Quote:The most unpopular man in Birmingham, Ala., these days is Dr. Ray Watts, the president of the University of Alabama-Birmingham. Earlier this month, Watts announced that the school was going to eliminate its football team. You can just imagine what happened next.

When Watts told the team that this would be their last season, one player, Tristan Henderson, angrily challenged him in a video that quickly went viral. Later, several hundred supporters chanted and cheered for the coach, and heckled and chased Watts and his police escort, according to Jon Solomon of CBSSports.com.

Mark Emmert, the president of the N.C.A.A., described Watts’s decision as “unfortunate.” A group of important donors wrote a letter to the chancellor of the Alabama university system, calling for an investigation into Watts’s decision. Another big supporter, a Birmingham restaurateur, canceled his $45,000 sponsorship of a television network that aired U.A.B. games and ended the use of his restaurant as the locale for the basketball coach’s weekly radio show. “This is so tragic,” he told a reporter. “It’s like a death.”

Watts, it turns out, is a Birmingham native who played football in high school and who attended the university. He gets how important football is in Alabama. But in pulling together a five-year strategic plan for the school, he came to the obvious conclusion that it simply made no sense to continue fielding a football team. (The school is also eliminating its bowling and rifle teams.)

“Our 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.”

Ah, yes, the changing landscape. Let me explain. For the last year or more, the big boys in college athletics — the 64 schools that make up the top five conferences, plus Notre Dame — have been agitating for more freedom to make their own rules. They want, for instance, to be able to give their athletes a stipend that goes beyond a scholarship and more fully reflects the “full cost of attendance.” And through their conference commissioners, the power schools issued a series of veiled threats that if they didn’t get more autonomy, they just might bolt from the N.C.A.A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinio...egion&_r=1

BS. They hired a consultant to give a result to support dropping football. What a joke.

Easiest way to challenge spending on athletics is to put it on a balance sheet.

Very few schools can justify scholarship athletics on a pure financial analysis.

(12-17-2014 10:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Easiest way to challenge spending on athletics is to put it on a balance sheet.

Very few schools can justify scholarship athletics on a pure financial analysis.

it is a fact that football is a money loser at many schools, especially the lower level schools. it costs money to keep up with the joneses and if not many fans and alumni show their support by going to games and buying the swag and booster club memberships, then where is the justification. some schools feel that football is just part of the cost of doing business and others dont. exactly what we went thru at uta.

http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/12...b-football

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Five-year-old-...l-33956724

(12-17-2014 10:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Easiest way to challenge spending on athletics is to put it on a balance sheet.

Very few schools can justify scholarship athletics on a pure financial analysis.

I agree but then again those people who "want to get rid of football" view the athletic department (in particular football) as a stand alone operation and not as a component of the larger institution. There are plenty of programs at any university that "doesn't pull its weight" and pay for itself. Are there enough students who take history classes to justify that department? How about English? Women's studies?

The problem with UAB, and most every other university struggling with this problem, is that they use creative accounting to move funds around on the balance sheet. UAB seemed to start this process from the point of "I want to get rid of football" and found the numbers to justify it. They talk about the "cost of paying for tuition" for the football players but ignored that accounting of that as "revenue" for tuition...a cost and revenue at the same time which "zeros" out on the balance sheet. They ignored the lost revenue they will face when forced out of CUSA, or, if not forced out, a reduction in that money (TV money, bowl money from football). They gave a very rosy prediction in anticipated drop of donations, gave very low estimates of growth in outside revenue (well below average increases), lost advertising (from TV games). They talked about the amount of subsidy the school gives the athletic department yet made no mention of how much of that cost is borne by the student in athletic fees. They talked about the amount of money they will save by cutting football yet made no mention of reducing fees to students. Will these savings be passed on to the student or will the student keep paying and get less for their money?

(12-17-2014 09:40 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/opinio...egion&_r=1

(12-18-2014 09:04 AM)trojanbrutha Wrote:  http://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/12...b-football

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Five-year-old-...l-33956724

Thanks for sharing these, both are excellent.

(12-18-2014 09:29 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(12-17-2014 10:09 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Easiest way to challenge spending on athletics is to put it on a balance sheet.

Very few schools can justify scholarship athletics on a pure financial analysis.

I agree but then again those people who "want to get rid of football" view the athletic department (in particular football) as a stand alone operation and not as a component of the larger institution. There are plenty of programs at any university that "doesn't pull its weight" and pay for itself. Are there enough students who take history classes to justify that department? How about English? Women's studies?

