http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinio...egion&_r=0

... “Our [UAB] athletic budget is $30 million,” he told me when we spoke. Of that amount, $20 million comes directly from the school — either through student fees or direct subsidies from the overall university budget. A consultant Watts hired concluded that it would cost an additional $49 million over the next five years to keep the football team competitive with the other schools in Conference USA.

“We could not justify subsidizing football if it meant taking away from other priorities,” he said. Then he added, “This is driven significantly by the changing landscape of intercollegiate athletics.”...

... Not surprisingly, they got their autonomy. The additional benefits will probably cost each of these schools several million additional dollars per year. But universities like Michigan and Auburn and Notre Dame can afford it. It’s the U.A.B.’s of the world — the so-called mid-majors — that have to decide whether to match the benefits the big schools are giving to athletes or go in another direction.

I have no problem with the power schools giving athletes more benefits; indeed, I’m in favor of it. But what I always thought would happen when this day came — when the financial difference between the power schools and everybody else became overwhelming — is that the smaller schools in Division 1 would be forced to rethink their priorities, just as U.A.B. has. Maybe not get out of football altogether, but de-emphasize it so that the tail finally stops wagging the dog....

A couple problems with that op/ed piece:

1. it buys into the dollar figures that Watts used, which have been slammed elsewhere as inaccurate and misleading.

2. it ignores the political shenanigans going on behind the scenes with the UA board of trustees

Maybe some schools should drop football because of the looming cost of attendance issues, but I don't think UAB is a good example of that given the fact that UAB's problems imho are more directly related to an unfair and one-sided board of trustees.

Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higher caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

Athletics functions as the public face of the university and it's primary advertising/marketing department. How many marketing departments make money? The fact that the schools have a marketing model that generates literally hundreds of hours of mini infomercials (that are watched by millions on national tv), hundreds of press articles, and thousands of mentions on radios and water coolers ------AND are actually able to recover much of the costs via ticket, media agreements, and other forms of revenue is actually pretty impressive.

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

This exactly. Academia smells blood in the water and are all to happy about it. Not understanding the effect it might have on them.

(12-16-2014 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

Athletics functions as the public face of the university and it's primary advertising/marketing department. How many marketing departments make money? The fact that the schools have a marketing model that generates literally hundreds of hours of mini infomercials (that are watched by millions on national tv), hundreds of press articles, and thousands of mentions on radios and water coolers ------AND are actually able to recover much of the costs via ticket, media agreements, and other forms of revenue is actually pretty impressive.

I disagree with many college sports fans on this. A loss of $20m a year is a huge sum of money. For any university. And I think the UAB's calculations are not misleading in the least. In fact, I think administrators and athletics people hide their true losses for a reason. They don't want parents to know about it.

Lots of schools have dropped football in 1-AA and lived to tell the tale. Boston U. dropped it 15 years ago, and they just joined the AAU with test scores skyrocketing. A lot of the Cals don't have it and they are doing just fine without it (i.e. San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine, etc.)

I agree with many of you that football is great for some schools, and adds to academics. For instance, BC, ND, Boise St., and several others. But the sports economist did a study that showed for losing schools (someone has to lose) there is actually a sheen of failure that comes with sports. Take Rutgers for instance. They have dropped 25 spots in the USNWR academic rankings over the last several years, and surveys into the thinking of high school students have shown that Rutgers is associated with losing. It's actually an excellent academic school, but as much as sports colors our perceptions of universities, it can damage them too.

Lastly, I'll say that when college sports people are interviewed, they will defend sports until their dying breath because their jobs are on the line. I've seen excellent internal suggestions made by academics and administrators who have a positive view of college sports rejected by ADs because they don't want to have a drop in support for a sport on their resume. In one example, a school was willing to take a loss on ice hockey (which would have brought together the campus community) but could no longer abide by $25m losses for football. The AD was adamantly against the perfectly sensible plan.

Schools should be willing to lose some money on sports, but the kinds of money being lost now at many schools is absolutely untenable in an era of huge budget cuts to higher education.

Don't care what that old yankee thinks. He needs to stick to stuff he knows like overated college basketball in high school size gyms

Once the P5 starts paying players, the players become professionals (salary, benefits, etc.). If players are getting paid, doesn't that make schools the employers? Many other "professional" leagues have unions (already starting in college football) but more importantly revenue sharing among the employers as a way to keep competitive balance. Why can't the G5 use competitive balance as a play on revenue sharing from the "professional" organization they belong to?

I think UAB is going to regret the move.... BIGTIME.

