PonyFans.com

The coming disaster in college football

The college football bowl season began Saturday, with 34 games scheduled from Dec. 19 to Jan. 7. We expect to hear renewed calls from journalists, fans and politicians for a big-time college football playoff. A panel of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee recently moved forward with legislation that is designed to change the current football postseason structure and force a playoff, leaving some with the impression that a playoff is the most important issue facing the 120 college presidents who control major college football. It is not.The real crisis facing college athletics is the sustainability of its business model, which is on a path toward meltdown. The core of any debate about major-college football must be about the need to develop a business model consistent with the economic realities of our time and that would benefit student-athletes and educational institutions alike.

The 120 athletic programs that sponsor major-college football -- once known as Division I-A, now called the Football Bowl Subdivision or FBS -- comprise a multibillion-dollar enterprise. Despite the influx of significant revenue, including cash from bowl games, television contracts and ticket sales, nearly all programs are heavily subsidized by the universities through student fees, allocations from general funds and even state appropriations.

In the 2007-08 school year, nearly 80 percent of major athletic programs reported operating deficits, with programs in the red losing an average of $9.9 million, according to the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Add the recession, which has affected state appropriations and private giving at most colleges and universities, and college sports face unprecedented economic challenges.

A recent NCAA report noted that even football-generated revenue does not cover the operating cost of the football team at 44 percent of the institutions playing major-college football. Such figures would be worse if the millions in debt for stadium improvements and other facility enhancements were included. These are hardly profit centers at most institutions.

Now, consider all this in an environment where athletics costs are escalating at all but a few institutions while academic budgets are being cut and student fees and tuition are being raised. NCAA data show that the rate of increase in athletics spending in Division I programs is three to four times greater than the rate of increase for academic budgets. That is neither acceptable nor sustainable.

Whatever its other merits or disadvantages, a college football playoff would not solve these financial problems because without underlying reforms, added revenue would merely translate into higher coaches' salaries, facility expansions and more personnel. Recent history bears this out. Since the 12th football game was added permanently to the schedule in the 2006 season, only one additional football program has generated positive net revenue. Meanwhile, the average salary for head football coaches has increased 46 percent, to $1.36 million, according to a recent USA Today report, and the average budget deficit for 80 percent of the athletic programs has risen 11 percent, to nearly $10 million.

Change cannot come from the decree of one or two courageous university presidents. This was shown by the collective successful efforts for academic reform in college sports 20 years ago and confirmed more recently in a survey conducted by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics (which we co-chair). Fewer than a quarter of FBS presidents interviewed for the survey -- which was released last month -- believe that big-time intercollegiate athletics are sustainable in their current form nationally. They also said they have limited power to make substantive change acting alone.

We recognize that change can come only from collaborative actions, some of which may prove unpopular on some campuses. The first step will need to be true transparency regarding athletic spending.

The Knight Commission is collaborating with leaders in higher education as well as athletic directors to develop a reform agenda that will address the unsustainable growth in major college sports expenditures. All who care about the role of intercollegiate athletics within the academic enterprise, should agree that both data and common sense point to the need for immediate reform. Neither enhanced media contracts nor a football playoff can solve the systemic financial problems facing the nation's most visible collegiate athletic programs. Serious, sensible fiscal reform will.

-0-

William E. "Brit" Kirwan is chancellor of the University System of Maryland. R. Gerald Turner is president of Southern Methodist University in Dallas. They co-chair the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics.

One possible additional source of funding could be the NFL since the college football system is a de facto farm system for the professional sports franchises. Professional baseball has it's own farm system, but professional football relies on colleges for their source of new players. I don't know how that would be structured, but perhaps it is something to be explored by the universities and the NFL.

The BCS is loving this article.

I have long maintained that the BCS will in the long run destroy college football as we know it and itself. An elite group of only 40 or so teams able to compete for the national championship will ultimately not be able to draw enough fan support to sustain the TV contracts which are currently the source of their big money. In the meantime the other schools in the FBS will not be able to financially support their programs and will have to downsize. One reason schools have difficulty filling their stands is the games have little to no meaning anymore. With all the focus on the BCS conferences who outside of those of us who live and die our program have enough interest to go see the game. Professional Football is the competition and is clearly wining. The Presidents are correct that a playoff will not solve all the problems, but doing away with the BCS and their favored position in bowls and national championships and putting in a playoff where every FBS school has a chance to move to the top will help keep the interest and that means people in the stands and in front of the TV. The colleges will still need to address the expense side of the equation, but they will have increased their incom.

I guess the focus of their argument is that systemic changes need to occur in the model before you set up a 1-A championship. If most schools are either losing money or are funding them from student fees and state appropriations, those puppies are going to start drying up. I find it telling that the Chancellor of U Md. was one of the signers. With the economy downturn, students who look to state schools and their lower tuition also are looking at the bottom line. Why should a student who attends UMD-Eastern Shore help fund the Terrapins AD budget? I thought the interesting tell was that only one school at Division 1-A went into the black when they added a 12th game to the schedule. I wonder if that school was a buyer or a seller? (I wonder how many 1-AA teams improved their finances from that 12th game in 1-A?) Title IX is also something that merits a new look, but that isn't going to happen in the current political environment - just like tort reform did not somehow get into the health care bill.

Interesting to see would be schools that are DI but no football - I would assume that they are in less red than average football programs. The article went over that many to most football programs do not even pay for themselves, thus Title IX isn't the issue, it's the 'Arms War' that has occurred with football programs. What I haven't seen is what a playoff system would do for finances, as TV networks would pay the NCAA as in basketball and not the BCS or individual bowls.

President Turner could drop his salary to $500,000 a year from $1,000,000 get others to follow.

It really doesn't matter if the BCS is 100 teams, 40 teams or 10 teams. Only the top 20-30% will make money or break even in this current system. I wonder how the taxpayers of these state schools feel about indirectly subsidising football and most universities? With all this money and all these escallating costs there needs to be an effective commissioner to put limits on expenditures, graduation rates, and revenue sharing. The presidents of the universities cannot accomplish this, the football coaches at winning schools are simply more popular with the alumni than they are, i.e. depite his current problems, recall how the alumni stood with Leach rather than the President of TTU when the contract issue was in the paper? or when Coach Knight had his run in with the president at the super market? (or at SMU after the bowl?)
If the presidents of these schools were not powerless, they could have and would have acted long ago. But, instead they write these articles that never get them anywhere, but give the illusion that they are concerned and doing something about it. They cannot even agree amongst themselves what needs to be done. The biggest issue that needed addressing, was and is the BCS monopoly, have they done anything about it but wring their hands? This was an AD and coaches agreement and not the presidents of the schools and they have done nothing, but write their position papers.

"... But, instead they write these articles that never get them anywhere, but give the illusion that they are concerned and doing something about it ..."

Well said - Mex!

Regent Chairman: This is not a football vocational school. It's an institute for higher learning.

Coach Winters: Yeah, but when was the last time 80,000 people showed up to watch a kid do a damn chemistry experiment? Why don't you stick the bow-tie up your [deleted]?

Mestengo wrote:President Turner could drop his salary to $500,000 a year from $1,000,000 get others to follow.

Good call!