It is common to confuse causation with correlation, but in the case of George-Mason University's 2006 final four appearance I think we can dispense with the debate. Today's Advertising Age reports:

Other than a 15-second spot for the school, GMU did no advertising. But its success on the court and the subsequent national TV and print coverage resulted in a whopping windfall in the aftermath.

Applications to the school quadrupled (tuition is $6,408 for in-state students, $18,548 for out-of-state). Gifts and pledge payments soared to $23.2 million, up 25% from the previous year. Donations to the athletic department increased 25%, general-scholarship support tripled and unrestricted gifts to the university climbed nearly 45%. Chevrolet and Remax signed on as program and arena sponsors.

GMU sold $625,000 in school merchandise during the 2004-05 school year. In the month of March alone last year, the school sold $876,000 in licensed products.

This supports the findings of several authors, although the evidence that big-time sports or sports success leads to big-time donations is mixed. I provide a hat-tip to Andrew Zimbalist for pointing out that schools should not expect the financial benefits from one-time shocks to athletic success to be sustained over time.

My take: In 2006 GMU won a "lottery." GMU wasn't expected to go as far in the tournament as they did, and it is unlikely that such a performance will become the norm (witness that this year's Final Four includes only 1 and 2 seeds). The unexpected exposure of the University might well result in a "thatta-boy" feeling amongst alumni and would also be expected to generate a larger number of applications (although matriculations might not increase). However, as Zimbalist warns, such shocks likely have a very short half-life. Unless GMU can repeat its performance (or something close to it) in the near future, the glow of the 2006 GMU season will quickly fade for potential students. The freshman class of 2010 is currently in ninth grade, how many will remember the 2006 final four?

Windfall benfits like those enjoyed by GMU could be considered "spotlight benefits" inasmuch as small schools not normally considered by the national media or potential students in distant states naturally focus on the school precisely because of a sporting event. While spotlight benefits are largely ignored by anti-NCAA, anti-sports-on-campus folks, the NCAA qua cartel likely does not.

The end-of-season tournaments in football (as much as the bowl system can be considered a tournament) and in basketball are clearly aimed at maximizing joint profit, but also provide spotlight benefits to smaller members who occasionally play the role of Cinderella. To the extent that such benefits help smaller schools increase their profile, the NCAA cartel has been effective if not efficient.