The problem with UAB, and most every other university struggling with this problem, is that they use creative accounting to move funds around on the balance sheet. UAB seemed to start this process from the point of "I want to get rid of football" and found the numbers to justify it. They talk about the "cost of paying for tuition" for the football players but ignored that accounting of that as "revenue" for tuition...a cost and revenue at the same time which "zeros" out on the balance sheet. They ignored the lost revenue they will face when forced out of CUSA, or, if not forced out, a reduction in that money (TV money, bowl money from football). They gave a very rosy prediction in anticipated drop of donations, gave very low estimates of growth in outside revenue (well below average increases), lost advertising (from TV games). They talked about the amount of subsidy the school gives the athletic department yet made no mention of how much of that cost is borne by the student in athletic fees. They talked about the amount of money they will save by cutting football yet made no mention of reducing fees to students. Will these savings be passed on to the student or will the student keep paying and get less for their money?

Great post. Athletics are part of the university and less popular courses are necessary to produce well rounded graduates and to preserve education. If football isn't financially feasible then no sport is feasible.

The stated goal of college athletics is not to make a profit.

(12-18-2014 09:29 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  I agree but then again those people who "want to get rid of football" view the athletic department (in particular football) as a stand alone operation and not as a component of the larger institution. There are plenty of programs at any university that "doesn't pull its weight" and pay for itself. Are there enough students who take history classes to justify that department? How about English? Women's studies?

The problem with UAB, and most every other university struggling with this problem, is that they use creative accounting to move funds around on the balance sheet. UAB seemed to start this process from the point of "I want to get rid of football" and found the numbers to justify it. They talk about the "cost of paying for tuition" for the football players but ignored that accounting of that as "revenue" for tuition...a cost and revenue at the same time which "zeros" out on the balance sheet. They ignored the lost revenue they will face when forced out of CUSA, or, if not forced out, a reduction in that money (TV money, bowl money from football). They gave a very rosy prediction in anticipated drop of donations, gave very low estimates of growth in outside revenue (well below average increases), lost advertising (from TV games). They talked about the amount of subsidy the school gives the athletic department yet made no mention of how much of that cost is borne by the student in athletic fees. They talked about the amount of money they will save by cutting football yet made no mention of reducing fees to students. Will these savings be passed on to the student or will the student keep paying and get less for their money?

I mean this sincerely.

And that's exactly the point. Universities like government in general engage in many activities that cannot be justified strictly on a balance sheet analysis. The benefits are harder to quantify.

Strict balance sheet analysis is dangerous.

Circuit City did a balance sheet analysis when they were struggling. It told them to fire higher paid sales people. Sales plummeted because customers could no longer get useful product information from the sales people. Accelerated their flameout.

(12-18-2014 10:05 AM)panama Wrote:  The stated goal of college athletics is not to make a profit.

exactly. in my view offering up teams in all the popular sports including football is just a part of the whole college experience. every school cant expect to compete at the level of a notre dame but should field teams for all the benefits they offer the overall experience of going to college.

(12-18-2014 10:50 AM)runamuck Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 10:05 AM)panama Wrote:  The stated goal of college athletics is not to make a profit.

exactly. in my view offering up teams in all the popular sports including football is just a part of the whole college experience. every school cant expect to compete at the level of a notre dame but should field teams for all the benefits they offer the overall experience of going to college.

Media and message boards have been so obsessed with big contracts they've lost sight of the fact it isn't a capitalist venture.

I shamelessly stole the article from the AAC forum and there's a very good thread there too for those interested.

As one poster stated, athletics for a university are like advertising for a business, and all big businesses have an advertising budget. It's usually tough to determine the exact return on investment but most businesses spend the money anyway.

(12-18-2014 11:02 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I shamelessly stole the article from the AAC forum and there's a very good thread there too for those interested.

As one poster stated, athletics for a university are like advertising for a business, and all big businesses have an advertising budget. It's usually tough to determine the exact return on investment but most businesses spend the money anyway.

Yep. Look at NASCAR. Those primary sponsors pay around $15 million a year to those teams (the big ones anyway). Mountain Dew gets more TV time being on the front of Dale Earnhardt Jr's car for that money than they could probably get by running ads.....and get a good portion of his fans wearing hats and shirts that have Mountain Dew, creating a walking billboard. ULM got more press from the win over Arkansas in 2012 than anything else that the university has done. Our applications rose and inquiries about the school increased significantly. I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that Georgia Southern's request for information about the school has increased just because of the exposure that they have gotten because of their very good year. The press for a good win for any of us is worth more than just about anything else the school does to attract students. I don't know about y'all but my time on campus was about more than just going to class and getting a degree, regardless of how many academics bemoan the money that athletics spends. To paraphrase a quote, if they could get 30,000 people to come watch them teach.....