I think Watts already does. (though the coward would never own up to it)

Universities have become big business and college football is one their most effective marketing tools. UCF's yearly operating budget is closing in on $1B... spending $20m or even $100m on marketing as a percentage of a budget is not out of line for big business.

(12-16-2014 11:04 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

This exactly. Academia smells blood in the water and are all to happy about it. Not understanding the effect it might have on them.

I think the impact is overblown....and this is coming from someone that lives, breaths and loves college athletics. Much like I think "academics" over blow the negative impact that athletics has an academics.

Quite simply: if you have a good reputation and academics you will attract good students and faculty. Athletics has very little bearing on that ...

Some may disagree, but I have always felt that UAB football was a bad decision for UAB and a terrible decision for CUSA.

But I don't think it was a bad decision because of the reasons he states...I believe it was a bad decision because of how they went about it. They had no plan from the get go...there was no plans for an on campus stadium a the beginning. Instead they decided to play in one of the worst situations in America....not just that the stadium was too big (like say Temple or Tulane) and not just that it was in poor condition (like say Memphis)...but that it was in one of the worst neighborhoods. THAT was a death sentence. It killed momentum (which its first coach had) and without a plan to move at the beginning, it became the beginning of the end by the time they pitched an on campus stadium...the damage had been done and UAB football was already a laughingstock.

So I blame the original decision makers and CUSA was an enabler (which hurt its football brand in the marketplace) as much as I blame this guy. I have no idea where they go from here, because their conference membership may be in limbo. It should have happened sooner because UAB has a damaged athletic brand from unsuccessfully trying football that it didn't have before that. UAB could have been more like a St Louis, Creighton, Butler type basketball school had it not went down the football road.

(12-16-2014 11:36 AM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I think UAB is going to regret the move.... BIGTIME.

I think Watts already does. (though the coward would never own up to it)

If Watts' and the BOT's intention is to de-emphasize undergraduate programs, then I don't think UAB football will ever cross their minds again after the current discussion dies down. It might get mentioned again when they come back to gut the rest of the athletic department.

(12-16-2014 11:41 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:04 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

This exactly. Academia smells blood in the water and are all to happy about it. Not understanding the effect it might have on them.

I think the impact is overblown....and this is coming from someone that lives, breaths and loves college athletics. Much like I think "academics" over blow the negative impact that athletics has an academics.

Quite simply: if you have a good reputation and academics you will attract good students and faculty. Athletics has very little bearing on that ...

I believe that's somewhat dependent upon region of the country.

(12-16-2014 11:50 AM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:41 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:04 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

This exactly. Academia smells blood in the water and are all to happy about it. Not understanding the effect it might have on them.

I think the impact is overblown....and this is coming from someone that lives, breaths and loves college athletics. Much like I think "academics" over blow the negative impact that athletics has an academics.

Quite simply: if you have a good reputation and academics you will attract good students and faculty. Athletics has very little bearing on that ...

I believe that's somewhat dependent upon region of the country.

Yeah, I don't think you can discount the "Johnny Manziel" affect. Wasn't there a significant increase in applications at aTm that year? It's hard to say if it was moving to the SEC or having a Heisman winner, but good luck attributing it to something not football related.

(12-16-2014 11:41 AM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 11:04 AM)SublimeKnight Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

This exactly. Academia smells blood in the water and are all to happy about it. Not understanding the effect it might have on them.

I think the impact is overblown....and this is coming from someone that lives, breaths and loves college athletics. Much like I think "academics" over blow the negative impact that athletics has an academics.

Quite simply: if you have a good reputation and academics you will attract good students and faculty. Athletics has very little bearing on that ...

Not to mention the research dollars that come with it and that amount pales in comparison...actually there is no comparison, especially with UAB. Perhaps now they'll be able to spend some $$ on academic building improvements and gain even more research $$ than ever before. That is the big deal that university presidents focus on.

(12-16-2014 10:13 AM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinio...egion&_r=0

... “Our [UAB] athletic budget is $30 million,” he told me when we spoke. Of that amount, $20 million comes directly from the school — either through student fees or direct subsidies from the overall university budget. A consultant Watts hired concluded that it would cost an additional $49 million over the next five years to keep the football team competitive with the other schools in Conference USA.

“We could not justify subsidizing football if it meant taking away from other priorities,” he said. Then he added, “This is driven significantly by the changing landscape of intercollegiate athletics.”...

