then, Butler commissioned a study that determined the university received national media attention valued at $1.2 billion over the span of the two tournaments. In addition to receiving an enormous amount of free advertising, Butler also saw a 52% increase in applications from 2009 to 2011, with the number of applicants increasing from 6,246 to 9,518.4. George Mason UniversityGeorge Mason University found itself in the Final Four during the 2006 tournament. A GMU professor conducted a study that found the university had received an estimated $677,474,659 in free media attention and advertising during this run. Subsequently, its overall admissions increased by 350%. The number of out-of-state applicants increased by 40%, bringing them to 25% of the overall total. In addition to application boosts, the free media attention also caused a 25% increase in alumni activity, presumably increasing donations.5. University of FloridaOK, the University of Florida isn't a small school, but it still benefited from winning back-to-back championship titles in 2006 and 2007. Keeping with the trend, its 2006 win was followed by an increase in admissions, and the 2007 win only helped continue that boost. In fact, Florida received a record 26,325 applications in the fall of 2007 — a 9.5% jump. It was estimated that the back-to-back victories were responsible for 1,805 of 2,286 new applicants, or roughly 79%. The study also showed that the quality of the applicants — based on their average GPAs and SAT scores — remained the same.Would you like to see more education news like this in your inbox on a daily basis? Subscribe to our Education Dive email newsletter! You may also want to read Education Dive's look at how the world's 10 richest billionaires are shaping education.What College Basketball Success Means for Schools Like VillanovaVillanova Wildcats forward Daniel Ochefu hoists the national championship trophy, April 4, 2016.USA Today Sports—Reuters By BRAD TUTTLE April 5, 2016In all likelihood, it just got harder to get accepted as a student at Villanova University.On Monday night, the school’s men’s basketball team won the NCAA championship over the University of North Carolina in dramatic, buzzer-beater fashion. And while the link between success in a university’s sports programs and its student applications is well-chronicled across a broad range of colleges, the impact is felt especially strongly when small private schools like Villanova (ranked #75 on our Best Money Colleges list) achieve exposure and fan-favorite status on the national stage.As one extensive 2009 analysis summed up, “private schools see increases in application rates after sports success that are two to four times higher than public schools.” With more applications, colleges can be more selective with acceptances. Achievements in the sporting arena, then, tend to result in higher “quality” students and an overall better reputation for the college in the future, the study explained: “Schools appear to exploit these increases in applications by improving both the number and the quality of incoming students.”As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, when Villanova last reached the NCAA tournament Final Four in 2009, the university received the equivalent of $6 million in free media publicity. Considering that the school didn’t reach the final game, let alone win the championship that year, the 2016 basketball bonus felt by Villanova will be far greater—perhaps even as impactful as the school’s 1985 NCAA championship over Georgetown, acclaimed as one the biggest upsets in all sports, bringing Villanova an unprecedented level of exposure.Speaking of Georgetown University, it too has benefited as an institution by way of basketball success. Applications to Georgetown rose 45% between 1983 and 1986, around the time Patrick Ewing was leading the basketball team to three appearances (and one championship) in national title games. The so-called “Flutie Effect” is associated with another school in the Northeast, in light of Boston College applications surging 30% after the school’s football team beat the University of Miami in 1984 thanks to Doug Flutie’s last-second “Hail Mary” touchdown pass.More recently, surprisingly strong performances in the NCAA basketball tournament by the likes of George Mason, Wichita State, Butler, and Gonzaga universities have also been correlated with big increases in student applications—with rises of 81% at Wichita State and 41% at Butler following years they made the Final Four. The free media exposure granted to Butler and George Mason during their Cinderella runs in the tournament have been estimated at a staggering $450 million and $677 million, respectively.Understandably, sales of team and university merchandise gear can soar as well when an unheralded program makes a splash in the tournament, like Florida Gulf Coast did in 2013 when it became the first #15 seed to reach the Sweet 16.While some question the degree to which the Flutie Effect or Final Four Effect truly nudges applications skyward—in many cases, applications were rising for other reasons not related to sports—most agree there’s some noticeable impact.“Whether we can say it was directly caused by the run for the Final Four, there’s no statistical proof,” Dr. Robert Baker, director of the center for sport management at George Mason, told USA Today a couple of years ago. “But in reality, the correlation is so strong between those things happening and the vast amount of exposure, you can draw that assumption that they were related.”The big takeaway is that all of this exposure heightens a school’s profile—especially if it was a fairly low profile to begin with—resulting in more student applications, more selectivity in who gets accepted, and (perhaps) higher enrollment overall. While this scenario can make it more difficult for students hoping to get into these institutions, the boost to a school’s reputation works out nicely for alumni (like me, ‘Nova Class of ’95), even if the team never got within a sniff of the Final Four when they were students.[youtube=Villanova vs. North Carolina: Kris Jenkins shot wins national title]So my old college buddies and I are hoping that a “Kris Jenkins Effect” is taking shape right now.March Madness Payout: Final Four Schools Surge In ApplicationsVillanova may have lost in the 2009 Final Four, but the school received almost 10% more applications the following year. // Tim Busch for Villanova AthleticsAs time expired in the NCAA men’s basketball championship game, Villanova University forward Kris Jenkins chucked up a buzzer-beater that wrote his Wildcats into March Madness history. “Nova Nation” – as their fans are called – were ablaze with energy, taking over the rest of the nation’s social media with the most positive Twitter press of any college this spring.Highs like these can be goldmines for schools, and Villanova hit the jackpot.