(12-18-2014 11:22 AM)InjunJohn Wrote:  

(12-18-2014 11:02 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I shamelessly stole the article from the AAC forum and there's a very good thread there too for those interested.

As one poster stated, athletics for a university are like advertising for a business, and all big businesses have an advertising budget. It's usually tough to determine the exact return on investment but most businesses spend the money anyway.

Yep. Look at NASCAR. Those primary sponsors pay around $15 million a year to those teams (the big ones anyway). Mountain Dew gets more TV time being on the front of Dale Earnhardt Jr's car for that money than they could probably get by running ads.....and get a good portion of his fans wearing hats and shirts that have Mountain Dew, creating a walking billboard. ULM got more press from the win over Arkansas in 2012 than anything else that the university has done. Our applications rose and inquiries about the school increased significantly. I would be willing to bet a significant amount of money that Georgia Southern's request for information about the school has increased just because of the exposure that they have gotten because of their very good year. The press for a good win for any of us is worth more than just about anything else the school does to attract students. I don't know about y'all but my time on campus was about more than just going to class and getting a degree, regardless of how many academics bemoan the money that athletics spends. To paraphrase a quote, if they could get 30,000 people to come watch them teach.....

Sorry admission applications have dropped significantly since your game with the Cajuns.

I listened to the SVP show yesterday parrot the theme that there are too many bowl games and that plenty of colleges lose money. I guess that they forget that about 75% of the Div1 universities lose money each year. They don't consider visibility that comes with being in a bowl game and the 3 hour advertisement for your university. I wonder how much it would cost for that university advertisement? It's also about the players who have dedicated so much of their time and effort to play the game and be a full time student and the fans who support them in the process. I'm pretty sure how the talking heads think about it is pretty far down the line of what the players and fans think about the process. JMO

(12-18-2014 11:35 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  I listened to the SVP show yesterday parrot the theme that there are too many bowl games and that plenty of colleges lose money. I guess that they forget that about 75% of the Div1 universities lose money each year. They don't consider visibility that comes with being in a bowl game and the 3 hour advertisement for your university. I wonder how much it would cost for that university advertisement? It's also about the players who have dedicated so much of their time and effort to play the game and be a full time student and the fans who support them in the process. I'm pretty sure how the talking heads think about it is pretty far down the line of what the players and fans think about the process. JMO

Last year 46 of the 70 bowl teams had their largest TV audience of the year for a bowl game.

Of the 24 who had bigger audiences in regular season some were like Rice (TAMU game Manziel was suspended for first half) playing a name opponent or were playing a game the first or last weekend when there was very little TV competition.
http://arkansasstate.scout.com/story/149...l-overload

(12-18-2014 11:02 AM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  I shamelessly stole the article from the AAC forum and there's a very good thread there too for those interested.

As one poster stated, athletics for a university are like advertising for a business, and all big businesses have an advertising budget. It's usually tough to determine the exact return on investment but most businesses spend the money anyway.

To me the ad element matters but what matters more is it is a community amenity like parks, museums or community theater.

It is part of the student community but also the wider community outside of the campus. It adds to quality of life as an unmeasurable factor.

(12-18-2014 11:35 AM)CajunAmos Wrote:  I listened to the SVP show yesterday parrot the theme that there are too many bowl games and that plenty of colleges lose money. I guess that they forget that about 75% of the Div1 universities lose money each year. They don't consider visibility that comes with being in a bowl game and the 3 hour advertisement for your university. I wonder how much it would cost for that university advertisement? It's also about the players who have dedicated so much of their time and effort to play the game and be a full time student and the fans who support them in the process. I'm pretty sure how the talking heads think about it is pretty far down the line of what the players and fans think about the process. JMO

According to a lot of those guys, most of us shouldn't even dare to compete. And of course they ignore the amount of players who wouldn't be afforded the opportunity to compete AND get an education to better themselves. If most of these talking heads had their way, there would be no Khalil Mack, who went from a 2 star recruit with offers from only Buffalo and Liberty to the #5 pick overall. Then again, most of these schools would have to resort to a more balanced home and away schedule and lose a couple home games a year, losing 10-15 million in revenue because those 90,000 seat stadiums are empty for those two weekends.

One of the things I have noticed is the % of the athletic budgets are "subsidies" from the school. My question is: How much of that subsidy is from student fees (either per credit hour or flat fee)? That is no cost to the school....that is a cost borne directly by the student. It is like ArkStfan stated, this is accounting tricks. I know that ULM and ULL have the lowest subsidy rates in Louisiana (exluding LSU which takes no money). I am not sure about how much student fees are at the respective schools.