Critique of Modern College Football - WSJ

[ALTideUp]

Hey Al, I agree about the large amounts of money. I would say if the administrators are so worried about their budgets, than give back some of their pay as CNS does. Quit wearing those $1,000 to $2,000 suits and all those expensive settings in their office.
When you actually give to the cause then you can debate about it. Today as we see more people allowed in our country of Freedom, they are jealous of College Football it seems. I can say if you want your sport to increase in revenue, then teach and preach what it does for the kids. College football makes people stronger and less likely to die in a fat pack such as myself.
I do though have an excuse, a Baptist Preacher, and Fried Chicken is my problem. Look forward to your reply. RTR!

First off, to you and especially to CP, the idea that Universities are full of fat cats living the good life off the taxpayers money is simply false. The state supports about 25% of the UA operating budget. Administrators and faculty make about 40-50% of what they could make in the private sector - except maybe philosophers ; ) - and college administrators wouldn't know a good suit from a bad one. Upsetting as it may be to some, fielding a football team is not among the top 10 most important things that go on at a university. Helping a couple dozen unfortunate kids, in a universe of thousands upon thousands of unfortunate kids, doesn't justify maintaining a football program that operates in the red. The university would be fine without football, but at least so far, you can't have a college football team without a college. I don't believe that there is a college or university in the country that wouldn't ultimately do just fine if they dropped their football program.

With that said, I do not begrudge CNS for his salary or the amazing revenue generating ability of our football program. I'd love for college football to continue to be the outstanding national pass-time that it has become. However, I don't think it will last without some form of revenue sharing that goes beyond the conference revenue sharing systems that we currently have.  If a small number of schools like ours become so dominant that the majority of D1 schools simply can't keep up, those schools will stop trying. They will drop to D2 or schedule more regionally without concerns about national ranking, or drop football.

They say, a rising tide (ironic) lifts all boats. If caps are placed on program expenditures, or revenues distributed through the NCAA to all D1 schools, the sport can continue to hold national interest for a long time to come. But a small groups of super teams will not hold national interest, particularly in places that have pro teams. Almost every pro sport has realized this dynamic and put in place some means of preserving parity, whether it is the draft system or salary caps or revenue sharing. CFB needs to do the same.

[ricky023]

Upsetting as it may be to some, fielding a football team is not among the top 10 most important things that go on at a university. Helping a couple dozen unfortunate kids, in a universe of thousands upon thousands of unfortunate kids, doesn't justify maintaining a football program that operates in the red.---
OK Al, first can you tell me the 10 most important things to a University. Football might not be one but it sure brings a lot of revenue to somewhere in the school.

How many schools are operating in the RED? We don't and I don't know who might be. If however, going to Div.1AA would help a school I would admit them in a short time. Trying to go over your head to me is living beyond your means.
Also I thank you for the description on the clothing and the Faculty not making a lot of money. I will however say that kind of shocks me. I for one do not believe in paying players to play. Set the amount they need for today's world system and let them have it. Thank you, look forward to you. RTR!

[ALTideUp]

Okay - 10 things more important than football, in no particular order.

1. Basic research
2. Applied research, using basic research to solve practical problems
3. Contract research, solving problems brought to us by the military, corporations, government agencies
4. Teaching/training future researchers
5. Teaching basic information about our physical social economic and political world, including the history of these things
6. Teaching students to understand perspectives on major life questions to which they might not otherwise be exposed
7. Teaching students to think critically, that is, using 4-6 to solve new problems
8. Teaching students to be more effective and responsible citizens.
9. Teaching students to communicate effectively in writing and orally
10. Producing civically and service minded leaders who will use what they have learned to serve their communities.

As for schools in the red, it's apparently hard to pin down the numbers. I read somewhere that there are only 9 Ads that operate in the black without any contribution from the University's operating budget. Who knows though.

[SUPERCOACH]

I will give my 2 cents.

I agree that educators are not making a lot of money and did not choose that profession because they thought they would become rich.  The great majority of them do it because they enjoy helping kids and young adults.

I disagree with the premise that revenue sharing will make college football better in some way.  Sure, it would make it easier for the smaller schools to compete on the field with the big boys.  But that doesn't translate to a net revenue increase across the system in my opinion.  Likely as not it could actually lead to decreased overall revenue once the fans of traditional powerhouses lose their enthusiasm after years of contributing funds to build up the facilities at NW Directional State, then eventually losing to them on the field once we reach parity.  Is the small fan base of NW Directional State suddenly going to start spending enough money to replace the revenue lost when all the powerhouse schools are suddenly just "also rans"?  I can't see that as being helpful.

As to the powerhouses, those are cyclical.  It wasn't that many years ago that we were in the dumps.  And I have no doubt that we will be again some day, although I hope the next time is measured in seasons and not decades.

