Tag: College Athletics

If You Were the Buffs AD, Would You Spend $143 Million?

horvath Leave a comment

CU Athletics recently announced plans to spend $143 million to update its facilities. In an email sent under Rick George’s name, this expenditure was explained in the following way:

“Our Sustainable Excellence Initiative (SEI), which includes a $143 million wide-ranging facilities improvement plan, was approved unanimously by the Board of Regents on December 4. This is the vital component to our strategic plan, one that reaches out past the year 2025, which will be finalized by the end of January. We have determined what our vision and mission are:

“To be nationally recognized as a premier athletics department, by providing a world-class and holistic student-athlete experience, operating in a fiscally responsible manner, while consistently competing for and winning championships.”

The comprehensive student-athlete experience includes enhancing our academic, health and wellness, and personal development programs, in concert with raising the level of competitive excellence for all teams to compete for and win championships on the conference and national levels. Developing and renovating facilities is the key factor in achieving the above objectives.

We are working diligently to make this a reality, not a pipe dream. We intend to start construction this Spring with a completion date in time for the start of the 2015-16 academic and athletic year; yes, an aggressive remake of our athletic department in what basically is a 16-month window.”$143 milliom

CU Athletics submitted their proposal directly to the Board of Regents instead of initially having it approved by the campus planning committee. Technically this is not a problem, but George’s actions may not sit well with some members of a community that does not fully support the Buffs.

It is presumed that George’s rush for approval is driven by clauses in Coach McIntyre’s contract that require CU to initiate plans for facility improvements by the end of the year and to complete those upgrades by a certain date. Said differently, the cost of hiring coach Mac contractually extends well beyond his monthly wages and incentives.

CU is faced with a self-induced conundrum. They are in an athletic arms race they cannot afford to be in. The expenditure of $143 million is necessary for them to continue to participate. On a comparative basis, many of their facilities are subpar. Unfortunately, spending $143 million is a band-aid that will not provide the program with a long-term competitive advantage. At best, it will temporarily reduce the gap between the Buffs and the top schools.

This issue could be addressed by re-focusing the purpose of athletics at CU. That won’t happen.

Like most universities, CU has chosen to expand their athletic empire. Good arguments can be made for de-emphasis or expansion; however, most college presidents endorse the rationale for having a strong presence in athletics.

What does $143 million mean to other organizations?

  • The website of Johnson and Wales University indicated that JWU increased student aid to $143 million for 2012-13.
  • The Bleacher Report stated that Alabama reported $143 million in athletic revenue during 2012-2013. This is an increase of about $20 million from the prior year when they were ranked 4th in the country for revenue. Alabama listed a surplus of $21.1 million. (Note: By comparison, a November 6th article in the Daily Camera stated that CU Athletics is more than $21 million in debt to the university and facing a shortfall of $5.6 million to budget this fiscal year).
  • In December, the sale of Frontier Airlines to Indigo Partners was finalized for $145 million.
  • Senior Housing News reported that American Realty Capital has agreed to purchase a nine-property portfolio of assisted living communities and development land for a total of $143 million. The eight communities and one development parcel are all based in the southeast and include 453 assisted living units and 187 memory care units.
  • In late September the Alabama State Port Authority approved a $143.8 million budget Tuesday for the upcoming fiscal year.
  • In the Q2 2013 Digital Startup Report published by Builtinchicago.com it was announced that 37 startups raised $146 million dollars in the second quarter of 2013.
  • In August, the New York Times announced the opening of North Atlanta High School, the most expensive high school ever built in Georgia.  The 11-story high school, with a 900 car parking garage cost $147 million.
  • In November of 2013, a Francis Bacon painting sold for $142 million.
  • The Illinois extension office released data indicating that in 2008 the major pumpkin producing states (Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and California) produced 1.1 billion pounds of pumpkins values at $141 million.
  • In April 2012, President Obama ended a six-month funding freeze to Palestine. He released $147 million to pay for infrastructure, education, humanitarian aid and health projects.

