Women’s Sports Touted as Contributor to Colorado Economy

On February 17th, the Denver Post reported “Women’s sporting events to be economic blockbuster for Denver.”

In the article, which was posted in the business section, Rich Grant of Visit Denver stated, “Women’s sports are becoming a huge economic engine, and Denver is poised to be known as a major center for this.” In particular, Grant was referencing the Colorado Crossroads volleyball tournament and the NCAA Women’s Final Four.

The Colorado Crossroads tournament is one of 9 national events where teams can qualify for the USA Junior Nationals. The Post reported that it will draw 11,000 players and 33,000 spectators over a two week period in late February and early March. The projected impact is about $22 million, with most of the benefit accruing to rooms, food, taxis, rental cars, trinkets, and other souvenirs.

The tournament reportedly hosted about 100 teams ten years ago, but is expected to attract 1,100 teams from 34 states this year. This speaks to the growth in the popularity of volleyball, the increased impact of USA Volleyball, and greater interest in women’s sports.

The NCAA Women’s Final Four will be in Denver April 1-3. In addition to the three games, the playoffs are billed as a three-day party, including events at the Colorado Convention Center prior to the tournament and a concert by Jewel. The direct economic impact is expected to be about $20 million. As with the volleyball tournament, the businesses that will feel the impact are hotels, restaurants, transportation, and retailers.

There is still hotel space in Denver during the Final Four and tickets were still available at the time the article was published. The Post cited enthusiasts who projected that hotel and tickets would pickup in the weeks ahead.

The two events attract very different crowds, which speaks to the diversity of the appeal of the region. The volleyball tournament will attract families to the area, who will likely spend less per person because of budget and time constraints. The Final Four is a special activity, which will have more corporate appeal. It will attract a crowd that is more likely to have time to explore the city and spend more in the local economy on a per capita basis.

The first event portrays Colorado as a place to be for participant sports, while the latter positions Denver as a location for the country’s top sporting events. The Final Four is expected to be covered in 177 countries.

As well as discussing the impact of the Colorado Crossroads and Final Four, the Post listed the economic impact of other previous sporting events:

2012 Women’s Final Four – $20 million – projected (direct benefits only)
2012 Colorado Crossroads -$21.9 million – projected (direct benefits only)
2008 NCAA Frozen Four Men’s Hockey – $15 million (direct benefits only)
2007 Rockies World Series (Games 3 and 4) – $10 million (may include direct benefits)
2006 AFC Championships $21 million (may include indirect benefits)
2005 NBA All-Star Game – $30 million (may include indirect benefits)
2004 Mountain West Conference Men’s Basketball – $4 million (
2002 Grand Prix Denver – $30 million (may include indirect benefits)

Comparisons of these events should be made with caution. Most likely these impact studies were calculated using different models. While the major source of impact for all events is food, room, transportation, and the purchase of goods and services, different methodologies may produce results that may not be comparable.

As mentioned above, some of the studies include direct impacts only while others include a much broader contribution to the economy (direct and indirect impact). This is like comparing apples and apple pie – they are different.

While it is important to understand the challenges in producing valid and reliable economic impact studies, the real point is that one-time special activities, such as sporting events, conventions, or film production can have a short-term positive impact on local economic activity. (This does not guarantee they have a positive fiscal impact on the economy.)

Of equal or greater importance are the intangible benefits of an event. Quite often they far exceed the economic activity. The above events have portrayed Denver in a positive light and helped mold the perception that it is a great place to live, work, and play.

 

Academic and Athletic Rankings – We’re #1

About 40 years ago, college and university administrators increased the level of their discussion about the relationship between academics and athletic programs. It became necessary to tie the two together because of the anti-establishment mindset and the general unrest associated with the Viet Nam war era. As well, a backlash developed towards athletes that was initiated in part by Dave Meggyesy’s book, Out of Their League.

Athletics were pitted against academics. Were athletics important to the mission of the school? Did they divert funds that could be spent in academic areas? Did they distract students from their book learning? “Enlightened” professors and anti-jock community members gravitated towards each other and spoke out in unison against college athletic programs.