... Not surprisingly, they got their autonomy. The additional benefits will probably cost each of these schools several million additional dollars per year. But universities like Michigan and Auburn and Notre Dame can afford it. It’s the U.A.B.’s of the world — the so-called mid-majors — that have to decide whether to match the benefits the big schools are giving to athletes or go in another direction.

I have no problem with the power schools giving athletes more benefits; indeed, I’m in favor of it. But what I always thought would happen when this day came — when the financial difference between the power schools and everybody else became overwhelming — is that the smaller schools in Division 1 would be forced to rethink their priorities, just as U.A.B. has. Maybe not get out of football altogether, but de-emphasize it so that the tail finally stops wagging the dog....

How could this guy write for the NY Times and be that clueless. I can see this story being written 4 weeks ago when few knew the real reasons behind UAB football getting the ax. But seriously, not now, not with the overwhelming body of evidence showing that the fix was in.

I mean, it's also different for different schools. I don't agree with the NYT(of all publications a liberal football hater) saying that football needs to be put to rest. But maybe some schools need to understand that it's not all about being a D-1A school in a P5 conference. I bet they would have survived and given their students much more entertainment if they hadn't pursued being a 1A school so vigorously. We all know the perils of paying students to play. Well if we don't all keep pursuing being a 1A school in a P5 conference and instead validate all those lower Division schools for what they are, maybe the whole Amateur vs Pro thing wouldn't be such a problem.

I never gave two squats about Football. I went to UH cause it had a good business school and I'm from here. It just so happens that we have a real history as a D-1 school and we've got the ability and are in the right place to actually try and be a "top dog" so I'm for it. But if I had gone to a school like UTSA or UAB, I would have NEVER wanted or cared if they got to 1A and tried to win a "top dog" championship. If the school had made a great atmosphere around the football program and made it fun to attend I would have likely gotten into my team too and not cared if they moved up. I only got into UH football because I was invited to a game and it was just so much fun. I didn't give two cruds that we were a "mid-major" at the time or what Division we were in, in fact I had no clue about any of it. If it had not been fun to go to the games, I would have never cared. I think to change the whole race for the top, we all have to be conscious of every level of football and not belittle "lower" divisions. And those schools need to just learn to provide an entertaining product no matter what level they are at.

How many Universities can a normal person name that don't play D1 athletics?

79% of the AAU is in D1

(12-16-2014 11:05 AM)upstater1 Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:54 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-16-2014 10:26 AM)ballhog Wrote:  Many times, the anti-football "academics", who say too much is spent on athletics, don't take into account the non-monetary benefits of athletics such as increased enrollment, good will, higer caliber of students, community outreach...
Although, I'm not so sure this was the case with UAB football.

^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^

Athletics functions as the public face of the university and it's primary advertising/marketing department. How many marketing departments make money? The fact that the schools have a marketing model that generates literally hundreds of hours of mini infomercials (that are watched by millions on national tv), hundreds of press articles, and thousands of mentions on radios and water coolers ------AND are actually able to recover much of the costs via ticket, media agreements, and other forms of revenue is actually pretty impressive.

I disagree with many college sports fans on this. A loss of $20m a year is a huge sum of money. For any university. And I think the UAB's calculations are not misleading in the least. In fact, I think administrators and athletics people hide their true losses for a reason. They don't want parents to know about it.

Lots of schools have dropped football in 1-AA and lived to tell the tale. Boston U. dropped it 15 years ago, and they just joined the AAU with test scores skyrocketing. A lot of the Cals don't have it and they are doing just fine without it (i.e. San Diego, Santa Barbara, Irvine, etc.)

I agree with many of you that football is great for some schools, and adds to academics. For instance, BC, ND, Boise St., and several others. But the sports economist did a study that showed for losing schools (someone has to lose) there is actually a sheen of failure that comes with sports. Take Rutgers for instance. They have dropped 25 spots in the USNWR academic rankings over the last several years, and surveys into the thinking of high school students have shown that Rutgers is associated with losing. It's actually an excellent academic school, but as much as sports colors our perceptions of universities, it can damage them too.

Lastly, I'll say that when college sports people are interviewed, they will defend sports until their dying breath because their jobs are on the line. I've seen excellent internal suggestions made by academics and administrators who have a positive view of college sports rejected by ADs because they don't want to have a drop in support for a sport on their resume. In one example, a school was willing to take a loss on ice hockey (which would have brought together the campus community) but could no longer abide by $25m losses for football. The AD was adamantly against the perfectly sensible plan.

Schools should be willing to lose some money on sports, but the kinds of money being lost now at many schools is absolutely untenable in an era of huge budget cuts to higher education.

This isnt about dollars and cents.