The current state of our Hoya basketball program

[RusskyHoya]

Jun 7, 2024 17:11:38 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jun 7, 2024 17:02:08 GMT -5 hoyasaxaphone said:

Just out of curiosity, if Georgetown is only getting $5 MM in TV revenues and sells only a limited number of tickets at home games, how is it making any money on its basketball program given the cost of a head coach (and assistants), scholarships, htravel and operating expenses and facilities - NIL (bag money) being provided separately to players. I remember seeing numbers somewhere that suggested that Georgetown's budget for basketball was almost $15 million. Does this just get funded by drawing from the general endowment/university revenues and basketball specific donor gifts?

1. Georgetown loses money on men's basketball and has for a while.

2. Deficits are funded from the operating budget and not the endowment.

3. NIL is not part of the budget because it is handled from external parties.

This is where I have to throw out the reminder that it is impossible to comprehensively account for all revenue (and non-revenue such as marketing impressions/sentiment) generated by/through a given program.

If someone goes to a big game with Jack and enjoys his time in the president's suite so much that he donates $10M to fund something not basketball related, that $10M never shows up attached to basketball...and yet.

[hoyasaxaphone]

RH.........this is undoubtedly true. The Georgetown basketball renaissance led by John Thompson Jr. coincided with a rise in applications to the University and a much more competitive academic profile of students...even through the program had absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the academic stature of the University. Causality is hard to measure but certainly there was a correlation. Would be a good graduate program research study as I am sure other universities experienced similar increases in applications and competitiveness as a result of demographic and other trends during this period.

[SSHoya]

Jun 8, 2024 11:55:47 GMT -5 hoyasaxaphone said:

RH.........this is undoubtedly true. The Georgetown basketball renaissance led by John Thompson Jr. coincided with a rise in applications to the University and a much more competitive academic profile of students...even through the program had absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the academic stature of the University. Causality is hard to measure but certainly there was a correlation. Would be a good graduate program research study as I am sure other universities experienced similar increases in applications and competitiveness as a result of demographic and other trends during this period.

Flutie effect.

Athletic programs are the primary form of mass media advertising for most US academic institutions, according to marketing professor Doug J. Chung. Therefore, a national championship win or an upset generates a lot of publicity for the school, and publicity means more public interest, leading to an increase in prospective students and college applications evaluations.

Chung published his findings on the effect of collegiate athletics on admissions at Harvard Business School in 2013. His findings show that applications increase by 17.7% when a mediocre team rises to greatness. Schools that want to attain similar results without a winning team must either lower tuition by 3.8% or recruit higher-quality faculty.

The Flutie Effect has impacted several schools. For example, Georgetown University saw a 45% increase in applications in the mid-1980’s during a surge of basketball success, most notably after Patrick Ewing led the Hoyas to a national title. After the Northwestern University football team won the Big Ten Championship, applications increased by 21%. Other schools that experienced a rise in applications after athletic success — typically due to the football or basketball team — include Butler University, Gonzaga, Texas A&M, UMBC, Lehigh, and Virginia Commonwealth University.

www.ivywise.com/blog/the-flutie-effect/

[401to202hoya]

Jun 8, 2024 12:02:19 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Jun 8, 2024 11:55:47 GMT -5 hoyasaxaphone said:

RH.........this is undoubtedly true. The Georgetown basketball renaissance led by John Thompson Jr. coincided with a rise in applications to the University and a much more competitive academic profile of students...even through the program had absolutely nothing to do with enhancing the academic stature of the University. Causality is hard to measure but certainly there was a correlation. Would be a good graduate program research study as I am sure other universities experienced similar increases in applications and competitiveness as a result of demographic and other trends during this period.

Flutie effect.

Athletic programs are the primary form of mass media advertising for most US academic institutions, according to marketing professor Doug J. Chung. Therefore, a national championship win or an upset generates a lot of publicity for the school, and publicity means more public interest, leading to an increase in prospective students and college applications evaluations.

Chung published his findings on the effect of collegiate athletics on admissions at Harvard Business School in 2013. His findings show that applications increase by 17.7% when a mediocre team rises to greatness. Schools that want to attain similar results without a winning team must either lower tuition by 3.8% or recruit higher-quality faculty.