“The outcomes for the basketball championship are off the charts,” says Patrick Maggitti, provost of Villanova. “There’s this shared excitement and enthusiasm and belief in what we’re doing, and that excitement plays out when we have parents and their high school kids visiting campus. There’s a positive vibe and energy.”Historically, this energy actually has had an impact on prospective students and their families. From 2009 to 2013, there were 20 teams in the Final Four of the NCAA “March Madness” men’s basketball tournament, 16 of which experienced an increase in freshman applications above the national average in their respective universities during the next application cycle.Specifically, these schools received 12.9% more applications the year after making the Final Four, significantly higher than the average increase for four-year colleges nationally -- 4.2% -- for each of those years.Percent change of applications received by 4-year colleges, national vs. March Madness Final Four schoolsCreate line chartsThe correlation is striking, and the scoreboard shows that winning on the court can lead to winning off of it. Applications indicate interest in the university, and getting a school’s name out there to millions of prospective students across the nation after performing on one of college sport’s biggest stages is a slam dunk.“We travel to college fairs all over the country,” said Bobby Gandu, director of the Office of Admissions at Wichita State University, which made the Final Four in 2013 as a 9-seed. “Prior to the Final Four appearance that we had, people might walk by our booth at that college fair and think, ‘Okay, that’s Wichita State.’ Nowadays, if someone walks by our booth at a college fair in another city that we’re not geographically close to, they’ll look at us and say, 'Wichita State, that’s the basketball school,' so it gives us the opportunity to have more conversations with people.”Butler University in Indianapolis, whose fifth-seed 2010 team included head coach Brad Stevens (now the head coach of the Boston Celtics), guard/forward Gordon Heyward (now of the Utah Jazz) and guard Shelvin Mack (also on the Jazz), experienced the greatest leap in interest, receiving over 40% more applications in just a year.According to Lori Greene, Butler’s vice president for enrollment management, this gave the school a brand new type of momentum.“At that time, the institution realized that it was also time to look at our marketing efforts,” Greene says. “Time and dedication were spent in a branding campaign, trying to make sure that individuals knew what Butler was all about.”From Greene’s perspective, it worked. In the years since the 2010 Final Four run – which was also followed by a similar run in 2011 – Butler has continued to attract more students, with almost 13,000 applicants last cycle.With over 3,000 four-year colleges in the U.S., any opportunity for a school to stand out is huge. College sports, whose biggest events draw over 28 million television views and 275 million Twitter impressions, can help thrust schools into the national spotlight, especially schools without national notoriety. Upsets can propel unknowns into relevancy, as was the case with Florida Gulf Coast University, who received 27.5% more applications the year after their highly-publicized journey to the Sweet Sixteen as a 15-seed.In late autumn, over 350 Division I men’s hoops squads will begin their quest for the Final Four and March Madness fame. However, for one ascending school in Indianapolis and for other benefactors of the tournament’s limelight, getting in the basketball mindset won’t be hard.“It’s the hundred-day countdown to the basketball season,” says Butler’s Greene. “We’re already in it.”Academic Spending versus Athletic Spending: Who wins? (deltacostproject.org)This brief from the Delta Cost Project looks at academic and athletic spending in NCAA Division I public universities.Conclusion:The belief that college sports are a financial boon to colleges and universities is generally misguided. Although some big-time college sports athletic departments are self-supporting—and some specific sports may be profitable enough to help support other campus sports programs—more often than not, the colleges and universities are subsidizing athletics, not the other way around. In fact, student fees or institutional subsidies (coming from tuition, state appropriations, endowments, or other revenue generating activities on campus) often support even the largest NCAA Division I college sports programs. Recent trends suggest that the most significant economic slowdown in recent years has done little to reverse the growth in athletic spending, particularly in those divisions heavily dependent on institutional support. The growth in athletic spending is not expected to abate anytime soon, as media contracts fuel more money into the system and the “have nots” continue to chase the “haves.” Not only does athletic spending per athlete far exceed academic spending per student, it is also growing about twice as fast. College sports are certainly valuable in that they allow students to pursue healthy, competitive activities that they are passionate about. But big-time college sports programs often seem to serve as advertising vehicles, boosting exposure and prestige for those universities that are successful. While a winning team may generate some new students and donors, the price of participating in Division I athletics is high. And disparities in academic and athletic spending suggest that participating public colleges and universities reexamine their game plans.National championships don’t guarantee more college applications - UNC Media Hub NOVEMBER 28, 2017 by COLE DEL CHARCOEvery football fan remembers Doug Flutie, or at least the Hail Mary.With six seconds left on the clock in a 1984 football game against the juggernaut University of Miami, Flutie took the snap as quarterback for Boston College. Flutie bounded six strides back before being chased out of the pocket. He stepped right, then lunged into a throw. As he let go, the ball soared like the