Blog - On One Hand Business... On the Other Hand Sports

American Women Record Wins at French Open

June 11, 2012November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

This past weekend, Maria Sharapova and Rafael Nadal were crowned Men’s and Women’s Champions at the French Open. For the trio of Djokovic, Federer, and Nadal, this was their 32nd win in the last 36 Grand Slams. Total dominance. For Nadal, this was his record setting seventh French Open championship.

Sharapova’s victory was also historic. She ousted a determined Sara Errani, retained her #1 ranking in the world, and completed a career grand slam. In a classy, post-match interview Sharapova provided some words of wisdom for life on and off the court, “I’ll retire the day I wake up and don’t believe I can be a better player.”

Overall, the showing by the Americans in singles was mixed. The women results for the women were respectable, while the outcome of the men’s matches was ugly.

The singles results for Americans are listed below.

U.S. Men’s Results
Round of 128
The 8 U.S. men players had a weak start – 3 wins and 5 losses.
• Winners – Brian Baker, John Isner, and Jesse Levine.
• Losers – James Blake, Ryan Harrison, Sam Querrey, Andy Roddick, and Donald Young.

Round of 64
The American players were pathetic in the second round – 0 wins and 3 losses.
• Winners – NONE.
• Losers – Brian Baker, John Isner, and Jesse Levine.

Round of 32
At the Australian Open 1 of 11 American men made it to the round of 32, while none of 8 American men made it to the round of 32.

At the French Open, the 8 American men won 3 matches and lost 8.
At the Australian Open, the 11 American men won 7 matches and lost 11.

U.S. – Women’s Results
Round of 128
The 12 U.S. women players showed promise in the first round – 10 wins and 2 losses.
• Winners – Lauren Davis, Irina Falconi, Alexa Glatch, Vania King, Varvara Lepchenko, Christina McHale, Melanie Oudin, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, Sloane Stephens, and Venus Williams.
• Losers – Jamie Hampton and Serena Williams.

Round of 64
The women didn’t fare as well in the second round – 3 wins and 7 losses, although 2 of the matches pitted American players against each other.
• Winners – Varvara Lepchenko, Christina McHale, and Sloane Stephens.
• Losers – Lauren Davis, Irina Falconi, Alexa Glatch, Vania King, Melanie Oudin, Bethanie Mattek-Sands, and Venus Williams.

Round of 32
The American women performed admirably in the third round – 2 wins and 1 loss.
• Winners – Varvara Lepchenko and Sloane Stephens.
• Losers – Christina McHale.

Round of 16
The American women lost to the 4th and 6th seeds – 0 wins and 2 losses.
• Losers – Sloane Stephens and Varvara Lepchenko lost.

The 12 American women won 15 matches and lost 12.
At the Australian Open, the 10 American women won 9 matches and lost 10.

The Grand Slams are not a team or country contest. Nevertheless, it is still interesting to look at the performance of the top players an countries.

France had 29 players with 30 wins and 29 losses.
Spain had 20 players with 30 wins and 19 losses.
USA also had 20 players with 18 wins and 20 losses.
Russia had 17 players with 10 wins and 16 losses.
Germany had 15 players with 13 wins and 15 losses.
Italy had 12 players with 15 wins and 12 losses.
The Czech Republic has 12 players with 14 wins and 12 losses.
USA Tennis is a solid performer, but clearly not a dominant factor in the sport.

American tennis fans can only hope that the women continue to play well at Wimbledon. With a little luck, some of the younger players will have a break-through tournament. While the American men are fabulous players, they demonstrated again that they are clearly not in the upper tier.

Should Scholarships be Granted for One or Four Years?

June 5, 2012June 5, 2012 horvath Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolder Boulder – $10 Economic Impact

May 30, 2012November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

The Boulder Boulder road race is not just another 10K, it is an event that many Coloradans say you have to participate in at least once in your life. In fact some have suggested that running in the race should become a requirement for residency in the city. (The anti-growth segment of Boulder would add that only those who can run at a six minute a mile pace or better should be admitted on a permanent basis.)