The phrase “student-athlete” was coined out of these discussions. The expression drew attention to the fact that college athletes were also students.

Over the years, athletic program leaders have strengthened their message about the relationship between athletics and academics in an effort to appease naysayers. In addition, they have included the concept into their strategic planning.

This was particularly evident when the University of Colorado and the University of Utah were added to the PAC-10 to form the PAC-12. Commissioner Larry Scott and local CU officials touted the PAC-12 as a premier academic and athletic conference.

In the 2011 Academic Ranking of World Universities, there are 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, including a total of 26 schools are from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The only schools excluded from the top 100 rankings were: Dartmouth, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State. (Is it any wonder Scott recently struck an alliance with the Big 10 to expand competition between the two leagues?)

The top 10 global academic universities are:

  • Harvard
  • Stanford
  • MIT
  • Cal – Berkeley
  • Cambridge
  • California Institute of Technology
  • Princeton
  • Columbia
  • Chicago
  • Oxford

The ranking system placed a strong emphasis on science and publications. The top 10 schools were separated by about 44 points; Harvard had 100 points compared to 56.4 for Oxford. The schools ranked between the 11th and 100th positions were assigned point values between 54.8 and 24.2.

The ranking of global MBA programs, by Financial Times, produced similar results. Of the 53 U.S. schools in the top 100, 20 were from the Ivy League, Big 10, and PAC-12. The following schools from these conferences were not included in the top 100: Brown, Princeton, Nebraska, Minnesota, Michigan State, Iowa, Arizona, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, and Washington State.

The top 10 global MBA programs are:

  • London Business School
  • University of Pennsylvania: Wharton
  • Harvard Business School
  • Stanford University GSB
  • INSEAD
  • Hong Kong UST Business School
  • Columbia Business School
  • IE Business School
  • IESE Business School
  • MIT Sloan School of Management

Global academic and MBA rankings don’t receive the same level of attention, scrutiny, and debate as the BCS rankings. The people most concerned with the ratings are prospective students and administrators who have to explain subpar ratings.

So, what is the significance of these rankings?

Realistically, academic and athletic rankings highlight the distinctive competencies of colleges and their conferences. In the above example, these rankings provide evidence that supports the Ivy League’s claims of academic prowess. Similarly, they confirm that the PAC-12 and BIG-10 are elite academic and athletic conferences.

Prospective students make decisions about which school to attend based on rankings. The alumni and university communities use them to establish bragging rights. Rankings are a tool used by school administrators to market their institutions, programs, and competitive advantages. Finally, rankings are used for fundraising, recruiting, and to justify the existence of academic and athletic programs.

 

Great Scott – Another Good Idea – PAC 12 and Big 10 Commit to More Competition

PAC-12 Conference leader Larry Scott continues to amaze with his creativeness and aggressive approach for making the league the premier athletic conference in the country. Last week, Scott and Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany announced a commitment to schedule more competition, in all sports, between the 24 schools in the two conferences. In football, the goal is to create 12 inter-conference games by 2017.

The concept makes sense to the average sports enthusiast. Unfortunately the press release did not. For example it stated:
• “Collaboration will feature more games between the two conferences in an effort to enhance the experiences for all student-athletes, fans and alumni while broadening the national scope of both conferences.”
• “We believe that both conferences can preserve that sense of collegiality and still grow nationally by leveraging our commonalities in a way that benefits student-athletes, fans and alumni. This collaboration can and will touch many institutional undertakings, and will complement our academic and athletic missions.”
• “Through numerous conversations over the past several months with stakeholders from the Big Ten and Pac-12, we decided there would be great value in building upon the history and collegiality that exists between our member institutions, by initially committing to an increased frequency of play between our schools in all sports.”

The four sentences in these three bullet points were written at a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 18.3. In other words, they are understandable by an average person with 6.3 years of college, i.e a college professor.

As well, the four sentences have a Flesch- Reading Ease score of 19.7. A score of 90 to 100 is understandable by an average 11 year old. A Reading Ease Score of 60 to 70 is easily understood by a 13 to 15 year old. As a point of reference, Time magazine is about 52 and the Harvard Law Review is in the low 30s (Wikipedia).