The Flutie Effect has impacted several schools. For example, Georgetown University saw a 45% increase in applications in the mid-1980’s during a surge of basketball success, most notably after Patrick Ewing led the Hoyas to a national title. After the Northwestern University football team won the Big Ten Championship, applications increased by 21%. Other schools that experienced a rise in applications after athletic success — typically due to the football or basketball team — include Butler University, Gonzaga, Texas A&M, UMBC, Lehigh, and Virginia Commonwealth University.

www.ivywise.com/blog/the-flutie-effect/

Yes, collegiate athletics (at least for the major sports) are marketing endeavors. The fact that Georgetown basketball loses money is irrelevant because the point isn’t to turn a profit or be net neutral. It is to drive attention to the institution in the form of applications and donations.

[DFW HOYA]

Jun 8, 2024 12:02:19 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

The Flutie Effect has impacted several schools. For example, Georgetown University saw a 45% increase in applications in the mid-1980’s during a surge of basketball success, most notably after Patrick Ewing led the Hoyas to a national title.

As is often the case, correlation does not imply causation. Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case. Applications had a similar spike in the early 1990s but no one called this the Othella Harrington Effect.

Two factors drove admissions growth in ways that basketball never truly did:

1. The decision to offer need-blind, full need financial aid realigned Georgetown out of the Catholic and Northeast consideration set (Fordham, BC., St. Joe's, etc.) to become attractive to students at the higher end of the scale--and just as importantly, discerning parents and guidance counselors. This would have taken full effect within 2-3 years of the announcement, which places the impact circa 1981-82.

2. The debut of US News' Top Colleges issue in 1983 focused attention to students and parents as to what were "the" schools to apply to. While similar efforts in libraries existed prior to this (Peterson's Guide To Colleges, the Fiske Guide, etc.) this was more accessible and by sheer circulation, more popular.

[SSHoya]

Jun 8, 2024 13:23:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jun 8, 2024 12:02:19 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

The Flutie Effect has impacted several schools. For example, Georgetown University saw a 45% increase in applications in the mid-1980’s during a surge of basketball success, most notably after Patrick Ewing led the Hoyas to a national title.

As is often the case, correlation does not imply causation. Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case. Applications had a similar spike in the early 1990s but no one called this the Othella Harrington Effect.

Two factors drove admissions growth in ways that basketball never truly did:

1. The decision to offer need-blind, full need financial aid realigned Georgetown out of the Catholic and Northeast consideration set (Fordham, BC., St. Joe's, etc.) to become attractive to students at the higher end of the scale--and just as importantly, discerning parents and guidance counselors. This would have taken full effect within 2-3 years of the announcement, which places the impact circa 1981-82.

2. The debut of US News' Top Colleges issue in 1983 focused attention to students and parents as to what were "the" schools to apply to. While similar efforts in libraries existed prior to this (Peterson's Guide To Colleges, the Fiske Guide, etc.) this was more accessible and by sheer circulation, more popular.

Any early 1990s application spike would have been attributed to the Mourning/Mutombo effect. Then in 1996, the Iverson/ Harrington effect. 😀

Chung's paper purports to take into effect other market level factors that influence a students' choice of where to apply. But then there are lies, damned lies, and statistics! 😀

To investigate the advertising effect of intercollegiate athletics, I apply a flexible random coefficients aggregate discrete choice model and treat athletic success and its cumulative performance as a stock of goodwill that decays over time, but augments with current performance. Unlike previous research that relies solely on aggregate data, I use market-level data to adequately control for different factors that affect a student’s choice of
postsecondary education at the market level. Furthermore, to overcome data limitations due
to privacy regulations, I innovate and contribute to the broader line of research in discrete
choice models by using an order statistics distribution to infer the quality of applicants from
the observed distribution of the enrolling freshman class. This enables me to identify different
preferences for students of different ability.

Overall, I find that athletic success has a significant impact on the quality and quantity of applicants to institutions of higher education in the United States. I find athletic success to be relatively more important to students of lower ability, and students of higher ability to have a stronger preference for the quality of education compared to their lower￾ability counterparts.

Furthermore, the carryover rate of athletic goodwill is evident only for students with low SAT scores, suggesting that students with low ability value the historical success of intercollegiate athletics over longer periods of time. Nevertheless, and surprisingly, students with high SAT scores are also significantly affected by athletic success.