Since its inception in 1979, the event has become a Memorial Day tradition and is a key part of the Boulder culture and sports scene. From a business perspective it is an event that has touched a variety of sectors within the local economy.

The Daily Camera reported (May 14, 2012) that the event has about 54,000 runners and 100,000 spectators. In one weekend the event has a $10 million impact on the City of Boulder.

The DC also reports (May 22, 2012) that total expenses for the event are almost $3 million. Some of the larger and more interesting expenses associated with the event follow:
• $371,442 for race shirts and numbers.
• $173,977 for printed materials and banners.
• $160,350 for prize money for the professional runners.
• $100,279 for results, timing, and scoring.
• $81,057 for postage for entry forms, finish certificates, medals, etc.
• $69,589 for transportation, accommodations and meals for professional athletes.
• $54,819 for costs covering the floor of the stadium to protect the turf on Folsom field.
• $33,968 scaffolding in the stadiums and along the course.
• $19,960 audio and video tribute (Memorial Day).
• $15,740 portable toilets.

For additional details about the Bolder Boulder, click here.

Academic Arrogance – Take II

May 24, 2012November 13, 2016 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?

Incentives for the Coach

May 18, 2012November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

It’s a bummer to hear that Coach Tad Boyle’s salary for taking the Buffs to the Big Dance this past season was only $165,830. That is only three times as much as the average for Colorado wage earner, but it is a pittance compared to coaches at the country’s top programs.

After his first season at CU, Boyle was recruited to coach elsewhere, but declined to stay at CU – for a meager salary of $165,000. There is more to the story – his total compensation package includes incentives.

According to the Daily Camera (March 15, 2012) there are six people on the Boulder campus who have multi-year contracts. Tad Boyle is one of the six.

The Board of Regents has directed campus officials to structure these six contracts in a manner that focuses on incentives, rather than large salaries. This is similar to salesmen who are paid commissions or executives who receive other types of performance incentives. In other words, the coach gets a cut of incremental revenue he/she is able to generate for the school. When viewed from that perspective, most will find the concept of his total compensation package to be more palatable.

The breakdown of Boyle’s salary follows:
Base – $165,830
Public relations – $180,000
Fundraising – $96,000
Sponsorship support – $108,000
Summer camps – $35,000
Country club – $6,480
Academic performance incentive – $34,000 in 2012 ($68,000 other years)
Welfare and development incentive – $33,000 in 2012 ($66,000 other years)
Outreach and reputation incentive – $33,000 in 2012 ($66,000 in other years).
The total package is worth $691,310.
This is a lot more than $165,000, but still well below the total for coaches at other major programs.

The breakdown of Boyle’s incentives follows:
15 regular season wins – $30,000
17 regular season wins – $20,000
19 regular season wins – $30,000
Pac-12 tournament semifinals – $75,000
Pac-12 tournament win – $30,000
NCAA tournament appearance $105,000.
These incentives, totaling $290,000, were earned by Boyle this past season.

Other incentives that were available included:
NCAA second round appearance – $30,000
NCAA third round appearance – $30,000
NCAA fourth round appearance – $30,000
Final four appearance – $105,000
National championship – $750,000.

A lackluster season, with 15 wins, will result in a $2,000 bonus per game won. If two additional games can be won, or 17 wins, then $10,000 is awarded for each of those two wins. The value of a game won in the Big Dance is $30,000 per game.

If you were the coach, how would you deal with the pressure of coaching a game that included a $2,000 bonus if you won? $10,000 for each game won? $30,000 for each game won? or $750,000 to win the national championships?

By offering incentives, colleges are able to contain and manage their costs. At the same time, the likelihood of transgressions is much greater when results are tied too closely to incentives. For additional information take a look at USA Today. They typically prepare a database of coach’s salaries and incentives in conjunction with March Madness.

