Blog

Placement of Athletics Link on the Home Page of PAC 12 Websites

horvath Leave a comment

Website layout is a challenging task, particularly at major research universities where many interests are vying for key real estate on the school’s home page. So where do you think the Athletics link is located on the home page for each of the PAC-12 universities? Is it located in the primary links or in a less conspicuous location?  Is there a difference in the location between the schools with winning football programs and those with losing records?  What is the name of the link to the athletics department?

The short study “Location of Athletic Link On PAC-12 Websites” shows there is a tendency for the PAC-12 schools with weaker football programs to place their Athletics link more prominently on their home page. Key findings from this analysis produced the following results:

  • The Athletics link for 7 of the 12 schools is not located in the primary links. Five of these 7 schools had winning records. These 7 schools had a combined 49-38 record.
  • The Athletics link for 5 of the 12 schools is located in the primary links. Three of these 5 schools had winning records. These 5 schools had a combined 32-32 record.
  • Stanford and Oregon had the best records. Neither school had their Athletics link in the primary links.

It was also interesting to note how the schools referred to their athletic programs.

  • Eight schools refer to their programs as Athletic Programs
    • Athletics and Recreation (Arizona)
    • Athletics (ASU, CU, OSU, UCLA, Utah, WSU)
    • Cal Athletics (California)
  • Four schools refer to their programs as Sports Programs
    • Sports (Oregon, Stanford, USC)
    • Husky Sports (Washington).

This brief study shows there is a difference in the location of the Athletics link on the home page. As well, schools refer to their programs in different ways (sports and athletics). It does not answer the following question, “Is the location of the Athletics link based on standard website layout principles or is it determined by the importance the university places on athletics relative to academics?”

Performance of U.S. Men and Boys at Australian Open was (You Fill in the Blank)

horvath Leave a comment

Ho hum! The Men’s bracket of the Australian Open was just another win by the Big Three.

In 2003 Roger Federer won Wimbledon and Andy Roddick won the U.S. Open, this was Federer’s first Grand Slam title and the last time an American man won a Grand Slam. Since then Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have won 9 of 10 Australian Opens, 8 of 9 French Opens, 10 of 10 Wimbledons, and 7 of 10 U.S. Opens – combined they have won 34 of the last 39 Grand Slams.

The performance by the American men and junior boys was (you fill in the blank).

Men’s Open

Overall the 8 American men were 6-8 at the Australian Open.

First Round

Ryan Harrison, Sam Querry, Brian Baker, Tim Smyczek, and Rajeev Ram won their first round matches.

Michael Russell, Steve Johnson, and Rhyne Williams lost in the first round.

Second Round

Sam Querry won his second round match.

Ryan Harrison, Brian Baker, Tim Smyczek, and Rajeev Ram lost their second round matches.

Third Round

Sam Querry lost his third round match.

The age and world ranking of the American men who participated in the Australian Open are listed below (source: Australian Open website).

  • Sam Querry, 26, ranked 22.
  • Brian Baker, 28, ranked 57.
  • Ryan Harrison, 21, ranked 64.
  • Michael Russell, 35, ranked 94.
  • Tim Symczek, 26, ranked 125.
  • Rajeev Ram, 29, ranked 130.
  • Steve Johnson, 24, ranked 175.
  • Rhyne Williams, 22, ranked 194.

There isn’t a club player in the United States who would love to play as well as these 8 players. Unfortunately, the top American men are not elite players.

Junior Boys

Overall the 3 junior boys were 1-3.

First Round

Mackenzie MacDonald won his match and Martin Redlicki and Thai-Son Kwiatkowski lost their matches.

Second Round

Mackenzie MacDonald lost his match.

The ITF rankings show there are 4 American junior boys ranked in the top 20 junior boys and 6 in the top 50. Kwiatkowski has the highest ranking at #14. MacDonald is ranked 17th and Redlicki is ranked 45th.

Over the past 25 years, the USTA has spent millions of dollars on player development. The results of this and other tournaments suggest that has been a (you fill in the blank) investment.

 

U.S. Women – Hope and Change at Australian Open

horvath Leave a comment

Very early this morning Mountain Standard Time, Victoria Azarenka maintained her number one ranking with the defense of her title at the Australian Open. For the Americans, the theme of the tournament was hope and change – led by Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens. There is hope that the change in American women’s tennis will include players who have the potential to consistently play at the level of the Williams sisters.

Oddly enough, Taylor Townsend was absent. As the 2012 junior winner, Townsend was given an automatic slot in the qualifying tournament for the Open; however, she reportedly did not enter the event because the USTA did not provide sponsorship funding. (Last fall, the USTA chose to stop funding her because she was “out of shape.”)

The Americans were represented by 3 junior girls and 11 women.

Junior Girls

Overall, it was a weak performance for the girls (3-3).

First Round

Jamie Loeb and Alexandra Kiick won their first round matches.

Christina McHale lost in the first round.