[CTHoya08]

The general point stands, though, that the benefits (financial and otherwise) are not limited to the direct “revenue” attributed to the program by the accountants. Many, many big-time athletic programs “lose money,” but schools keep them because they derive benefits in the form of donations, engaged students and alumni (hence donations), etc.

It’s not like Hoya basketball is the only big-time athletic program that loses money on paper, and we’re whistling past the graveyard due to GU-specific incompetence. Running an expensive program is in line with the decision making at many universities throughout the country. They can’t all be wrong.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Jun 8, 2024 13:46:51 GMT -5 CTHoya08 said:

The general point stands, though, that the benefits (financial and otherwise) are not limited to the direct “revenue” attributed to the program by the accountants. Many, many big-time athletic programs “lose money,” but schools keep them because they derive benefits in the form of donations, engaged students and alumni (hence donations), etc.

It’s not like Hoya basketball is the only big-time athletic program that loses money on paper, and we’re whistling past the graveyard due to GU-specific incompetence. Running an expensive program is in line with the decision making at many universities throughout the country. They can’t all be wrong.

Not only that, but sports accounting at universities can be weird and manipulated too. That's why when media reports about expenses and revenue oftentimes, they magically match up for no gain or loss. While college sports has turned into big business, that's mostly college football and men's basketball. And maybe a few other things, like high level women's basketball (at least with Caitlin Clark) and a few other more unique programs. But otherwise, almost all college sports "lose money." The purpose of most college sports is not to make money, but rather to provide a group activity for students supported by the university.

Of course, the huge difference is that running a basketball program or (especially) a football program costs a lot of money and is more like a business than almost every other college sport. So expenses are high. But, the idea that college sports should be revenue neutral seems like a modern idea that derives from the recent big football contracts and other programs with insane donations (like Texas).

In real terms, the amount of teams that actually make money from football is probably more limited than people think too. At least outside the Big 12/Big 10/SEC, I would venture to guess that if you looked at real accounting not manipulated that there are many football programs that lose more money each year than Georgetown spends on Georgetown basketball in total.

[hsaxon]

Jun 8, 2024 13:23:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jun 8, 2024 12:02:19 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

The Flutie Effect has impacted several schools. For example, Georgetown University saw a 45% increase in applications in the mid-1980’s during a surge of basketball success, most notably after Patrick Ewing led the Hoyas to a national title.

As is often the case, correlation does not imply causation. Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case. Applications had a similar spike in the early 1990s but no one called this the Othella Harrington Effect.

Two factors drove admissions growth in ways that basketball never truly did:

1. The decision to offer need-blind, full need financial aid realigned Georgetown out of the Catholic and Northeast consideration set (Fordham, BC., St. Joe's, etc.) to become attractive to students at the higher end of the scale--and just as importantly, discerning parents and guidance counselors. This would have taken full effect within 2-3 years of the announcement, which places the impact circa 1981-82.

2. The debut of US News' Top Colleges issue in 1983 focused attention to students and parents as to what were "the" schools to apply to. While similar efforts in libraries existed prior to this (Peterson's Guide To Colleges, the Fiske Guide, etc.) this was more accessible and by sheer circulation, more popular.

DFW:  Thank you, sincerely.  

Many would say, however, that the "increased profile" of GU also resulted from the many games on tv and the positive publicity that comes with that.  Parents and students were able to appreciate that GU was a very attractive school in a great city.  The increased profile gained more traction with the success of the team/program.  I do not think this can be dismissed and, for what it may be worth, it is generally understood to be a significant factor in GU's "institutional success."

[hoyasaxa2003]

Didn't Villanova see a similar spike in applications when their program was successful? I am not entirely sure that I buy DFW's point that, "Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case."

There are a LOT of factors here and it is very hard to parse through it all. First of all, for a lot of people in lower or middle socioeconomic groups, the thought of going away to college is unthinkable. Too much money, too far, etc. As a result, the high schools with these students are less likely to direct them to a place like Georgetown and others like it. Second, a lot of people--the "well below average applicants" you talk about may be people who noticed Georgetown, thought it was cool, but never applied simply because they did not go to college at all. Third, you cannot underestimate the effect of Georgetown being a Catholic university, which now may not turn as many people off, but likely did in the 1980s/1990s. Even when I was applying to Georgetown 25ish years ago I knew people who specifically applied/did not apply for that reason. I feel like that is probably less of a factor nowadays, though.