What does $143 million mean to you? Is CU’s decision to spend $143 million a necessary and responsible expenditure? How would you respond to CU’s athletic arms conundrum if you were the Buff’s AD?

 

Title IX – Opportunities for Men and Women Tennis Coaches

horvath Leave a comment

The adoption of Title IX in 1972 created opportunities for women athletes and coaches.

Currently, 8 of the 11 head coaches in the PAC 12 women’s’ tennis programs are female. The USC, Oregon, and Utah programs have male head coaches and Oregon State is the lone school without a tennis program.

Four of the 10 assistant coaches are female and 2 of the 6 volunteer coaches are female. Overall 14 of the 27 coaches for women’s’ teams are female.

It is a much different story with the men. There are 8 schools with programs (OSU, WSU, CU, and ASU do not have men’s programs.)  All 23 coaches (head, assistant, and volunteer) are males.  This is a bit surprising, given there are qualified women who are capable of coaching men.

Given there are differences in coaching men and women, it makes sense that a majority of the head coaches are female. The fact that a majority of the assistant and volunteer coaches are male is an indication that men have learned the subtleties of coaching women.  It is also an indication that

there is a larger labor pool of male coaches and teaching professionals than women. Finally, many head coaches, including women head coaches, prefer to have men on their staffs because they can hit the ball harder in workouts with the women players.

Overall, the PAC 12 ratio of male to female coaches is 72% men/28% women. This is not significantly different from the male/female ratio of the teaching/coaching profession. The good news is that because of Title IX, more qualified women coaches are working in coaching positions and more men have become qualified to coach women.

Can Colorado Afford to be in the Athletic Arms Race?

horvath Leave a comment

Two and a half years ago, the University of Colorado announced they would join the PAC 12 in 2011. The move was justified by university officials for the following reasons:

  • More than 35,000 alumni reside in the Pac-12 footprint, whereas about 11,000 are located within the Big 12 regions.
  • This level of alumni support in key markets should help with recruiting.
  • CU should get more support on the road, because there is easier access to PAC 12 cities.
  • Many CU fans feel the PAC 12 cities are more desirable to visit.
  • PAC 12 teams will receive significant revenue from the new Pac 12 television contract.
  • The PAC 12 was a closer fit academically.

These are all legitimate reasons to make the switch; however, it was obvious that CU could not bankroll teams that could consistently compete against Oklahoma and the wealthier Texas schools. Most Coloradans hate to lose to Texas (at anything).

CU is not the only university that is having trouble dealing with the accelerated level of spending for athletic programs. In August 2011 Michael Smith, writer for Street and Smith’s Online Sports Business Journal was the author of an article entitled “Athletic Budgets Continue to Climb“, that focused on the rapid growth of budgets for the major athletic conferences. Though the data is slightly dated, it illustrates the amount of money spent on college athletic programs and their rates of growth.

Smith secured budgets for most of the schools in the Big 10, Big 12, SEC, ACC, and PAC 12. Texas tops the list in spending. The median rate of annualized growth is 5.4%.

Six SEC, four Big 10, and two Big 12 teams round out the top twelve schools in spending. Oregon is the top PAC 12 team at number 13 and North Carolina is the top ACC team at number 21. Four of the bottom eight schools are from the PAC 12, including newcomers Colorado and Utah.

In the PAC 12 Colorado and Arizona State have similar budgets and both are well above Washington State and Utah. The four schools stack up at the bottom of the conference.

If Colorado was still in the Big 12 it would be at the bottom with a budget similar to Iowa State and Baylor. The size of the Texas athletic budget is about the same as the combined budgets of Colorado, Iowa State and Baylor.

Of the 49th teams, CU was 42nd overall and 39th in the rate of growth. Six of the PAC 12 teams had budgets that grew at an annualized rate of 3.1% or less from 2010 to 2012.

