Another Expansion/Realignment Thread

[E-Villan]

I would agree with you, but with the impending enrollment cliff happening, the Presidents are focusing on regular student enrollment. I don't think it's catering as much as it is reminding, marketing to, and rekindling a smoldering, if not burned out Flame (pun intended!) in, its alumni. For example (and it might not be a good one), UIC has a living alumni population of 335,000. So about 335 alumni live in Arlington. UIC has been introduced to the Arlington market. Say the Flames come to town and an alumnus comes and bring their children or other relatives/friends. Maybe, just maybe the Flames and the city of Chicago sparks interest in a potential student. UIC's out-of-state tuition is $28,654, ~$14,000 more than in-state. That's over $114,000 for a 4-year matriculation. Yeah, not that big of a deal, but it's a start. Also, being in the market and on Bally Sports Southwest, the Conference is now seen in Texas, Arkansas, Northern Louisiana and parts of New Mexico.

This is the pipe dream that the Horizon League has been trying to sell forever. This idea that playing in Cleveland is going to draw students for Oakland, or playing in Detroit was going to draw students for UIC, or playing in Chicago is going to draw students for Wright State.

Go look at the enrollment demographics. It doesn't happen like they sell it.

Absent a top-rated academic program or some tuition reciprocity, there are very few incentives for anyone to go to an out-of-state public university.

There's more of a case to be made for private schools, but the fact is that the private schools in the MVC are regional universities. Some have outstanding academic programs and draw students for them, but that doesn't require them to play in DFW or Minneapolis.

I agree with Tyler on this one. I can't find any merit to the argument that sending your athletic teams 700-800 miles out of your footprint to a major market is going to increase enrollment, private or public. Possibly 30 years ago when many households had the local 10PM news on or a newspaper on every kitchen counter, but those days are long gone. Few if any high school students are watching local news or even broadcast television.

I have no idea what the average Valley school would spend sending their teams to Arlington every year, but spending that because 1% of your alumni are there makes horrible financial sense. For the sake of this, lets just say it will cost the average MVC school $200K a year to send all of their teams to Arlington for a year. If I am a marketing consultant and a Valley school comes to me with $200K a year to increase enrollment, I am sure as hell not going to tell them to use it to send their athletic teams to Texas. Evansville for example, would be far more effective scheduling alumni events and target marketing in Indianapolis, St Louis and even Ft. Wayne versus sending the golf team to Texas.

Evansville is less than 150 miles from Nashville. I would be curious how many new Middle Tennessee students UE picked up since Belmont has joined the league. Doubtful it has had an impact and we have a chance of at least being known there, none of us will have that familiarity in DFW. You might could make an argument for athletic recruiting or a TV contract, but not enrollment. I just don't see it making much sense for the MVC or UT-A.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

University presidents have way more data than any of us do, and they consistently believe across the board it makes a net positive difference.

Fans don’t want it to be true because fans have different interests and priorities. But we have significantly less access to the data than they have. The odds that we know more than they do are extremely slim.

[Aces44]

University presidents have way more data than any of us do, and they consistently believe across the board it makes a net positive difference.

Fans don’t want it to be true because fans have different interests and priorities. But we have significantly less access to the data than they have. The odds that we know more than they do are extremely slim.

Forgive me that I think it’s hilarious that you genuinely believe University Presidents are consistently capable of making good decisions. For example: We keep talking about an enrollment cliff, which is entirely self created.

Please don’t take that as a personal insult, I understand many people hold your belief, and I hold no ill will bc of it.

[ReZyNeZy]

Forgive me that I think it’s hilarious that you genuinely believe University Presidents are consistently capable of making good decisions. For example: We keep talking about an enrollment cliff, which is entirely self created.

Please don’t take that as a personal insult, I understand many people hold your belief, and I hold no ill will bc of it.