Does Your Kid’s Coach Create Passion in the Players?

May 12, 2012May 12, 2012 horvath Leave a comment

With summer right around the corner, kids can’t wait to hear the school bell ring for the last time so they can hit the pool, courts, track, gym, golf course, or athletic fields. Some will be trying out a sport for the first time, while others will be seeking to take their game to the next level.

There is no better way to spend the summer than playing sports – unless you have a bad coach or program instructor. Being a coach for a youth sports program sounds so easy, but working with entry level youngsters requires a special skill set. For most people this knowledge has to be acquired.

In the Spring Issue of Volleyball USA magazine, UCLA’s women’s coach Mike Sealy wrote an article entitled, “You Can’t Force-Feed Passion.” Sealy closed the article with a quote that his father, who was a high school football and basketball coach, kept on his desk.

What am I?
I am a Teacher.
What can I do?
I can expose you to ideas, but I cannot tell you what to think.
I can guide you, but you must discover the limits of your own potential.
I can encourage you, but your greatest fulfillment must come from within.
I can listen to you, but I will not tell you what to say.
I can look with you, but I cannot tell you what you will see.
I can move with you, but I cannot tell you what to feel.
I can speak with you, but I cannot tell you what to hear.
I can do some things with you, but you can do more with yourself.
I can guide you on the path of discovery, but I cannot tell you the answer.

Parents can help their kids stay passionate about sports (and life) by putting them on teams and in programs where the coaches and instructors share Coach Sealy’s vision.

Here’s to a summer filled with passion and sports and good coaching!

Three Reasons the U.S. Fails to Dominate Men’s Tennis

May 6, 2012November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

If you were asked to list three reasons the United States does not dominate men’s tennis what would you say?

The politically charged response is, “The USTA is doing a horrible job with player development, America’s best athletes play other sports, and American kids choose to be well-rounded, rather than focused on individual sports.”

A less controversial response to the question is, “Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Novak Djokovic.” The 3 Ss – (Swiss, Spaniard, and Serbian) have had an unprecedented death grip on the Grand Slam trophies since 2004. And they have a lot at stake in the upcoming French Open.

• If Federer captures the top prize, he will become the third player to complete a double career Slam. A win at Roland Garros would up his total of Grand Slams to 17.

• If Rafael Nadal wins he will surpass Bjorn Borg with seven French titles.

• Djokovic currently holds three consecutive Grand Slam titles. A win would make him the second player of the Open Era to hold all four titles at once. The only other player to do that was Rod Laver.

The following results show the dominance of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic in Grand Slams since 2000. (Each name is followed by a fraction. The top number represents the number of Grand Slam wins through that tournament and the number on the bottom is the total number of career Grand Slams won by the player. Players with only one win do not have a number listed by their name).

Australian Open
2000 Andre Agassi (6/8)
2001 Andre Agassi (7/8)
2002 Thomas Johansson
2003 Andre Agassi (8/8)
2004 Roger Federer (2/16)
2005 Marat Safin (2/2)
2006 Roger Federer (7/16)
2007 Roger Federer (10/16)
2008 Novak Djokovic (1/5)
2009 Rafael Nadal (6/10)
2010 Roger Federer (16/16)
2011 Novak Djokovic (2/5)
2012 Novak Djokovic (5/5)
Since 2004 the trio has won every Australian Open except 2005. Federer has won four Australian Opens.

French Open
2000 Gustavo Kuerten (2/3)
2001 Gustavo Kuerten (3/3)
2002 Albert Costa
2003 Juan Carlos Ferrero
2004 Gastón Gaudio
2005 Rafael Nadal (1/10)
2006 Rafael Nadal (2/10)
2007 Rafael Nadal (3/10)
2008 Rafael Nadal (4/10)
2009 Roger Federer (14/16)
2010 Rafael Nadal (7/10)
2011 Rafael Nadal (10/10)
Since 2005 Nadal and Federer have won every French Open. Nadal has won six total wins.

