Tag: College football

Buffs Waiting for a Bowl Berth?

horvath Leave a comment

On November 16th the Daily Camera sports department ran an article titled, “Buffs Clinging to Dim Hope for a Bowl Berth.” Excerpts from the article follow.

A whopping 80 bowl game spots are available this year. Of the 128 teams in the FBS, 62 teams have already earned bowl eligibility, while 34 have no chance of getting to the magic number of six wins.

Among the other 32 teams, 18 are just a win away from the six-win mark.

That leaves 14 other long shots that haven’t had good seasons to this point, yet still cling to hope.

Colorado is among the 14.

CU’s hope, however, stems from the fact that there might actually be a shortage of bowl eligible teams this season. If that’s the case, a 6-7 CU team could slip in through the back door and go bowling.

With all due respect to the players, coaches, and program – the Buffs don’t deserve a bid to a bowl. The team made progress this season, but they are a losing program that finds new and exciting ways to continuing being a losing program. It is actually sad.

At this point in the season the Buffs are 4-7. They started off the season 3-1, with wins over Massachusetts (2-8), CSU (5-5), Nicholls State (2-8), and Oregon State (2-8). Combined these four teams have won only 11 games while losing 29. Ouch!

The story gets worse.
• Massachusetts had wins over Eastern Michigan (1-9) and FIU (5-6) – total 6-15.
• CSU beat Savannah State (1-8), University of Texas San Antonio (2-8), Air Force (7-3), Wyoming (1-9), and UNLV (3-7) – total 14-39.
• Nicholls State beat Lamar (5-5) and Houston Baptist (2-8) – total 7-13.
• Oregon State beat Weber State (5-5) and San Jose State (4-6) – total 9-11.
These four schools won 11 games. Only one of their opponents had a winning season (CSU beat Air Force). The combined record of these programs was 36-78.

In other words, CU was only able to beat teams that were capable of defeating only really weak programs.

This season will cap off a decade of losing seasons, although things were only slightly better in 2005 when they were 7-6. In the past nine seasons the Buffs were 31-79.

Here’s to a better season in 2016. The athletic program need a winning football team to generate more revenue to provide greater support for the minor sports.

CU Football Ranked Again – Number One

horvath Leave a comment

Santa Claus delivered an early Christmas present to the University of Colorado football team and its fans – a number one ranking. Go Buffs!

The December 22nd issue of Forbes Magazine featured its annual ranking in “College Football’s Best And Worst Teams For The Buck 2014”. The Buffs were ranked #1 – the worst investment in college football.CU Football Ranked

Author Chris Smith stated, “Across the last three seasons, no team has spent more per football victory than Colorado, our pick for the sport’s worst team for the money. The Buffaloes have won just seven games in that time, tied with Kansas for the least of any team in our pool, while spending over $50 million. To put that into perspective, Mississippi State has built a competitive SEC program while spending $44 million across the same time period,”

To be exact, the Buff footballers spent $51.4 million over three years. Basic math shows that each of the seven wins cost $7.34 million.

Just think how it must feel to be one of the seven teams that lost to the Buffs! Thank goodness those seven teams were inept; otherwise the cost for CU to win a game would be much higher.

This notoriety is of the same ilk as the university’s #1 ranking (multiple years) as the top party school in the country. In addition, the Leeds School of Business is continually ranked as one of the country’s weakest business schools in the country and the worst in Colorado.  Bummer!

The article proves that if you are good at math, it is possible to calculate virtually anything – meaningful or meaningless. While a case can be made that the Forbes calculations fall into the latter category, they point to a larger challenge for CU.

CU clearly does not have the money to build the facilities, attract the top athletes and coaches, and be competitive with the elite football teams in the PAC-12 and the country.

Will they retain the number one ranking in 2015? Probably not!

More importantly, where will they be able to find the money to play with the big boys? Smoke and mirrors? An unsuspecting sugar daddy? The state will triple its funding for the university?

A more likely option would be for CU to lower its academic standards or look the other way to become a winner. The only cost involved in that type of decision would be their reputation.

In the mean time Buff fans can only hope that Forbes and Chris Smith have somewhere else to look when the article is penned for 2015.

 

Fort Lewis College Football – Fifty Years of Futility

horvath Leave a comment

The 2014 football season marked the 50th year that Fort Lewis College has fielded a football team as a four-year college. Over that time they have been the worst college football team in Colorado. They have won only 32% of their games, with a win-loss record of 155-330-3.

The Aggies/Raiders/Skyhawks record can be summed up as follows:
• They have had 9 winning seasons in 50 years.
• They were never undefeated nor did they ever have a season with one loss.
• On two occasions they were 7-2.
• During their 9 winning seasons they were 55-27-2. They won 65% of their games.
• During their 41 non-winning seasons they were 100-303-1. They won almost 25% of their games.
• They had three seasons with no wins and another six seasons with only one win. Those nine seasons they had 6 wins and 80 losses.
In other words, about 20% of the time, the team was successful, about 20% of the time they were an embarrassment to college athletics, and the rest of the time they played like the Bad News Bears.

It doesn’t make sense for Fort Lewis College to continue a losing tradition, especially when sports such soccer, cross country, lacrosse, and cycling are a better fit for the campus, its lifestyle, and the image the school is trying to project.

Fort Lewis College Football - 50 Years of Futility
The view from Dennison Memorial Stadium is spectacular. Unfortunately, the quality of the football is often at the other end of the spectrum.

