"Why College Football Should Be Banned?

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Sat May 05, 2012 4:19 pm

Buzz Bissinger, the author of "Friday Night Lights," writes in today's Wall Street Journal that, yes, we should due to its high costs and that benefits to students are low, while academics pay the price. (he adds that the NFL gets a free 'minor league'.) Discuss . . .

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... +be+banned

PoconoPony · Post by **PoconoPony** » Sat May 05, 2012 5:18 pm

He makes some very compelling arguments. What he did not address is the PR generated by both basketball and football and the recruitment of students to that university based on that PR. I would think that the benefit to private universities would be far greater than that for state universities.

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Sat May 05, 2012 5:43 pm

Pocono,

Given you are living in the shadow of Penn State, it is hard to imagine your neighbor without the Nittany Lions. PSU a great school by any measure with our without athletics. And, I agree, that for SMU, it is a net gain.

I was particularly struck by U. of Maryland's cancellation of eight non-revenue sports. Sports that graduate at almost 100%. I love college football, but there are days of anguish (in SMU's case, decades) and the sad reality that the budget busting athletic departments often distract from the 'mission'. How about replacing FB with rugby and emphasize Olympic sports?

Not! But, the idea has merits when you look at Lou Saban, Urban Meyer, the U, Oregon, Teasips, etc. $3+m for a head coach? Please!

goldenstang · Post by **goldenstang** » Sat May 05, 2012 6:13 pm

Funny thing is water pony, most of the schools you just mentioned are the ones that actually financially profit from having a football team. OSU, UT, and Bama can pay that much because they make that much, In the case of UT especially they are subsidizing academics with athletic funds.

PoconoPony · Post by **PoconoPony** » Sat May 05, 2012 6:38 pm

goldenstang wrote:Funny thing is water pony, most of the schools you just mentioned are the ones that actually financially profit from having a football team. OSU, UT, and Bama can pay that much because they make that much, In the case of UT especially they are subsidizing academics with athletic funds.

My vague recollection is that only 12 universities actually turned an athletic department profit for 2010. The problem is that football is becoming so expensive that major universities are making huge cuts into the minor sports programs to justify the football programs. For example, MD has cut 8 minor sports and Rutgers has cut 6 sports just to support football and neither program is even close to breaking even.

No Quarter · Post by **No Quarter** » Sat May 05, 2012 8:35 pm

This is an honest quesion without desire to flame anyone. Strictly speaking, has big time football or Title IX put an end to non revenue sports?

Water Pony · Post by **Water Pony** » Sat May 05, 2012 9:54 pm

The reality that only a dozen or more school are net positive, out of more than a hundred Division 1A, is crazy and ultimately unsustainable. The budget for FB and BB coaches alone at Bama, OR, FL, Ohio State, etc. are wild. :shock:

CalallenStang · Post by **CalallenStang** » Sat May 05, 2012 10:43 pm

No Quarter wrote:This is an honest quesion without desire to flame anyone. Strictly speaking, has big time football or Title IX put an end to non revenue sports?

Strictly speaking, non-revenue sports still exist, so no.

whitwiki · Post by **whitwiki** » Sat May 05, 2012 11:27 pm

Water Pony wrote:The reality that only a dozen or more school are net positive, out of more than a hundred Division 1A, is crazy and ultimately unsustainable. The budget for FB and BB coaches alone at Bama, OR, FL, Ohio State, etc. are wild.

And SMU ....

goldenstang · Post by **goldenstang** » Sun May 06, 2012 2:31 am

CalallenStang wrote:
No Quarter wrote:This is an honest quesion without desire to flame anyone. Strictly speaking, has big time football or Title IX put an end to non revenue sports?

Strictly speaking, non-revenue sports still exist, so no.

They aren't dead yet but they are dying a slow death. It's a combination of the two to be honest. If they fix title 9 where you don't get hammered so much for having football then it might help.

rich59 · Post by **rich59** » Sun May 06, 2012 11:22 am

I absolutely agree that college football at the D1 level is sick. That many coaches make obscene amounts of money and that many college football players have no business from an academic point of view being in college. The BCS and the bowl system overall is like a sewer and there is way too much emphasis put on "big time college football" and the NFL benefits from a free farm system. However, to argue that college football makes no sense from an economic point of view, one gets on shaky ground. The book keeping in college football teams and their parent colleges make it difficult to draw comclusions. For instance at state colleges like TU they get giant subsidies from stae governments which help the athletic departments show enormous profits. Does the football program at TU have to pay for the upkeep, utilities, taxes, etc. on Memorial Stadium? On the other hand, the cost of a scholarship at for instance SMU used to be paid in full by the football program. Does it still? The school bebefits because it costs little more to run the university because the football program pays for 85 football player to go to school. The PR benefits are hard to calculate but they are substantial.