Wimbledon
2000 Pete Sampras (13/14)
2001 Goran Ivanišević
2002 Lleyton Hewitt (2/2)
2003 Roger Federer (1/16)
2004 Roger Federer (3/16)
2005 Roger Federer (5/16)
2006 Roger Federer (8/16)
2007 Roger Federer (11/16)
2008 Rafael Nadal (5/10)
2009 Roger Federer (15/16)
2010 Rafael Nadal (8/10)
2011 Novak Djokovic (3/5)
Since 2003 the trio has won every Wimbledon tournament. Federer has won six.

U.S. Open
2000 Marat Safin (1/2)
2001 Lleyton Hewitt (1/2)
2002 Pete Sampras (14/14)
2003 Andy Roddick
2004 Roger Federer (4/16)
2005 Roger Federer (6/16)
2006 Roger Federer (9/16)
2007 Roger Federer (12/16)
2008 Roger Federer (13/16)
2009 Juan Martín del Potro
2010 Rafael Nadal (9/10)
2011 Novak Djokovic (4/5
Since 2004 the threesome has won every U.S. Open. Federer has won five U.S. Opens.

Beginning with Wimbledon in 2003 through the Australian Open in 2012, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have won 31 of 35 Grand Slams.

Although American purists may long for the days of Sampras vs. Agassi or Connors vs. McEnroe, the remaining 2012 Grand Slams will be tennis at its finest. In three months we will know if the 3Ss continue their stranglehold on the sport and make it 34 of 38 Grand Slams.

The Occupy College Sports Movement Takes Hold

April 24, 2012April 24, 2012 horvath Leave a comment

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

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

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

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

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

LFL to take a break in 2012

April 18, 2012November 13, 2016 horvath Leave a comment

On Friday the 13th Yahoo Sports published a statement from Lingerie Football League spokesman Jim Wallin announcing that the LFL was taking a time out for the 2012 season. They are scheduled to return in the spring and summer of 2013 when the weather is warm.

For those unfamiliar with the LFL, it is a female football league that began in 2009 and is headquartered in West Hollywood. It is played with a 7-on-7 format and the uniforms consist of lingerie and football pads.

In 2011 there were 11 teams with monikers such as the Passion, Chill, and Temptation. Last season the teams were located in Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Green Bay, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Orlando, Philadelphia, Seattle, and Tampa. Although the Temptation have been crowned the champions for each of the past three years, there have not yet been cries of outrage to “Break up the Temptations”.

The reason for the hiatus is the league wants to promote itself. Officials feel the best way to do so is to have its current players participate in the “All Fantasy Tour” which is scheduled to kick off in Mexico City in May.

Visits to Australia and Asia are planned for later in the year.

OK… Any questions?

Is the LFL yet another attempt to exploit women in the name of sports, much as occurs with the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue and advertising by the WTA and PGA?

Is the LFL really a sport or does it fall in the same category as hacky sack, Frisbee, yo-yoing, professional wrestling, hot dog eating, roller derby, or ultimate fighting? (There are those who would also include golf and slow-pitch softball in this group). These are all activities that require coordination and a certain amount of athletic ability. In fact, many of the LFL players are more than pretty faces. Most are probably better athletes than the fans who cheer them on.

If you buy into the notion that sports is a form of entertainment, then a case can be made that the LFL is a sport.

At a time when the country is still licking its wounds from the Great Recession, the founders of the LFL formed a league, found staff to support the operations, hired and paid a group of female football players, found sponsors and marketed their product, and got people to watch their games. On top of that, they were able to get the media to cover their “Fantasy Tour.” What they have done is no different than the manufacturers of Pet Rocks, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Cabbage Patch Dolls, and Chia Pets.

Who says American ingenuity and innovation are dead?