 

Fort Lewis College Enters Athletic Arms Race

horvath Leave a comment

On January 16th, Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colorado announced they hired former Arkansas football coach John L. Smith to head their program. A Skyhawk press release cited Smith’s friendship and previous work with Athletic Director Gary Hunter and President Dene Thomas as the reason he chose to come to the Campus in the Sky.

Hunter stated “Fort Lewis College is making a commitment to football. Many of our other programs have reached the pinnacle of success at the national and regional levels. We want our football alumni and fans to have the opportunity to enjoy that same success.” Hunter added, “Not only has Coach Smith had outstanding success on the field, but he has always stressed the importance of academics and community and campus involvement.”

This past season marked the 49th year that FLC fielded a football team as a four-year college. Over that period they have compiled a 152-322-3 record. They have won 32% of their games and are without a doubt the worst football team in the state.

Said differently the Aggies/Raiders/Skyhawks record can be summed up as follows:

  • They have had 9 winning seasons.
  • They were never undefeated nor did they ever have a season with one loss.
  • On two occasions they were 7-2.
  • During their 9 winning seasons they were 55-27-2, or they won 65% of their games.  They were impressive.
  • During their 40 non-winning seasons they were 97-295-2, or they won almost 25% of their games. They were depressing to watch.
  • They had three seasons with no wins and another six seasons with only one win. Those nine seasons they had 6 wins and 80 losses.

In other words, about 20% of the time, the team was successful, about 20% of the time they were an embarrassment, and the rest of the time they were bad.

This discussion of the dismal record posted by the FLC program is not intended as a criticism of the coaches, players, and administration, rather it is a reflection of funds available at the time and priorities of the administration. However, the recent decision to hire a major college coach (who has been a winner overall, but most recently had a losing record at Arkansas) to fill a D2 position raises a number of questions:

  • After 49 years, why did FLC suddenly decide to enter the college football “arms race” in its 50th season?
  • Why did they let such an unsuccessful program (in terms of wins and losses) go on for so long?
  • Will the new and improved football program “lift all boats on campus” and help make Ft. Lewis a world class liberal arts college? Will it help increase enrollment? Will it increase fundraising?
  • Will this lead to a campaign for a new stadium, locker rooms, or workout facilities for the football team?
  • About 25,000 people live in La Plata County; the college has a small, but slowly growing foundation and alumni base; and tourism is the area’s primary industry. Given scarce resources for Colorado’s small colleges, how is FLC going to pay for its commitment to excellence in football?
  • FLC has struggled with its identity. Prior to their move from Hesperus to Durango, they had a rural focus. After relocation, they were recognized for being a party school and a place where Front Range students would attend as a last resort. For many years the unofficial tag line for the school was, “Ski Ft. Lewis and get a degree on the side.” More recently, college officials have tried to market Ft. Lewis as a quality low-cost public liberal arts school. Sports such as lacrosse, cycling, mountain biking, soccer, and field hockey are more in line with that image than football. How does the new-found emphasis on football help add value to the academic balance sheet and image of the college?
  • Has Smith resolved his bankruptcy case in Arkansas with integrity?
  • Does anybody in Colorado remember the name Chuck Fairbanks?

Hopefully this works for the Skyhawks.

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.

 

The WAC has been Whacked – What are the Implications?

horvath Leave a comment

In late August, Jake Bullinger, prepared the special for SI.com, “How Conference Realignment Wiped WAC Football off the Map.” For the 2013 season the WAC will most likely not exist as a football conference. In fact it may not even exist as an athletic conference.

The Western Athletic Conference, (WAC) was formed in 1962 with BYU, Utah, University of New Mexico, Wyoming, Arizona, and Arizona State as its members. Over the years it membership changed drastically as new member joined on other members left for the Mountain West Conference, Conference USA, and the PAC 8 Conference.

Current membership includes:
• Louisiana Tech
• New Mexico State University
• San Jose State
• Seattle University
• Texas State
• University of Denver
• University of Idaho
• University of Texas at Arlington
• University of Texas at San Antonio
• Utah State

For all practical purposes the NCAA and the larger body of college football have no apparent reason to care about the loss of the WAC. None of its current members are serious threats to the teams in the top conferences nor are they responsible for significant revenue generation.

The demise of the WAC may mean that some students will lose scholarships or an opportunity to play. Coaches and staff members at some of these schools may be adversely affected if programs are scaled down or disbanded.

There is no doubt that college football is a great American tradition – even in the current version of the WAC. That is not the issue. Research shows that college football expenditures at many schools are trending on an unsustainable track. The whacking of the WAC raises a number of questions:

• Should all colleges and universities have football programs? Certainly schools such as the University of Denver, Colorado College, DePaul, Marquette, Providence, Seton Hall and St. John’s would argue that it isn’t necessary.
• Football programs are big business. Is it financially possible to support athletic conferences for schools without football programs?
• Can the WAC football schools find other conferences to join or can they afford to be independents like Notre Dame?
• Have television rights, sponsorships, and advertising partnerships become more important than the players and coaches in the program?
• For schools with programs that are less successful, football programs are often money pits. Will they eventually spend themselves into bankruptcy as they try to keep up with the schools funded by Phil Knight and T.B. Pickens?
• Is the demise of the WAC yet another step in the formation of football super conferences for only the elite programs?
• Should college football formally become the farm system for the National Football League – funded by the NFL?
• What are the unintended consequences of the shutdown of the WAC or football programs at other smaller athletic conferences?
• As the chase for $$ accelerates, will college football go the way of the World Series – a great American tradition that has lost its luster?
• Will the loss of the WAC adversely impact scholarship and playing opportunities for kids in other sports?

Stay tuned!