It would be great if college football could be better regulated and more sane like it was 50-75 years ago but those days seem to be gone for ever.

couch 'em · Post by **couch 'em** » Sun May 06, 2012 11:53 am

If it wasn't a benefit to the university football would not be EVERYWHERE as it is now. No school is finishing academics in lieu of football. Every school picks the academic market segment they want to be in. Low academic schools attract good football, not the other way

Digetydog · Post by **Digetydog** » Sun May 06, 2012 2:24 pm

PoconoPony wrote:
goldenstang wrote:Funny thing is water pony, most of the schools you just mentioned are the ones that actually financially profit from having a football team. OSU, UT, and Bama can pay that much because they make that much, In the case of UT especially they are subsidizing academics with athletic funds.

My vague recollection is that only 12 universities actually turned an athletic department profit for 2010. The problem is that football is becoming so expensive that major universities are making huge cuts into the minor sports programs to justify the football programs. For example, MD has cut 8 minor sports and Rutgers has cut 6 sports just to support football and neither program is even close to breaking even.

I don't know about MD, but the Rutgers story is not entirely true. New Jersey had such serious budget problems that they actually elected a Republican. Christie has cut the budget of just about everything in that state. To say that the non-revenue programs were cut to fund FB is not entirely true. Given the budget realities NJ faced, those programs would likely have been cut no matter what.

Digetydog · Post by **Digetydog** » Sun May 06, 2012 2:41 pm

PoconoPony wrote:
goldenstang wrote:Funny thing is water pony, most of the schools you just mentioned are the ones that actually financially profit from having a football team. OSU, UT, and Bama can pay that much because they make that much, In the case of UT especially they are subsidizing academics with athletic funds.

My vague recollection is that only 12 universities actually turned an athletic department profit for 2010.

While that might be true, that "fact" is misleading. The vast majority of athletic departments are not set up to run a profit. Lets pretend SMU didn't have FB or BB programs, it would have plenty of non-revenue sports to deal with. Lets assume those programs have a combined equivalent of 100 full ride scholarships (in many non-revenue sports, scholarships are broken up), those scholarships would "cost" SMU $5.9million. Throw in coaching, travel, and administrative costs, figure a total "cost" of the athletic department of $10-15million. Since I would be shocked if those programs generated a combined total revenue of $1million, the athletic department could not possibly make a profit. It just cannot.

With TV revenues and large gates, there are some schools (typically big state schools and ND) that make enough to run their athletic departments in the black. For all the rest, athletic departments are cost centers designed to generate positive publicity for the school and to be an amenity for students and alums.

While I hate to cite the Frogs or Baylor for what to do, their improved athletic performance has led to an improved pool of applicants and improved fundraising.

Schools spend big on athletics because prospective students and alums demand it. If schools don't offer athletics, prospective students have other alternatives. I personally never seriously considered Trinity or Austin College (both good schools) for that reason.

ponyte · Post by **ponyte** » Mon May 07, 2012 9:22 am

This guy has a preconceived conclusion and desperately tries to create ‘facts’ to support his conclusion.

Since some of his justification is based on injuries, why doesn’t he site any references? Yes, the general buzz at present is head injuries. Unfortunately, there is no published data to support the assertion. One can point to significant anecdotal data but that doesn't make it a fact. If injuries were such an issue, then he would include banning cheerleading as well. There is significant injury (NCAA collected data) and it provids no revenue. Not one college claims cheerleading provides a profit. There are many non profit activities related to colleges. Does the Spanish department pay for itself? Does the English department pay for itself? Do the school activity fees pay for all the various activities open to students? Does the Dedman center pay for itself?

One could argue the Greek system should be band as it certainly doesn’t turn a profit and often causes significant injury.

Obviously football at the Ivy League schools and others (Vanderbilt) should be band as they add nothing to academics. And these schools students have suffered so much from the lack of resources going to academics because of football. Or have they? He certainly doesn’t present any evidence to the contrary. He doesn’t mention that over the last decade LSU has improved its academic reputation while maintaining a successful program. That also seems to contradict his conclusion.

Does college football have problems? Most would say yes. Does the opportunity to participate or enjoy the game at the collegiate level need to be band? In this guys eye, yes.

Apparently he knows more about protecting us from the evils of college football than we do. And by banning college football, colleges would suddenly improve academics and fans would not seek other markets to meet their needs.