I grew up in the 1980s/1990s in the northeast, and almost everyone associated "Georgetown" with basketball. And a good university. But a lot of people had no idea what Georgetown was until Patrick Ewing and the championship season and surrounding era. Keep in mind back then people did not have the Internet, few games were on television, and it wasn't so easy to get exposed to elite universities either. It's not always "basketball was successful so I want to apply," but more "Georgetown, huh? It's an elite university too, let me check it out..." Good attention causes people to pay attention to a university.

On the flip side, would Georgetown have had increased applications and been an elite successful university without the 1980s basketball? Probably. It may have taken a little longer and been a little different. I think Georgetown contributed to Georgetown being what is today, but it would have been a very strong university regardless.

[WilsonBlvdHoya]

Jun 9, 2024 14:03:37 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Didn't Villanova see a similar spike in applications when their program was successful? I am not entirely sure that I buy DFW's point that, "Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case."

There are a LOT of factors here and it is very hard to parse through it all. First of all, for a lot of people in lower or middle socioeconomic groups, the thought of going away to college is unthinkable. Too much money, too far, etc. As a result, the high schools with these students are less likely to direct them to a place like Georgetown and others like it. Second, a lot of people--the "well below average applicants" you talk about may be people who noticed Georgetown, thought it was cool, but never applied simply because they did not go to college at all. Third, you cannot underestimate the effect of Georgetown being a Catholic university, which now may not turn as many people off, but likely did in the 1980s/1990s. Even when I was applying to Georgetown 25ish years ago I knew people who specifically applied/did not apply for that reason. I feel like that is probably less of a factor nowadays, though.

I grew up in the 1980s/1990s in the northeast, and almost everyone associated "Georgetown" with basketball. And a good university. But a lot of people had no idea what Georgetown was until Patrick Ewing and the championship season and surrounding era. Keep in mind back then people did not have the Internet, few games were on television, and it wasn't so easy to get exposed to elite universities either. It's not always "basketball was successful so I want to apply," but more "Georgetown, huh? It's an elite university too, let me check it out..." Good attention causes people to pay attention to a university.

On the flip side, would Georgetown have had increased applications and been an elite successful university without the 1980s basketball? Probably. It may have taken a little longer and been a little different. I think Georgetown contributed to Georgetown being what is today, but it would have been a very strong university regardless.

The enclosed WaPo article from January 79 should disabuse many of the notion that bball was solely or even primarily responsible for GU’s increasing admissions selectivity as early as the 70s. Note that Ewing was a high school sophomore when this was published…..


www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/01/11/georgetown-university-its-one-of-the-toughest-colleges-to-get-into/a995cdd3-ed14-4dce-9a0b-18b578107db9/

[hoyawoodhoops]

As someone who's been deeply involved in undergraduate admissions at Georgetown for more than four decades, I want to weigh in on this. The growth in both the quantity and quality of Georgetown applicants over the past forty or fifty of years has had a number of critical drivers, and many of the posts on this topic have correctly identified most of the key ones. The WaPo article cites -- or at least hints at -- one of them: the perception of selectivity drives an increase in applications which (when a school is capacity limited as Georgetown has always been) in turn increases selectvity. It has to be said that (as Charlie Deacon himself has often confirmed) Georgetown's basketball success under John Thompson, Jr. was a significant factor in increasing applications, and in simply raising the University's profile. But so were the decisions to move to both a need blind admissions process, and a policy of meeting a finacial aid applciants full need. And there were others, not the least of which was having a Rhodes Scholar who was a 1968 graduate of the Foreign Service School as President of the United States from 1993 and 2001. Whoever said it is deficient to equate correlation and causation had it exactly right. It is equally true that victory (or success) has many mothers, but defeat (or failure) is an orphan.

[hsaxon]

Jun 9, 2024 15:19:08 GMT -5 hoyawoodhoops said:

As someone who's been deeply involved in undergraduate admissions at Georgetown for more than four decades, I want to weigh in on this. The growth in both the quantity and quality of Georgetown applicants over the past forty or fifty of years has had a number of critical drivers, and many of the posts on this topic have correctly identified most of the key ones. The WaPo article cites -- or at least hints at -- one of them: the perception of selectivity drives an increase in applications which (when a school is capacity limited as Georgetown has always been) in turn increases selectvity. It has to be said that (as Charlie Deacon himself has often confirmed) Georgetown's basketball success under John Thompson, Jr. was a significant factor in increasing applications, and in simply raising the University's profile. But so were the decisions to move to both a need blind admissions process, and a policy of meeting a finacial aid applciants full need. And there were others, not the least of which was having a Rhodes Scholar who was a 1968 graduate of the Foreign Service School as President of the United States from 1993 and 2001. Whoever said it is deficient to equate correlation and causation had it exactly right. It is equally true that victory (or success) has many mothers, but defeat (or failure) is an orphan.