The PAC 12 is a great conference for the University of Colorado for the reasons stated above. Time will tell whether schools such as Colorado, Oregon State, Washington State, and Utah can afford to participate in the PAC 12 or any other major athletic conference.

The table below expressed the athletic budgets for the schools in millions, from Smith’s article. In three instances estimates were made or to account for data that was not available in Smith’s report.

ACC Budgets were not available for Boston College, Duke, Miami and Wake Forest. The Big 10 budget for Northwestern was not available. The PAC 12 budgets for Stanford and USC were not available. The Big 12 budgets were not available for Baylor. The SEC budget for Vanderbilt was not available.  The 49 universities are color coded by Conference (Big 12 = grey, Big 10 = pink, SEC = green, Pac 12 = purple, ACC = light orange).

Do Athletic Programs Lift the Boats of All Programs at Top Universities? – NIH Funding

horvath Leave a comment

College presidents, athletic directors, and other higher education leaders have been quick to defend their athletic programs in the light of recruiting scandals, seven-figure salaries for coaches, the Penn State atrocity, player abuse by coaches, and unsustainable budget and facility increases. Their claims focus on the value athletic programs bring to the university, how sports are the heart and soul of universities, how athletic departments lift all boats, increase the fundraising abilities, and make the universities world class institutions. Athletic programs are an integral part of the athletic experience, but their value to higher education is often overstated.

For the sake of discussion, consider the question, “What do the football teams look like at the schools that top the list for National Institute of Health (NIH) funding?”

In 2010 about $21.2 billion of NIH funding was distributed to universities. Two-thirds of that funding, about $14 billion) was distributed in 10 states (CA, MA, NY, PA, TX, MD, NC, WA, IL, OH). Colorado was ranked 19th at $283 million, or 1.33% of total funding.

The top 100 universities received $19.5 billion, or 92% of total NIH funding in 2010. The top 10 schools received 24.5% of the NIH funding, or $5.2 billion. They are listed below, along with their NCAA level of competition:

  1. Johns Hopkins University, $686.5 million, Division 3.
  2. University of Pennsylvania $577.0 million, Division 3.
  3. University of Washington $570.7 million, Division 1.
  4. University of Michigan, $565.1 million, Division 1.
  5. University of California at San Francisco, $537.7 million, no athletic program.
  6. University of Pittsburgh, $493.0 million, Division 1.
  7. Washington University, $449.5 million, Division 3.
  8. Yale University, $442.4 million, Division 3.
  9. University of California at San Diego $441.0 million, no football program.
  10. Duke University, $438.9, Division 1 football.

Four schools were from Division 1, four schools played in Division 3, UCSD did not have a football team, and the UCSF did not have an athletic program. In other words, academics take precedence at a majority of the top 10 schools on the list of NIH funding.

The 2010 athletic budgets for the schools in major athletics conferences follow:

  • University of Washington, $60.6 million projected revenue.
  • University of Michigan, $94.4 million projected revenue.
  • University of Pittsburgh, not available.
  • Duke University, $68.8 million projected revenue.

The funding from NIH is 6-9 times greater than the athletic budgets for these schools.

Pac 12 fans will be pleased to see that the current PAC-12 schools were well represented in the top 100 schools for NIH funding.

  • 3.   University of Washington $570.7 million, 2.7%.
  • 11. UCLA, $436.6 million 2.1%.
  • 12. Stanford University, $413.5 million 1.9%.
  • 24. USC, 242.2 million 1.1%.
  • 44. University of Utah, $166.5 million, 0.8%.
  • 55. University of California Berkeley $137.3 million, 0.6%.
  • 66. University of Arizona, $109.2 million, 0.5%.
  • 94. University of Colorado at Boulder $67.0 million 0.3% – does not include UCD.

These eight PAC-12 schools received 10.1% of total NIH funding for 2010.