The press release was posted on the PAC-12 website on December 28 (when school is not in session). It was written at a level designed to appeal to only the academic-types at the 24 member institutions. Was this announcement made in this fashion because Scott and Delany expect to receive serious backlash from faculty members and the university communities?

In a nutshell, Scott and Delany said:
• This is a business venture between two of the country’s top athletic conferences.
• It is intended to generate more revenue for our television networks.
• It is intended to generate more revenue for both conferences and their member schools.
• We have a history of competing in the Rose Bowl.
• We want to build on the distinctive competency of past Rose Bowl competition.
• It will be easier to build a virtual super-conference rather than one made of bricks and mortar.
• Get your tickets now.
• $$$.
• Let the games begin.
FYI – This set of bullet points were written at a 7.2 grade level with a reading ease score of 63.

The concept is a slam dunk (in more ways than one). It is exciting for the sports enthusiast. And it should make these 24 athletic programs more financially viable.

To read the entire press release or to get more information about the PAC-12 click here or  click here for the Big 10 website.

Note: On July 13, 2012 the deal fell apart. In the article “Pac-12 and Big Ten Partnership Falls Apart,” the New York Times reported, “The fundamental fissure between the leagues was the Big Ten’s preference for 12 games with the Pac-12 every year. Larry Scott, the Pac-12’s commissioner, said in a telephone interview that it ultimately became a “flexibility”  issue for his teams, which play a nine-game conference schedule and have longstanding scheduling agreements with other teams, like those of Southern California and Stanford with Notre Dame. The Big Ten teams play an eight-game league schedule, making the addition of an annual marquee game outside the league easier.”

Bummer!

 

The Pay to Play Debate Rears Its Head Again

For the past 50 years, there has been an ongoing debate about whether college athletes should be paid to play. Over that time, the topic has moved to the forefront, then it has been put on hold for more pressing issues. Several years later it again becomes a hot topic for discussion and the cycle repeats.

Much like the merits of the BCS system, it is a great topic to debate over a beer. There are solid reasons to pay college players and there are an equal number of justifications for not paying them. And much like the debate over the  BCS system, it is an issue that will never be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction.

The Boulder Daily Camera recently (9/14) printed a quote from South Carolina’s football coach Steve Spurrier on the topic. He supported an advocacy group’s report that determined that college football and basketball players don’t get what they’re worth from their schools.

To that point Spurrier said, “I mean, 20 years ago, 50 years ago, athletes got full scholarships. Television income was what, maybe $50,000? And now, everybody’s getting 14, 15 million bucks and they’re still getting a scholarship.

Forty or 50 years ago, college football and basketball were sports that were played for the sake of competition and bragging rights. Today the two sports are minor leagues for the NFL and NBA. In some cases they are expected to generate enough revenue to support the entire athletic department. The Final Four and the BCS Bowl Series have become a form of entertainment more than a showcase of athletic accomplishment.

While the top schools may “rake in the dough” from their football and basketball programs, those sports do not always generate a profit. Without a profit from the major sports or significant support from donors, it is likely that many minor sports teams would have to be eliminated, if pay to play was instituted.

Much of the discussion about college athletics presumes that higher education will continue to exist in its current form 30 years from now. That is not likely given concerns that higher education is too costly and ineffective. As well, technology is making it possible to receive a more targeted education online or through alternate means.

A case can be made that there is a higher education bubble and that when it bursts, college athletics will be forced to take on a different form.  The NCAA 2042 Final Four may feature the Appalachia Online School of Technology Cougars (an online university specializing in technology training) and the Southern California Leadership School Lakers (a leadership school whose basketball team is a farm club of the professional team bearing the same name).

Until that happens, you can partake in the “pay to play” debate now while the topic is hot or you can wait a couple of years and be a part of the sequel.

 

Out of Their League – A Game Changer

The world of sports was much different 50 years ago. Professional athletes were not paid well, they did not receive benefits, and for the most part they were exploited by the owners. They were expected to display their talents on the field and not draw attention to themselves in the media.