Thank you.  As a longtime GU person, are you able to provide any info. on the condition of President DeGioia?

[DFW HOYA]

Jun 9, 2024 15:19:08 GMT -5 hoyawoodhoops said:

As someone who's been deeply involved in undergraduate admissions at Georgetown for more than four decades, I want to weigh in on this. The growth in both the quantity and quality of Georgetown applicants over the past forty or fifty of years has had a number of critical drivers, and many of the posts on this topic have correctly identified most of the key ones. The WaPo article cites -- or at least hints at -- one of them: the perception of selectivity drives an increase in applications which (when a school is capacity limited as Georgetown has always been) in turn increases selectvity. It has to be said that (as Charlie Deacon himself has often confirmed) Georgetown's basketball success under John Thompson, Jr. was a significant factor in increasing applications, and in simply raising the University's profile. But so were the decisions to move to both a need blind admissions process, and a policy of meeting a finacial aid applciants full need. And there were others, not the least of which was having a Rhodes Scholar who was a 1968 graduate of the Foreign Service School as President of the United States from 1993 and 2001. Whoever said it is deficient to equate correlation and causation had it exactly right. It is equally true that victory (or success) has many mothers, but defeat (or failure) is an orphan.

Good points all. Georgetown's evolution from very good to great over the past half-century cannot, and should not, be seen as a single cause but a confluence of factors that frankly should be in a case study somewhere. Yes, basketball elevated the profile but the trajectory was already moving forward. (Yes, basketball could further elevate the profile.)

When it was announced that Timothy Healy S.J. was to become president of Georgetown in 1976, he had a quote on the front page of The HOYA. "Confronted with Georgetown's position among other Catholic universities, particularly Notre Dame, Healy affirmed, "This is still the oldest, classiest and the brightest student body that we've got. Georgetown's a very important place."

A quote like this recalls an old commercial from the Riggs National Bank, which once proclaimed itself "the most important bank in the most important city in the world" (which it was, of course, until it collapsed upon itself.) In so many ways over the past half century, Georgetown is firmly situated as the most important university in the most important city in the world, and that's no small accomplishment.

[DanMcQ]

Jun 9, 2024 16:51:45 GMT -5 hsaxon said:

Jun 9, 2024 15:19:08 GMT -5 hoyawoodhoops said:

As someone who's been deeply involved in undergraduate admissions at Georgetown for more than four decades, I want to weigh in on this. The growth in both the quantity and quality of Georgetown applicants over the past forty or fifty of years has had a number of critical drivers, and many of the posts on this topic have correctly identified most of the key ones. The WaPo article cites -- or at least hints at -- one of them: the perception of selectivity drives an increase in applications which (when a school is capacity limited as Georgetown has always been) in turn increases selectvity. It has to be said that (as Charlie Deacon himself has often confirmed) Georgetown's basketball success under John Thompson, Jr. was a significant factor in increasing applications, and in simply raising the University's profile. But so were the decisions to move to both a need blind admissions process, and a policy of meeting a finacial aid applciants full need. And there were others, not the least of which was having a Rhodes Scholar who was a 1968 graduate of the Foreign Service School as President of the United States from 1993 and 2001. Whoever said it is deficient to equate correlation and causation had it exactly right. It is equally true that victory (or success) has many mothers, but defeat (or failure) is an orphan.

Thank you.  As a longtime GU person, are you able to provide any info. on the condition of President DeGioia?

Moderator request: Let’s not speculate on President DeGioia’s medical condition in posts on the board please.

[practice]

Jun 8, 2024 13:23:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jun 8, 2024 12:02:19 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

The Flutie Effect has impacted several schools. For example, Georgetown University saw a 45% increase in applications in the mid-1980’s during a surge of basketball success, most notably after Patrick Ewing led the Hoyas to a national title.

As is often the case, correlation does not imply causation. Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case. Applications had a similar spike in the early 1990s but no one called this the Othella Harrington Effect.