The 2010 athletic budgets for these schools follow:

  • University of Washington, $63.2 million.
  • UCLA, $61.9 million.
  • Stanford, not available
  • USC, not available
  • University of Utah, $27.8 million.
  • University of California Berkeley, $69.4 million
  • University of Arizona, $45.0 million.
  • University of Colorado at Boulder, $46.6 million.

The data makes the case that both academics and athletics make different, but significant fiscal contribution to universities. College leaders are only kidding themselves when they overstate the value of athletic programs.

 

Football as Social Entertainment

horvath Leave a comment

History is powerful! We can see the errors of our ways in past dealings. As well, it is possible to see that some of our current challenges were a thorn in the side to  leaders 100 years ago.

The following is taken from the North American Society for Sports History 1981 Proceedings. The one-page document, entitled “Football as Social Entertainment Comes to Oregon State University” was penned by Dr. Arnold W. Flath, professor at Oregon State University. Flath was nationally recognized for this thought- provoking study of sports and society.

With the 2012 college football season around the corner, Flath’s comments provide an interesting perspective on the sport, 30 years after it was written.

Football as Social Entertainment Comes to Oregon State University

Football on the campuses of American colleges and universities evolved from the British game of rugby and the playful American college student’s ball kicking games during the 1800’s. The game became popular over the objections and resistance of most college faculty members and college presidents. Intercollegiate football came to Oregon State University campus in 1893 with the enthusiastic support of Corvallis citizens, Oregon State University students and faculty, and University President J.M. Bloss. The newly installed President Bloss brought his administrative talent and the game of football to the Corvallis campus from Purdue University where he had previously served on the faculty.

Not only were the Corvallis fans introduced to intercollegiate football, they were treated with parades, social gatherings, and entertainment apart from the field. While other campuses may have seen football and intercollegiate athletics as “educational experiences”, the response of the Oregon State University students and the Corvallis townspeople to the events attending the games was all that was necessary for the establishment of football as social entertainment.

The football entertainment included parades through Corvallis to attract people to the game site on the campus, dinners for the competing teams in the homes of local social and political leaders, and “football entertainment and socials” held at the college chapel in the evening following the afternoon games. The entertainment opened with remarks by the competing college presidents, followed by musical solos, and magic lantern shows by popular faculty members with slides consisting of views of departmental work, college buildings, sketches of the football captain, and a portrait of the Oregon State University mascot, a well-known coyote. After the lantern exhibition, a general social time occurred, allowing many new friendships to be formed and old ones cultivated.

Although earlier Oregon State University presidents had balked at the introduction of intercollegiate athletics, the success of the 1893 football team and the success of the social entertainment attending the games set the tone for the role of intercollegiate athletics to the present. It was recognized “that athletic events have, and are, fulfilling some social need, or they would not be supported to the extent they have been and are being supported. We conclude that the principle benefit of intercollegiate athletics to the university community is a means of communicating with the general public. Accordingly, it is logical to evaluate the program primarily in terms of its contribution to university relations rather than in terms of the accomplishment of educational objectives. The administration of the program should reflect this fact” (Report to the President of Oregon State University from the Commission on University Goals. Corvallis, Oregon, August, 1970, pp. 150-151.)

Wanted: Best Coaches in the Country to Coach Bad Players

horvath Leave a comment

As the fall sports season rolls around, parents have to deal with the issue of who is going to coach their kids’ (fill in the sport) team. Will the coach know how to deal with young kids? Can they teach skills? Will the kids get to play a fair amount of the time? And God forbid, will the coach be a pedophile?

There is an axiom in individual college sports such as golf, tennis, skiing, track and field, “Players with A-level talent always beat players with B-level talent. It is not possible to coach B-talent to beat A-talent”. Right or wrong, some coaches believe that rule holds true in youth sports also.