Second Round

Kiick advanced and Loeb was defeated.

Third Round

Kiick lost to eventual champion Ana Konjuh.

Women’s Open

Overall, the 11 American women won 14 matches and lost 11. Serena and Venus Williams accounted for 6 of the 14 wins and Sloane Stephens added another five victories.

First Round

Jamie Hampton, Varvara Lepchenko, Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens, and Venus Williams won their first round matches.

Lauren Davis, Christina McHale, Vania King, Melanie Oudin, Coco Vandeweghe, and Madison Keys lost their first round matches.

Second Round

Jamie Hampton, Serena Williams, Sloane Stephens, and Venus Williams won their second round matches.

Varvara Lepchenko lost in the second round.

Third Round (Round of Sixteen)

Serena Williams and Sloane Stephens won their third round matches.

Jamie Hampton and Venus Williams lost their third round matches.

Quarterfinals

Stephens upset Williams in the best win of her career.

Semifinals

Stephens was ousted by Azarenka.

Stephens demonstrated that she may have the ability to follow in the footsteps of the Williams sisters.

Unfortunately the other “talent” appears to be several notches below Stephens. The other unknown in the equation is Taylor Townsend. It seems rather bizarre that the USTA would drop sponsorship of her at a time when she was number 1 in the world in juniors. Hopefully that situation can be resolved to the benefit of all parties.

 

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.

The Significance of the 1987 USTA Tennis Teachers Conference

horvath Leave a comment

The bright lights of the City, free tickets to the U.S. Open, and a chance to hang out with leaders in the tennis industry blinded participants about the message the USTA delivered at the 1987 USTA Tennis Teachers Conference.

American professional tennis was at a turning point. Jimmy Connors, John McEnroe, and Chris Evert were near the end of their careers. Andre Agassi had just turned pro, Pete Sampras was a teenager, Jennifer Capriati was 11, Venus Williams was 7, and Andy Roddick was 5. The future of American tennis was actually bright, but it wasn’t evident at the time.

The top players were groomed by professionals and coaches such as Harry Hopman and Robert Lansdorp. Other players trained at academies, such as those run by Rick Macci and Nick Bolleteri. The United States was home to the best coaches in the world and the top American players trained with them.

Because the strength of the American high performance coaches wasn’t fully appreciated, there was a belief that more and better American champions could be developed if the process was formalized. As a result, featured speakers at the 1987 conference included officials from the Swedish and German tennis federations. They were invited to discuss what they were doing to produce such great champions as Boris Becker, Steffi Graf, Bjorn Borg, Mats Wilander, and Stefan Edberg.

Admittedly, it was inspiring to hear the success stories about the German and Swedish players. Attendees left the sessions nodding their heads that the future of American professional tennis was in dire straits and the USTA was going to “save American tennis” by developing a high performance program modeled after the German and Swedish programs.

In short, there was one significant difference between the German, Swedish, and American programs. The foreign federations controlled all aspects of the sport. That included oversight of a formal network of training centers where high performance players received coaching, an approach that seemed reasonable given the size of their countries (Germany is slightly smaller than Montana and Sweden is slightly larger than California). In the U.S. an informal network of high performance programs existed, but they were not centralized under the USTA.

To the casual observer, it appeared the USTA had performed due diligence by reviewing the best practices of the Swedes and Germans. In retrospect, that was a naive view of the situation, particularly given the fact humility has never been a strength of the USTA. The headline speakers at the conference should have been the top American high performance coaches, professionals, and academy directors. The 1987 Tennis Teachers Conference would have been the perfect place for them to talk about the juniors in the pipeline and how the knowledge of the coaches could have been coordinated to ensure that American tennis remained at the top.

In hindsight, it is obvious that USTA officials were clearly aware of the best practices of the Swedes and the Germans when they invited them to speak. They simply used the 1987 Tennis Teachers Conference as a coming out party to announce their intent to have a greater presence in all aspects of the sport. From an economic perspective their motive was to create a monopoly in high performance coaching and it was time for the American high performance coaches, professionals, and academy directors to get in line with the USTA’s way of thinking. The number of top ten players developed by the USTA’s Player Development program since 1987 defines the effectiveness of the program.

 

Poll Debating Takes a New Direction in 2014

horvath Leave a comment

In years past, January 1st was the most glorious day of the year for college football. The games began at 9:00 a.m. and ended 12 hours later. When the last whistle was blown the season ended and the pollsters decided the national champion, simultaneously marking the opening of the Poll Debating Season.

For many the poll debating season is more fun than the actual season, particularly in cases when the pollsters are not in agreement about the rankings or the hometown team is ranked ahead of their arch rival in one of the polls. Poll debating can be played in almost any setting – weddings, funerals, and company events. For some it is as contentious as discussions about religion or politics. The best thing about poll debating is that its season lasts longer than the football season, it continues until Labor weekend, or the start of the next football season.