eagle on his jersey. The ball sailed past one, two, three Miami defenders, then fell into the arms of a leaping wide receiver. Game over.The nation was stunned. Some no-name, private Catholic college just took down “The U.” But something most people couldn’t imagine when Flutie was hoisted up by his teammates was just how much this play would change his college.Applications to Boston College rose 30 percent within two years.Welcome to what was quickly called the Flutie Effect.The Flutie Effect is real — universities with drastic improvements in visible sports get more applicants — except when it isn’t.Here’s what the data say:It’s real when a school goes from mediocrity to consistent winning;It isn’t real when winning programs win because they always win;It isn’t real when a school only marginally improves their on-field performance.When losers win a lotAt Boston College applications flew in from around the country. More applicants than ever, and 30 percent more two years after Flutie.The game was televised nationally, which led to one thing for the college: free publicity.“Athletic success has a significant impact on the quality and quantity of applicants to institutions of higher education in the United States,” wrote Harvard University researcher Doug Chung in his paper on the advertising effect of college athletics.Chung concludes a school jumping from mediocre to great at football can raise applications by nearly 18 percent. Boston College was an outlier. But to achieve a similar increase to that 18 percent in applicants without a big sports improvement, he says, a university would have to lower its tuition by almost 4 percent.When winners winFor teams that already win consistently, a championship can help, but not nearly as much.Analysis of admissions data shows that the common effects of national championships in the two revenue sports in the NCAA, basketball and football, are, in fact, positive.Take, for example, the newly minted dynasty of Clemson University football. They’ve had winning seasons for years that culminated in a championship last season. But the real change has come over the last decade — when the winning really started.Robert Bennett, the senior associate director of admissions at Clemson University, said he thinks the Flutie Effect is real.“The answer is probably yes, but is there a way to measure it? Not directly,” Bennett said. “And as far as does winning a national championship affect admissions, the answer is probably yes, but it’s hard to tell how much.”Clemson is still waiting for the effect to be measured on the class of students currently applying the year after a national championship.The university’s application rates have been on a steady rise with help of the school’s improving football team. It’s unlikely that admission rates will jump significantly after the championship since the application rate has already been helped by success on the football field.“(To say) Our application pool has grown exponentially may be a little bit of a stretch, but it certainly has grown,” Bennett said. “Since 2005 [it] has more than doubled.”When Clemson’s current football coach Dabo Swinney was hired, the hype around the Tiger’s program really picked up. It’s hard to attribute a specific rise in applications to the improvement of the program around Swinney, but Bennett thinks the effect might be the type of people who choose to enroll.Once Clemson started winning on the football field, it started attracting more athletically-inclined students.“I think the culture is more activity, and what I mean people are more physically active,” Bennett said. “I think more students come here because they like sports, but then they get involved in club sports or going out on the lake.”As Bennett points out there are dozens of factors that could influence applications numbers. Beyond that, Clemson is a special case because its students are admitted directly into a major, not just the university, keeping application rates relatively stable.The long-time winnersAt UNC-Chapel Hill, a long-time successful basketball school, there’s less evidence of admission increases following stand-out seasons. The number of applications for admission have been on a steady upward trend for a while.According to the office of admissions at UNC, from 2006 to 2016 there was an average increase of 6.72 percent in applicants to the university. But it didn’t all come at once.Surprisingly, the rate of increase markedly slowed in some years after UNC made it to basketball’s Final Four. That happened in 2007, following the Final Four in 2006, and in 2010, after the national championship in 2009.In 2015, UNC saw a decrease in the percent of applications. However, after the team made it to the Final Four in 2016, application rates increased more twice as much as normal, 13.7 percent.This increase comes even with the fact that UNC has a consistently top-tier basketball program and is acknowledged as a strong academic school.Stephen Farmer, the vice chancellor for admissions, said there isn’t a strong correlation in Final Four appearances and an increase in applications.“We know students are drawn to Carolina for our stellar academics, commitment to student success and vibrant campus community, which includes our athletic programs,” Farmer said.UNC-Chapel Hill and Clemson University are both public universities and are considered large. The Flutie Effect appears to have limited impact for those kinds of schools, especially ones considered academically elite.The private school champsSmall private schools with a history of athletic success experience even fewer results from the Flutie Effect.Take Duke University. The school has five basketball national championships, the fourth most of all colleges, and three more than the second most successful private school.After Duke won a championship in 2015, application numbers didn’t rise. They actually fell from 32,513 to 31,186.The results were a little different in 2010, after the team won a championship. Applicants rose from 2009 to 2010, but that was part of a consistent upswing in applicants, presumed to have been caused by the economic crisis.So, while the actual influence of the Flutie Effect depends on the nature of the university, one result is certain — his Hail Mary pass against Miami won him the Heisman Trophy.Forbes Releases Tenth Annual Ranking of America's Top CollegesPay-To-Play: The Business Of College Athletic RecruitmentWhat Villanova's 2016 National Title Says About Defense In College Basketb...