In other words, many winning college programs have coaches whose primary strengths are recruiting, motivating, and organizing. They have winning records because they recruit more players with A-level talent than other coaches and they do a better job motivating them and keeping them happy.

John Calipari recently addressed this axiom as it relates to team sports. He was asked whether it’s difficult to get young blue-chip talent to jell as a team. In other words, how difficult is it to coach a group of A-level talent players?

The $5.2-million-dollar-a-year coach responded, “I’ll tell you what’s hard – coaching bad players.”

If it is really difficult to coach bad players and A-talent always beats B-talent, then why bother coaching bad players or players with B-talent? The answer is simple. All superstars begin their careers as bad players, even if they have A-talent. And the number of athletes with B-talent, or less, far outnumbers the elite players who play in the Olympics or major championships.

Hats off to Calipari for being able to recruit and manage elite athletes. He is a successful coach based on the number of games his teams have won.

Kudos also go to the coaches who like to work with bad players and those with “B” talent or less. In fact, a case can be made that this group of coaches should occassionally grace the cover of Sports Illustrated.

In other words, we need to have the absolute best coaches at the entry level, not on prime time television. Having the top coaches mentor young athletes when they start playing a sport will keep kids in sports and motivate them to be active for life. That will solve a lot of the problems facing our society.

 

Should Scholarships be Granted for One or Four Years?

horvath Leave a comment

If you were a current or prospective college athlete, would you rather sign a one-year renewable scholarship contract or a four-year agreement?

Until this past spring, colleges could only offer one-year renewable agreements. In February, the NCAA changed the rule when college presidents voted to allow four-year contracts.

Interestingly enough, CU-Boulder voted against the measure. Acting in the true spirit of a research university, the Buff leadership polled its athletes and found they were overwhelmingly in favor of one-year renewable scholarships.

Buff athletes indicated that a lot can happen over the course of 4 years. Coaches can change, there is turnover among players, injuries occur, priorities change – in other words “Life Happens.” It was also felt that players would have greater commitment to the program if their contracts were renewed each year.

If an athlete isn’t performing or no longer fits in with the team, the coach should be able to help the student find a different situation that works to everyone’s benefit.

While there are some compelling arguments for the four-year scholarship contracts, hats off to the Buff athletes for their insight. The adminstration is also to be commended for seeking the opinions of its athletes and voting on the topic in the manner that best suited their wishes.

 

Academic Arrogance – Take II

horvath Leave a comment

In 2010, the University of Colorado made a business decision to leave the Big 12 Athletic Conference and accept an invitation to join the PAC-12, a move that became official in July 2011. At the time, even the sharpest critics of CU Athletics expressed limited opposition to the move.

In their inaugural PAC-12 season the Buff athletes held their own on and off the field. In light of comments made by CU’s top brass last fall, it is fair to raise the question, “Have the CU administrators delivered the goods on the academic side?”

When CU and Nebraska jumped ship in 2010, other schools entered discussions about joining or starting new conferences. Those discussions included bringing other Big 12 schools into the PAC-12 and making it the PAC-16.

The Denver Post published an article, “CU President Leery of PAC-12 Adding More Teams”. The article stated…

University of Colorado president Bruce Benson said this morning he is wary of further Pac-12 expansion, particularly if Colorado is placed in an “East” division with former rivals from the Big 12 such as Oklahoma and Texas.

The real issue is money. Many Buff fans (and administrators) were tired of losing to the Sooners and Longhorns. The Buffs were in the same athletic conference as these schools, but they are in a much different league when it comes to funding athletics.

The same holds true on the academic side. What has CU done to improve the financial status of the university other than demand double digit tuition increases and beg for greater funding from the state legislature? Have they reduced academic programs that are not financially viable? Have they forced schools and colleges to become financially responsible? What is CU doing to produce better academic programs in a more efficient manner?