[ALTideUp]

You make excellent points coach. I sure would never expect complete socialism when it comes to revenue sharing, just enough to keep a large number of teams from all regions of the country seriously involved in the competition. If that is achieved, and the college game retains it's national status, everything will be fine.

I agree about the cyclical nature of the rankings. But like monopoly, in which the fortunes of various players wax and wane, eventually someone ends up with all the properties and hotels and every time one of the have-nots rolls the die they land on one of those properties and get their azz kicked. Soon the only guy who wants to keep playing is the guy with all the stuff. With revenues as high as they are for successful programs, I'm afraid we are approaching that point in college football.

Let's keep an eye on OSU and USCw, who are clearly among the "haves". By all rights their NCAA sanctions should have had them down for 3-5 years, yet these big powerful programs are ranked #20 and #1 in the 2012 preseason polls.

[BAMAWV]

I'm hoping your arguments, AlLTideUp, are coming from playing the devil's advocate role and not from true conviction. While the expenditures on athletics don't effect a large percentage of the school enrollment directly, they effect the entire university indirectly with school recognition, spirit, and student recruitment (etc). The athletic programs also have a large affect on the local economies.  They allow for 10-15 opportunities a year for school presidents to invite wealthy donors to campus.  They serve as the catalyst for many charitable organizations to form around (Nick's Kids). They serve as a source of pride for the university.

When the English Department has a following of private (millionaire) donors equal to the Athletic Department, then we will talk. This goes for UAB as well as the University of Alabama. In the meantime, I would suggest that where budgetary constaints become restrictive, a hard look should be taken at collective bargaining and tenure. HTH   

[ALTideUp]

I'm hoping your arguments, AlLTideUp, are coming from playing the devil's advocate role and not from true conviction. While the expenditures on athletics don't effect a large percentage of the school enrollment directly, they effect the entire university indirectly with school recognition, spirit, and student recruitment (etc). The athletic programs also have a large affect on the local economies.  They allow for 10-15 opportunities a year for school presidents to invite wealthy donors to campus.  They serve as the catalyst for many charitable organizations to form around (Nick's Kids). They serve as a source of pride for the university.

When the English Department has a following of private (millionaire) donors equal to the Athletic Department, then we will talk. This goes for UAB as well as the University of Alabama. In the meantime, I would suggest that where budgetary constaints become restrictive, a hard look should be taken at collective bargaining and tenure. HTH   

I certainly mean what I am saying, but you don't seem to be getting my point (we'll just say that's on me).

There is no disputing that the athletic department brings in a ton of dough, pumps up the local economy, and supports charitable organizations. That's all good.

My first point is that if you are UAB, and the football program is not paying back the University's operating budget, you need to close up shop. I'm fine with including some of your more indirect benefits in the equation, but if it's not paying for itself, it needs to go.

My second point (the most important one) is that we can get too good for our own good. All the benefits you outline depend on CFB being a wildly popular NATIONAL entertainment, especially recognition, enrollment etc. All of the tickets, all of the donors, etc, don't compare to what we take in from TV revenue and licensing. Those things require that CFB have a large national audience. If the entire eastern seaboard decides that no team within 200 miles of I-95 has a prayer of winning the national championship, they will stop watching CFB and focus on the many options they have for pro teams. Or they will follow their local college teams but have no interest in games affecting the top of the polls. If the major population centers turn their TVs off and we're left with a mostly southern (good college teams, few pro options) fan base, TV and licensing will dry up. I frankly don't think 150000 people will show up for a game in Tuscaloosa if it doesn't have national importance. And that's why I think the survival of the sport as a national interest will require serious measures to establish parity.

And back to a point that coach made, when I say keep teams afloat, I'm not talking about NW Directional State. I'm talking about Kansas, I'm talking about Georgia Tech and Iowa and UCLA.



As for your views that universities are sink holes of wasted time and money, those seem pretty entrenched so we'll just agree to disagree.

[BAMAWV]

I'm hoping your arguments, AlLTideUp, are coming from playing the devil's advocate role and not from true conviction. While the expenditures on athletics don't effect a large percentage of the school enrollment directly, they effect the entire university indirectly with school recognition, spirit, and student recruitment (etc). The athletic programs also have a large affect on the local economies.  They allow for 10-15 opportunities a year for school presidents to invite wealthy donors to campus.  They serve as the catalyst for many charitable organizations to form around (Nick's Kids). They serve as a source of pride for the university.

When the English Department has a following of private (millionaire) donors equal to the Athletic Department, then we will talk. This goes for UAB as well as the University of Alabama. In the meantime, I would suggest that where budgetary constaints become restrictive, a hard look should be taken at collective bargaining and tenure. HTH   

I certainly mean what I am saying, but you don't seem to be getting my point (we'll just say that's on me).

