Tag: PAC-12

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.

 

What is the Right Number of In-State Players on a College Volleyball Team?

horvath Leave a comment

Right or wrong, there is a belief that colleges and universities should emphasize the recruitment of in-state players. For states with larger pools of talent, such as California and Texas, that is easy. As well, it gives programs in those states a recruiting advantage.

A review of the rosters for the 2012 PAC 12 volleyball teams was conducted to identify the number of in-state players on their rosters. This analysis produced the following results:
• About 42%, or 78 of 185 players, were in-state players.
• 7 of the 12 teams had rosters that included more than 42% in-state players.
• The breakdown of in-state players by team, and the percentage of in-state players on each team follows:
– UCLA 12 players, 75.0% of the team – California team
– Cal 9 players, 60.0% of the team – California team
– OSU 9 players, 50.0% of the team
– Stanford 8 players, 53.3% of the team – California team
– WSU 7 players, 50.0% of the team
– UU 7 players, 43.8% of the team
– USC 6 players, 46.2% of the team – California team
————42.2% average for the PAC 12—————————–
– CU 6 players, 40.0% of the team
– ASU 6 players, 35.3% of the team
– WU 3 players, 20.0% of the team
– UO 3 players, 20.0% of the team
– UA 2 players, 12.5% of the team.
It is very clear that it is easier for the California teams to recruit in-state players because they have a larger talent pool. It seems evident that recruiting in-state players is less important than attracting quality players for Oregon, Washington, and Arizona.

Is 42% too low of a percentage for the number of in-state players? Should teams be required to have quotas for the number of in-state players on their rosters? The answer depends on the mission of the PAC-12 and its member schools.

 

Are Foreign Players Taking Over PAC-12 Volleyball?

horvath Leave a comment

Concerns have been raised about the number of foreign athletes in select collegiate sports, such as skiing and tennis. With the increase in popularity of volleyball there is the possibility that some coaches will try to build a national contender by recruiting top national players from other countries.

A quick review of the online rosters for the 2012 PAC 12 teams was conducted to see if this was an issue in that conference. This analysis produced the following results:
• About 10% of all players, or 18 of 185, listed hometowns in other countries.
• The 18 foreign players represented 11 countries.
• 10 of the 12 teams had foreign players.
• The breakdown by number of foreign players follows:
– USC had 3 foreign players.
– 6 teams had 2 foreign players: ASU, Colorado, Utah, California, UCLA, and OSU.
– 3 teams had one foreign player: WU, WSU, and OU.
• The breakdown by country follows
– 4 players were from Canada.
– 2 players were from each of the following: Greece, Italy, Puerto Rico, and Serbia.
– 1 player was from each of the following: Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, Slovenia, and Ukraine.

At this point, there does not appear to be reason to believe that there are an inordinate number of foreign players in the PAC-12. Given the strength and popularity of high school volleyball in the U.S., it is unlikely that “too many” foreign players will become a problem in the near future.

 

PAC 12 Volleyball – The West Coast Conference

horvath Leave a comment

Throughout most of the 2012 collegiate volleyball season a case could be made that the PAC 12 was the dominant conference. This begs the question, “What states and countries do these players come from?”

A quick review of the rosters shows that the teams listed 185 players. A breakdown of the players by their hometown follows:
• About 90%, or 167, of the players are American.
• American players came from 19 states.
• The teams had players from at least 3 states and up to 7 states.
• Every team had players from CA.
• The breakdown of players by state follows:
– CA 78 players, 46.7%
– WA 15 players, 9.0%
– OR 14 players, 8.4%
– TX  12 players, 7.2%
– AZ 11 players, 6.6%
– CO 9 players, 5.4%
– UT 8 players, 4.8%
– HI 5 players, 3.0%
– FL, ID, IL, NV – each two players 1.2% each
– MO, NE, NM, NC, OK, SD, VA – each 1 player 0.6% each
• Only 3 American players had hometowns east of the Mississippi
• Slightly more than 64% of the players are from the three West Coast states.

Clearly, the conference is regional and its dominance can be attributed to the quality of volleyball players from California and the western region.

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?

 

Academic and Athletic Rankings – We’re #1

horvath Leave a comment

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

horvath Leave a comment

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!

 

Newcomers Finish As Expected in First PAC-12 Season

horvath Leave a comment

The inaugural PAC-12 athletic season has come to a close and Colorado and Utah finished as expected. With the exception of cross country, the newcomers showed that they can compete in the conference, but that they are not yet serious contenders for the top spots in the league.

