Comments on: NCAA Sanctions and Economic Impact

By: Don Alexander

Don Alexander — Tue, 08 Jan 2013 22:01:32 +0000

@James
Your points are well taken. I checked the attendance data and Penn State experienced a 5 percent drop from 2011. However since attendance has fallen since 2003 for college football in general it is hard to say if the 5 percent is due to the sanctions or it is part of the general decline across many programs.
I agree with the television comment and like I said not much has changed. I did not know about the bowl revenues, but thanks for pointing this out.

By: James

James — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:46:38 +0000

@Don

So FWIW you’re wrong about most of those things. Attendance has fallen significantly this year. In a somewhat unusual move, Penn State does not get any bowl revenue share during the full four years of their ban as “handed down” by the conference (the Big Ten splits all bowl revenue evenly every year with every team. Regarding unusualness, Ohio State received a bowl ban this year and they are getting their usual bowl revenue share amount).

And regarding television appearances, all of that has been negotiated beforehand by the conference, and shared evenly like bowl money, so it that sense it’s kind of a non-factor.

By: James

James — Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:17:39 +0000

I’m totally with you guys on the fallacy of stadium impact and so on, but to pretend that Penn State football has no impact on the town of State College, and thus the state, is pretty silly and not something I think you guys believe. The number of people that go there on Saturdays from other states alone is enough of a case to prove it’s incremental, not to mention various studies that show a direct correlation between football success and the number of applicants the following year, which gives a university an opportunity to raise standards, reputation, and drive a more desirable place for companies to recruit and give research grants.

Again, I’m not blowing this out of proportion, the impact isn’t in the trillions, but let’s be real.

By: Jacob AG

Jacob AG — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 07:39:27 +0000

That so many people who go to Penn State games “live” in Pennsylvania doesn’t mean all that much. How many are originally from another state, and were drawn to Pennsylvania by the Penn State franchise? How many are students who come to Penn State from other states? How many were students from other states who came for the academics, graduated, and then stayed for the football?

If you think of falling attendance at Penn State games as coming from out-of-towners, then it becomes like a fall in net exports, not a shifting of resources/consumption from one part of Pennsylvania to another.

(That’s not to say I think the impact is large, just that not everybody who “lives” in Pennsylvania would necessarily be living there without that football program in all its glory, so you have to take that into account. Is this measurable somehow?)

By: Nick W.

Nick W. — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 05:58:07 +0000

I’m sure Penn St. will bring out the University of Wisconsin economic impact report which claims almost a billion dollars of economic impact for the state of Wisconsin from UW athletics. I’m hoping that whoever testifies in court gives that study a good bashing.

By: Don Alexander

Don Alexander — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 23:56:23 +0000

I also wondered how this could possibly affect the state economy since the sanctions will not likely impact attendance or reduce television appearances. In addition, I believe the University still gets its share of bowl revenues from the Big Ten, although this share is probably less than what it would have been if Penn State was permitted to go to a bowl game. So, what has changed? Nothing.
The governor is probably disappointed he cannot join the bowl party during the holiday season.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 19:54:50 +0000

Even when there is no economic impact from a team, the team (and more specifically the owner) does receive benefits (ie profits) from playing.

If the owner of PSU is the state itself, does that mean the benefactor is the state itself? Thus, could the ‘owner profits’ be the state’s economic impact they are referring to?