Two factors drove admissions growth in ways that basketball never truly did:

1. The decision to offer need-blind, full need financial aid realigned Georgetown out of the Catholic and Northeast consideration set (Fordham, BC., St. Joe's, etc.) to become attractive to students at the higher end of the scale--and just as importantly, discerning parents and guidance counselors. This would have taken full effect within 2-3 years of the announcement, which places the impact circa 1981-82.

2. The debut of US News' Top Colleges issue in 1983 focused attention to students and parents as to what were "the" schools to apply to. While similar efforts in libraries existed prior to this (Peterson's Guide To Colleges, the Fiske Guide, etc.) this was more accessible and by sheer circulation, more popular.

The early 1990s definitely benefitted from a combo -Clinton/Iverson effect.

[seaweed]

Jun 10, 2024 10:46:04 GMT -5 practice said:

Jun 8, 2024 13:23:43 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

As is often the case, correlation does not imply causation. Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case. Applications had a similar spike in the early 1990s but no one called this the Othella Harrington Effect.

Two factors drove admissions growth in ways that basketball never truly did:

1. The decision to offer need-blind, full need financial aid realigned Georgetown out of the Catholic and Northeast consideration set (Fordham, BC., St. Joe's, etc.) to become attractive to students at the higher end of the scale--and just as importantly, discerning parents and guidance counselors. This would have taken full effect within 2-3 years of the announcement, which places the impact circa 1981-82.

2. The debut of US News' Top Colleges issue in 1983 focused attention to students and parents as to what were "the" schools to apply to. While similar efforts in libraries existed prior to this (Peterson's Guide To Colleges, the Fiske Guide, etc.) this was more accessible and by sheer circulation, more popular.

The early 1990s definitely benefitted from a combo -Clinton/Iverson effect.

Who wouldn’t want to party with those two!

[1789]

Jun 9, 2024 14:03:37 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Didn't Villanova see a similar spike in applications when their program was successful? I am not entirely sure that I buy DFW's point that, "Applications increased during this time but if there were true outside effects, the applications would be from across the spectrum (e.g., well below average applicants, average, and well above), this was not the case."

There are a LOT of factors here and it is very hard to parse through it all. First of all, for a lot of people in lower or middle socioeconomic groups, the thought of going away to college is unthinkable. Too much money, too far, etc. As a result, the high schools with these students are less likely to direct them to a place like Georgetown and others like it. Second, a lot of people--the "well below average applicants" you talk about may be people who noticed Georgetown, thought it was cool, but never applied simply because they did not go to college at all. Third, you cannot underestimate the effect of Georgetown being a Catholic university, which now may not turn as many people off, but likely did in the 1980s/1990s. Even when I was applying to Georgetown 25ish years ago I knew people who specifically applied/did not apply for that reason. I feel like that is probably less of a factor nowadays, though.

I grew up in the 1980s/1990s in the northeast, and almost everyone associated "Georgetown" with basketball. And a good university. But a lot of people had no idea what Georgetown was until Patrick Ewing and the championship season and surrounding era. Keep in mind back then people did not have the Internet, few games were on television, and it wasn't so easy to get exposed to elite universities either. It's not always "basketball was successful so I want to apply," but more "Georgetown, huh? It's an elite university too, let me check it out..." Good attention causes people to pay attention to a university.

On the flip side, would Georgetown have had increased applications and been an elite successful university without the 1980s basketball? Probably. It may have taken a little longer and been a little different. I think Georgetown contributed to Georgetown being what is today, but it would have been a very strong university regardless.

I can relate to this one. And I think Duke is another example of a very good school where the basketball team caused people to pay a bit more attention.

[jwp91]

And Gonzaga. And Butler. And Villanova.

Increasing brand awareness leads to increases in consideration, trial and adoption. Who knew?

[hoyawoodhoops]

I take and endorse Dan's point about speculating about President DeGioia's health, and not just in this thread but others as well.  I have been in touch today with both someone who was with Jack when he was stricken and a senior University official, and there is universal agreement that everyone should respect the DeGioias' privacy.  I would ask those of you who are so inclined to join me in praying for Jack's quick and full recovery.  Whatever one may think about some of his decisions impacting the basketball program, during my many years of being involved in the affairs of our University, very few have done anything close to as much for Georgetown.