There were a limited number of books about sports; most were either statistical overviews of past seasons or feel-good biographies about the most popular stars in the game. At that time athletes were heroes and role models and parents wanted their sons to be a gentleman like Lou Gehrig.

But the innocence surrounding the world of sports and athletics changed at the hands of Curt Flood and Dave Meggyesy.

In 1969, Curt Flood, centerfielder for the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team, refused to be traded and his claim ended up in the U.S. Supreme Court. He lost his case, but his actions unified baseball players in their fight against the reserve clause, which ultimately resulted in free agency.

In 1970, Dave Meggyesy, linebacker for the St. Louis Cardinal football team, penned the book Out of Their League. It was a disturbing, but necessary commentary about the dark side of football.

These gentlemen exposed sports and athletics as big business with a closet full of skeletons. Flood showed how athletes were taken advantage of financially. As a result of free agency the salaries of athletes have risen. As well, high-priced television contracts and payrolls, lockouts, and work stoppages have become too common. The bargaining table has become as important as the playing field and the scoreboard.

At the time, it was taboo to talk about the issues Meggyesy brought out in the open. Specifically he discussed the hypocrisy of college sports, racism, drugs and substance abuse, and brutality associated with football.

The following bullet points briefly touch on changes that have occurred in these areas since the release of Out of Their League.

• Hypocrisy of college sports – Over the years the NCAA has dictated that college programs have a greater focus on academics; proper physical and mental training; addressing drug and substance abuse; and injury prevention and care. Athletes are no longer dropped from programs if they become injured during their careers and tutoring is available when they need help in classes. The scandals of the past 10 years are testimony that college programs are drowning in hypocrisy, despite the best intentions of the NCAA. Genuine concern is shown for athletes, yet the unwritten goal of most programs is to win – fans and alumni don’t buy tickets or sponsorships to watch losing teams.

• Racism – Racism, as it existed among athletes during the 1960s, has declined significantly. Today, discussions about racism are more centered on discrimination, particularly the need for athletic programs to hire more minorities and women in the coaching and administrative ranks. Progress will continue to be made in hiring women and minorities.

• Drugs and substance abuse – As long as the scoreboard is lit and winners are rewarded, athletes will search for ways to legally or illegally improve their performance. Today athletes are tested for use of illegal and performance enhancing drugs. Although the process is not perfect, it has deterred some athletes from making poor choices.

• Brutality – Athletes have gotten bigger, stronger, and faster. As a result, the chances of severe injuries in football have increased. At the same time, greater attention has been given to proper training, drug prevention, improved equipment, and the care of injuries. As well, rules governing practice and the way the game is played have been changed to reduce injuries. Within the past decade former NFL players have drawn attention to the long-term problems associated with concussions and other injuries. As a result, concussion awareness and treatment programs have been put in place that benefit athletes in all sports at all levels.

Meggyesy’s book and Flood’s court case altered the way athletic teams and programs are financed and managed. As well, their actions brought about changes that cause fans to view their favorite teams and athletes much differently than fans viewed them 50 years ago.

 

Contenders or Pretenders – What is University’s Actual Goal?

The Boulder Daily Camera has always had top-notch sports writers. On Friday August 21, 2009 Neill Woelk wrote a timeless article entitled “CU must decide if ‘competitive’ is actual goal.”

Woelk’s focus was on the University of Colorado Athletic Department; however, his commentary applies to the academic side of the university as well. In fact, Woelk’s editorial makes the case that higher education is a tough business. Although he doesn’t say it, many colleges and universities have encountered challenges similar to those facing CU.

A lot has changed since Woelk penned his column in 2009 – CU has new coaches in its marquee sports and a new practice facility for basketball and volleyball. As well, the Buffs are now part of the PAC-12, and Commissioner Larry Scott has aggressive plans for the conference – and CU.

Despite these and other changes, the basic question is still pertinent – CU must decide if it really wants to be competitive (in athletics and academics). If competitiveness is their choice, they must find a way to finance that decision.