The BCS was contrived as a way to resolve the controversy, put an end to poll debating, and make more money. Instead, the folks at the BCS threw gasoline on the fire and the sport of poll debating grew even stronger. (Can you say Alabama 42 and Notre Dame 14?)

As well, the growth of poll debating has been aided by the addition of rankings and polls. Today the major conferences have the AP Poll, USA Today Coaches Poll, ESPNU Fan Poll, Fox Sports NCAA Power Rankings, Keith Massey’s Computer Rankings, Jeff Sagarin Computer Rankings and the Legends Poll. And in the spirit of equal opportunity, there is a Bottom 10 poll (Pac 12 fans will be pleased to know that Colorado and Washington were ranked #2 and #5 respectively at season end.)

With a little luck, next season there will be a new poll added. It will be named after Missouri wide receiver T.J. Moe and will be sponsored by Playboy magazine, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Charmin.

At the 2012 SEC Media Days, writers asked Moe about what it was like to make the change from the Big 12 to the SEC. Moe candidly responded, “They say girls are prettier here, air’s fresher, and toilet paper is thicker.”

Time will tell whether the Moe/Playboy/EPA/Charmin Poll, with its unique set of criteria for gauging the strength of football prowess, will be any less accurate than the aforementioned polls. The worst that can happen is that poll debaters will have a new range of topics to banter about.

 

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).

The End of an Era at the USPTA – Bad News or an Opportunity?

horvath Leave a comment

This past year marked the end of an era at the USPTA (United States Professional Tennis Association) when Tim Heckler stepped down as CEO. Heckler’s departure will be a major loss to tennis because of his vision, respect within the industry, ability to work with all organizations, and commitment to represent the viewpoints of all members, even those he disagreed with. Under Heckler’s leadership, the organization truly set the standards by which the sport was taught.

It is fully recognized that John Embree, the new USPTA CEO, is a capable man and a proven leader, but it remains to be seen whether he can garner the support of all 17 divisions. For the past two years, some of the association’s elected leaders have been so focused on creating change they have failed to develop and communicate a vision for the future. It is the membership, i.e. Executive Committee, not the CEO who provides the direction for the association. It will be Embree’s job to work with the divisions to fulfill the wishes of the membership. Good luck!

There are a number of challenges to be faced in the months ahead. Some of the questions that must be answered are listed below.

  • The USPTA has been a leader in the industry. Over the past two years its credibility has been diminished by the hatred, lack of ethics, greed, and pettiness demonstrated by key leaders. How much will this hurt the association and industry?
  • How many USPTA members have been lost because of its family feud? Will new members be incented to join the USPTA because of the hope and change provided the new leadership?
  • Does the new leadership have a vision for the future, now that they have accomplished their goal of ousting Tim Heckler? If so, when will it be communicated to the members?
  • Will the new leadership be transparent in its operation of the association?
  • What new, fresh, cutting-edge ideas will the new leadership put on the table to raise the standards for teaching the sport? How will they increase the number of players playing the game?
  • How many USPTA members have been lost because of the weak economy that plagued the U.S. for a majority of the past decade? What will be done to get them back in the fold?
  • Historically, sponsors have played a major role in supporting the organization. How many USPTA sponsors will be lost because of a diminished base of members and the change in leadership? Will additional sponsorships be attracted because of the change in leadership?
  • This past fall there were rumors that the USPTR and USPTA would be merged. The groups have co-existed for 35 years in a manner that has made the teaching profession stronger. Why has this issue again become a priority? How will such a merger, if it occurs, further the teaching profession and help promote the sport of tennis?
  • It makes sense for USPTA members to also be members of the USTA, but they should not be required to do so. Will the new regime require USPTA members to join the USTA?
  • How will the new leadership increase the number of women professionals?
  • How will the new leadership increase the number of minority professionals?
  • There have been rumors that the recent tumult was driven by the USTA to divide and conquer the USPTA. Will the USPTA be folded into the USTA within the next five years?
  • Will continuing education be mandated?
  • Will John Embree last longer than four years in his new position?
  • Will the USPTA be in existence ten years from now?

Moving forward there are three priorities for the USPTA and the industry.

Tennis is a great sport. As difficult decisions are addressed within the USPTA and between it and other groups, it must be remembered that Tennis has to remain the top priority.

Second, it is essential that the companies and alphabet soup of organizations in the industry remember that The players are the most important part of the game. They buy the goods and services provided by industry. For the most part, the players don’t care about the politics of the sport and industry. They just want to play tennis.

Third, The tennis professional introduces players to the sport, teaches them how to play and improve their game, sells them equipment, provides them with opportunities to play, encourages them to watch their favorite pros on television, and creates an experience they allows players to enjoy the sport for a lifetime. There is no need to have the USTA, USPTA, USPTR, WIlson, Penn, Head, and others without the tennis professionals who bring the players to the sport. The professionals have an obligation to maintain high standards by which the sport is taught and abide by those standards. The rest of the industry has the responsibility to respect and support the professionals.

Game on!

 

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.