In the ever-important sport of football, Utah finished third in the South Division with a 4-5 record. The Buffs ended at the bottom of the pack with 2 wins and 7 losses. The conference will be well represented in the upcoming BCS Bowl Series.

On the volleyball court CU compiled a spirited 1-21 record, while Utah finished 9th with 6 wins and 15 losses in conference play. UCLA won the national championship, defeating Illinois 3-1 in four closely fought sets. Illinois squeaked by USC in the semifinals 3-2. Arguably, the PAC-12 is the toughest volleyball conference in the country which will present challenges for the newcomers in 2012. In December, Tom Hogan, CU assistant coach and former USOC coach, announced that he will be leaving the Buff program.

Utah finished a respectable 5th place with a 6-5 record in women’s soccer, while Colorado was 1-9-1. CU’s only win of the season came in conference play. Stanford won the National Championship in women’s soccer. In November, Coach Bill Hempen ended his successful 11-year tenure at CU.

The one bright spot for the Buffs was cross country. To nobody’s surprise, Colorado swept both the men’s and women’s PAC-12 events. At the NCAAs, Arizona’s Lawi Lalang won the Men’s individual title. The PAC-12 had finishers in the second, sixth and 8th position. Buff Richard Medina finished 8th. On the women’s side, PAC-12 Champion CU finished third overall.

For further information on the PAC-12, click here.

 

The Closed-Mindedness of Academics?

horvath Leave a comment

Higher education is incredibly important part to innovation that will make the U.S. competitive in a global economy.. Professors are offered tenure because it allegedly protects free thinking, the creation of new ideas, and innovation.

The country’s higher education is assumed to be the country’s the hotbed of open-mindedness.

The leadership of our colleges and universities have demonstrated their “free-thinking” and open-mindedness in the management of college athletics. And it is very telling.

The Daily Camera published an article on September 26, 2011 entitled, “Oregon State President Opens up about PAC-12 Decision”. The league was considering a second expansion in less than a year to include 16 teams. The article stated…

“Oregon State President Edward Ray said he would personally take a look at anything that made sense, even though there was a strong sentiment among the PAC-12 schools that expansion wasn’t in the league’s immediate best interests.”

Ray is the chair of the PAC-12 CEO Executive Group, which includes leaders from each of the league’s schools, and is responsible for governance of the conference.  In the above statement he appears to be willing to consider various viewpoints.

Later in the article Ray was quoted, “But I know that some of my colleagues said, ‘You know what? I don’t care what any of the facts are, I don’t want anything to change.’ ”

What kind of statement does this make about the open-mindedness, priorities, and leadership of the country’s top ACADEMIC institutions. If this is the thought process for athletics, what is their thought process for for making big-league academic decisions?

 

The Arrogance of Academics?

horvath Leave a comment

College athletics is big business – and that is okay. In 2010, the University of Colorado made a business decision to accept an invitation to join the PAC-12, an invitation they had rescinded years earlier. Most fan and critics believe Buff leaders made a judicious choice when it decided to switch conferences.

CU officials justified their decision, in part, by claiming that their academic mission aligned more closely with the schools in the PAC-12 than the Big 12. This discussion makes a nice sound bite that may appease Boulder residents who do not fully appreciate the contribution of the university and CU athletics to their community.

In fact, CU’s claim of academic prowess can be challenged. Boulder’s engineering school and Denver’s medical school are world class. Unfortunately, CU does not distinguish itself in most other areas.

The bottom line is the Buffs had to jump ship if they wanted to retain a “respectable” athletic program. The times they are a changing.

College football appears to be heading towards fewer, but stronger super conferences, i.e. a different structure intended to generate more revenue for the country’s elite programs. CU has a wonderful football tradition, but CU is not one of the country’s top funded programs. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate support makes it unclear whether CU can be is one of the country’s elite programs moving forward.

The switch to the PAC 12 will provide Buff leaders with an opportunity to generate more revenue for their athletic department. There are more CU alumni and major corporations on the West Coast than in Stillwater, Waco, and Lubbock.

On September 6, 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.

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.”

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.”

Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate for Benson to make some of these comments in private, rather than to the Denver media?

As a newcomer to the conference, does Benson really think he can influence decisions by making public statements about getting shorted out of the West Coast?

What entitles Bruce Benson to use ATHLETICS, specifically the PAC-12 Conference, as a bully pulpit for belittling the quality of learning in the schools of the Big 12? Shouldn’t he be more focused on making sure the CU campuses are the best they can be?

Arrogant or not?