Woelk’s comments from 2009 follow:

It seems that every few years, the question arises concerning the University of Colorado and its athletic department.  What exactly, are the expectations that should be associated with CU’s programs?

It’s pertinent again today because the upcoming year might just be one of the most important in years for CU’s athletic department.

Important because CU’s fortunes in the “marquee” sports-football and men’s and women’s basketball-have been less than productive in the win-loss column in recent years. Important because a positive step forward by each of those programs is vital to the long-term viability of not only each individual program, but vital to the overall success of the entire department.

And, important because it’s time for the school-not just the athletic department, but the entire administration – to decide whether the Buffs should actually compete in the Big 12 or simply be merely a member of the conference with no expectations attached.

By no means is this the first time such a question has been asked. Fact is, it’s been an issue at CU for decades, and the answer has ebbed and flowed as administrations have come and gone.

It’s no secret that the zenith of Colorado’s athletic successes coincided with the presidency of Gordon Gee (now the president at Ohio State). Gee and then-athletic director Bill Marolt built a foundation for success at CU that set the stage for Bill McCartney’s 1990 national championship team, the opening of the Dal Ward Center in 1991 and what turned out to be maybe the most successful overall stretch ever for CU athletics in the ensuing half-dozen years.

That stretch also set the stage for CU to earn a seat on the national stage across the board. While some members of academia – not all, but some-are loath to admit it, successful athletic programs benefit a school in myriad ways. The marketing potential of successful athletics can’t be over-stated, and CU reaped the benefits in the ’90s.

(If you need to see the correlation between athletics and top-ranked public institutions, check any of the annual lists compiled by a variety of magazines. The top 20 always includes such schools as Virginia, Cal, North Carolina, Washington, Illinois, Utah, Texas, and Florida. Those same schools, of course, all boast successful athletic programs.)

It’s also no secret that when Gee left in 1990, CU’s ability to excel on the field began to slowly erode. McCartney had recruited well enough to keep CU nationally competitive for the ensuing six seasons, but support from the administration was never the same. The result was that maintaining competitive facilities became more difficult, as did the ability to attract the athletes necessary to compete in one of the nation’s most competitive conferences. By the end of the decade, CU had slipped significantly.

Gee’s departure is one of the reasons McCartney finally left in 1994, when support from the administration waned. It’s also one of the reasons Marolt followed suit just a couple of years later, and that lack of support is at least in part behind Rick Neuheisel’s departure after the 1998 football season.

And, it’s one of the reasons CU’s fortunes have since see-sawed, with the successes of the 1900s becoming more and more a memory rather than a constant.

How do administrations play a role in athletic success?

In the case of schools such as Colorado, it means making the playing field relatively level, wherever possible.

Clearly, CU will never compete on a financial basis with schools such as Texas, Nebraska, Michigan, etc. Those schools are economic heavyweights, with the booster dollars to provide whatever is necessary to facilitate success.

But CU can make sure its athletic programs are not hamstrung in other areas, such as academic admissions, necessary facilities, and the day-to-day process of doing business.

Check out CSU’s latest football press guide. In glossy color, it boasts of a $13 million indoor practice facility and a $7 million academic and training center. It’s by no means a Taj Mahal, but it keeps CSU competitive in its conference.

CU can make no such claims in the Big 12.

It terms of admission, I’ve never, ever advocated that CU accept the NCAA’s bare minimum standards. CU should be proud of its academic excellence. No shortcuts allowed.

But there are also cases in which some student athletes are on the cusp and are turned away. That’s not wise. Exceptions can and should be made. It was standard practice under Gee, and the university certainly seemed no worse for the wear.

By no means should Colorado compromise or taint the quality of its reputation.

But if CU officials – and fans and donors and students – do indeed want Colorado to actually compete in the Big 12, the administration should make that clear. Colorado should never hide behind the facade of claiming to be a productive member of one of the nation’s premier conferences if that isn’t actually the case.

Instead, CU administrators should consider another conference, because in the Big 12, the majority of schools see being competitive as a positive experience rather than a burden.