Later in the article Benson added…
“One of the reasons – and there are a lot of reasons – we got in the Pac 12 is to play regularly on the West Coast,” Benson said. “When I hear things like East-West divisions, we’re going back to the Big 12 again. I don’t know who’s possibly going, but I sure don’t want to get shorted out of the West Coast.”

Benson is a sharp businessman and knows that CU has many wealthy alumni on the West Coast. Hopefully, they will feel a closer tie to CU because of the PAC-12 football and basketball games played in their backyard. Benson in counting on that presence to increase support and donations for the university.

How much additional funding from donors can be attributed to the Buffs being in the PAC-12? How many new partnerships with the private sector have been developed? How many new patents have resulted from the Buffs being in the PAC-12?

The Post article went on to say..
Benson and DiStefano always maintained a major reason for CU joining the Pac-12 was that the schools matched Colorado’s academic mission. While Oklahoma and Texas are on a par with CU academically, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State may not be. “I believe that we should have a robust academic atmosphere among all schools in the league,” Benson said. “What schools have cinch courses or gut courses? We don’t have any and never will. The Pac-12 doesn’t. Some Big 12 schools do.”

At best, Benson’s comments were arrogant.

His comments were made at a time when CU was ranked as the #1 party school in the U.S. by Playboy Magazine. In December 2011 CU received further “honors” by being named the druggiest college in the U.S. In 2012, rankings for Businessweek showed that the Leeds School of Business was ranked 92 out of 124 schools. The Leeds School was ranked in the bottom quadrant for its core business classes. The rankings showed that CU finished ahead of former Big 12 schools Kansas State, Kansas, and Nebraska and ahead of PAC-12 schools Oregon and Utah. (Note: 16 schools from the two conferences received ratings and 7 did not. The group of 7 schools without rankings included colleges that would be ranked above and below CU). In other words, the Leeds School is an academic bottom feeder.

In some areas it is debatable whether CU is worthy of being in the PAC-12 from an academic perspective.

It is time for the CU administration to put their money where their mouth is. It seems appropriate for Benson and DiStefano to revisit their comments of a year ago about “robust academic environments”, “cinch courses”, and “joining a conference that matches CU’s academic mission”.

What has CU done during the past year to benefit from being in the PAC 12? A fact-filled evaluation, sans the spin, would help increase the credibility of the CU system.

From an athletic perspective, the move to the PAC-12 has been a positive move for the Buffs… It is easy to measure their performance on the field, in the classroom, and in fund raising. Have facilities been improved? Have current teams received better support? Have new programs been added? Have existing initiatives been support (Read with the Buffs, Green Stampede-Zero Waste, etc.)

A similar evaluation should be made for academics. Over the past year have Benson and DiStefano taken steps to deliver the goods? How many cinch courses have they eliminated? What have they done to provide CU with a more robust academic environment? What have they done to ensure that CU meets the academic standards of the conference? The list goes on.

From an athletic perspective, has Mike Bohn’s department delivered the goods?

From an academic perspective, have Benson and DiStefano provided leadership to support the arrogance demonstrated a year ago?

 

The Occupy College Sports Movement Takes Hold

horvath Leave a comment

There is a rumor that the Occupy Movement has moved from the streets and lawns of Denver, Oakland, and New York to athletic departments on college campuses across the country.

The Occupy Movement features the 99% “who don’t get anything” and the 1% “who get everything”.

The Occupy College Sports Movement also features two groups. First, there is the 99.9% “who really don’t get anything” (the athletes). They are the bit players/star performers who occupy college weight rooms, playing fields, and classrooms. In exchange, they are expected to represent their colleges in exemplary fashion while generating significant revenue streams for them.

Second, there is the .1% “who get everything” (the coaches, ADs, staff, universities, sponsors, et. al). From a financial perspective they are clearly the financial benefactors of college athletic programs.

Unlike the Occupy Movement, which is on life support, the Occupy College Sports Movement will ensure that the Pay for Play argument will be a source of debate for years to come.