The enrollment cliff is not entirely self created. Sure presidents and boards being out of touch has something to do with it, just look at the mismanagement of Valpo from 2000s to today. However placing the blame entirely on these people is misguided. Less HS graduates in the Midwest, coupled with the increase in college prices and decreased affordability are the major driving forces, not the Presidents themselves. Are the presidents and boards responsible for adapting to the times rather than reminiscing on the good old days, sure, but these people can hardly be faulted for the turns the economy and the graduation rate have taken

[MissouriValleyUnite]

University presidents have way more data than any of us do, and they consistently believe across the board it makes a net positive difference.

Fans don’t want it to be true because fans have different interests and priorities. But we have significantly less access to the data than they have. The odds that we know more than they do are extremely slim.

Forgive me that I think it’s hilarious that you genuinely believe University Presidents are consistently capable of making good decisions. For example: We keep talking about an enrollment cliff, which is entirely self created.

Please don’t take that as a personal insult, I understand many people hold your belief, and I hold no ill will bc of it.

An enrollment cliff is entirely self-created? I’m sorry, but I’m not understanding that comment.

Enrollment cliffs are caused by the decline of college-aged populations, decreasing birth rates, and population migration. A look at population pyramids or birth rate charts or migration maps will encapsulate why. There’s thousands of scholarly peer-reviewed studies showing that.

It’s straight-forward: if the number of college-aged students declines, especially in a geographic region, there are less students available for colleges. Thus, enrollment cliff.

[MissouriValleyUnite]

To add to what ReZyNeZy is saying, I’d suggest looking at a South Korea population pyramid if you want a crazy extreme example.

South Korea is experiencing a decrease in birth rates at a pace that’s never been seen in global history. As a result, their population pyramid is skewing heavily to the top (old). It’s only going to accelerate massively in the next 100 years.

That means their universities are completely screwed even if they’re perfectly run because the supply of college-aged students is shrinking.

The US isn’t that extreme, but the same principle applies.

[Aces44]

Forgive me that I think it’s hilarious that you genuinely believe University Presidents are consistently capable of making good decisions. For example: We keep talking about an enrollment cliff, which is entirely self created.

Please don’t take that as a personal insult, I understand many people hold your belief, and I hold no ill will bc of it.

The enrollment cliff is not entirely self created. Sure presidents and boards being out of touch has something to do with it, just look at the mismanagement of Valpo from 2000s to today. However placing the blame entirely on these people is misguided. Less HS graduates in the Midwest, coupled with the increase in college prices and decreased affordability are the major driving forces, not the Presidents themselves. Are the presidents and boards responsible for adapting to the times rather than reminiscing on the good old days, sure, but these people can hardly be faulted for the turns the economy and the graduation rate have taken

Who is in charge of the “decreased affordability”?
Am I to believe someone other than the people in charge are to blame?

[Aces44]

To add to what ReZyNeZy is saying, I’d suggest looking at a South Korea population pyramid if you want a crazy extreme example.

South Korea is experiencing a decrease in birth rates at a pace that’s never been seen in global history. As a result, their population pyramid is skewing heavily to the top (old). It’s only going to accelerate massively in the next 100 years.

That means their universities are completely screwed even if they’re perfectly run because the supply of college-aged students is shrinking.

The US isn’t that extreme, but the same principle applies.

I’ll take your word for it and I appreciate the counter point. That said, college life is infinitely greater than trade school or factory work, so if there is an issue with enrollment, I’d suggest it’s akin to being a bad drug dealer, bc the demand is most certainly there.

[ReZyNeZy]

Who is in charge of the “decreased affordability”?
Am I to believe someone other than the people in charge are to blame?

Decreased affordability in it of itself is caused by a variety of factors. 1 being raising prices of college, others being wage stagnation and the increased cost of everything else and the inability for people to even afford college loans. Once again not entirely the fault of presidents and boards although they are not blameless.

[Aces44]

Who is in charge of the “decreased affordability”?
Am I to believe someone other than the people in charge are to blame?

Decreased affordability in it of itself is caused by a variety of factors. 1 being raising prices of college, others being wage stagnation and the increased cost of everything else and the inability for people to even afford college loans. Once again not entirely the fault of presidents and boards although they are not blameless.

I’m going to have to assume you were joking (and insist on you not doing that moving forward if you expect to have a serious conversation) when you say that decreased
Affordability is due to rising costs of the college itself.