There is no disputing that the athletic department brings in a ton of dough, pumps up the local economy, and supports charitable organizations. That's all good.

My first point is that if you are UAB, and the football program is not paying back the University's operating budget, you need to close up shop. I'm fine with including some of your more indirect benefits in the equation, but if it's not paying for itself, it needs to go.

My second point (the most important one) is that we can get too good for our own good. All the benefits you outline depend on CFB being a wildly popular NATIONAL entertainment, especially recognition, enrollment etc. All of the tickets, all of the donors, etc, don't compare to what we take in from TV revenue and licensing. Those things require that CFB have a large national audience. If the entire eastern seaboard decides that no team within 200 miles of I-95 has a prayer of winning the national championship, they will stop watching CFB and focus on the many options they have for pro teams. Or they will follow their local college teams but have no interest in games affecting the top of the polls. If the major population centers turn their TVs off and we're left with a mostly southern (good college teams, few pro options) fan base, TV and licensing will dry up. I frankly don't think 150000 people will show up for a game in Tuscaloosa if it doesn't have national importance. And that's why I think the survival of the sport as a national interest will require serious measures to establish parity.

And back to a point that coach made, when I say keep teams afloat, I'm not talking about NW Directional State. I'm talking about Kansas, I'm talking about Georgia Tech and Iowa and UCLA.



As for your views that universities are sink holes of wasted time and money, those seem pretty entrenched so we'll just agree to disagree.

I never said that universities were sink holes of waste, but am pretty sure I could make up the deficit from a losing football team by targeting sink holes of waste within the overall university curriculum.  Women's "Studies for PMS Mgt." would no longer be offered but that won't make up the money we're talking about. Not giving out golden parachutes to everyone with a few years under their belt will help. Also leaving professors with enough time on their hands to write books and do on the side consultations to the private sector is another money saver. How about charging the faculty what John Q Public pays for a football ticket- get on the wait list and donate for the right to pay. 

But if you want to see a waste land made of college football,-- let the educators and politicians write in the caps or other regulations.  Just like congress getting involved in the BCSNC system. I'm not sure where things will go but I promise they will be worse. Let free markets and supply/demand run its course and see where it leads. I don't see schools clamoring to drop their sports teams yet. The trains still ran on time before Nike contracts or ESPN.  BTW, the Northeast has quit watching football on Saturdays for years-- that ship has sailed and football revenues are still increasing. 

[XBAMA]

well now , for the life of me I can't figure out why in the world
South Alabama recently fielded a football program and marching band  ...   

[XBAMA]

which also reminds me of a Mickey Mantle quote ...

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been
playing all your life."

[XBAMA]

All of the tickets, all of the donors, etc, don't compare to what we take in from TV revenue and licensing. Those things require that CFB have a large national audience.

College Athletics Revenues and Expenses -  ALABAMA Click here for link


TICKETS  $28,410,419

STUDENTS  $0

AWAY_GAMES $5,500

DONATIONS $29,860,400

UNIVERSITY $4,101,515

MEDIA_RIGHTS  $8,825,964

BRANDING  $4,506,056   

TOTAL REVENUE  $123,769,841

[ALTideUp]

All of the tickets, all of the donors, etc, don't compare to what we take in from TV revenue and licensing. Those things require that CFB have a large national audience.

College Athletics Revenues and Expenses -  ALABAMA Click here for link


TICKETS  $28,410,419

STUDENTS  $0

AWAY_GAMES $5,500

DONATIONS $29,860,400

UNIVERSITY $4,101,515

MEDIA_RIGHTS  $8,825,964

BRANDING  $4,506,056   

TOTAL REVENUE  $123,769,841

Wow. That's startling. Thanks for the data.

Where does the remaining 40 mil come from?

[XBAMA]

espn has it all for what is reported to the ncaa here Click here for link

In ESPN's exclusive online database, delve into the details behind the money that moves college sports. Find out how much athletic departments make from ticket sales, playing away games, donations, outside contracts, media rights and other sources of revenue. And see what they spend on recruiting, athletes' tuition, travel, coaches' pay and other expenses.

click-able categories are
Search for an individual college.Click here for link

See where the money comes from.Click here for link

See where the money goes.Click here for link

Revenues and expenditures chart.Click here for link

[ALTideUp]

^ Thanks X

Your figures are correct. So that leaves $38.4 in revenue unaccounted for.

[XBAMA]

anytime ...

I was amazed at some of those numbers , really thought
we got more TV monies than that too ...

maybe somebody in the know can shed more light on a break down or
can help with the confirmation of the numbers ...

one good thing it has all the schools numbers listed  and I believe espn is doing
a special on the subject soon ...

[Guest]

Username:
Password:
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

There aren't any users online.

Loading Tweet...