Why even sponsor football below I-A?

[PapaBear]

Several recent posts got me thinking …

Given the enormous cost and administrative demands, you have to wonder why a university even wants to be bothered sponsoring a football team below the IA (or even below the BCS) level.

What’s the incentive?

It can’t be money. I can’t imagine there are more than a handful of IAA programs that bring in more than they spend. The same is probably true of many IA schools outside of the BCS bunch.

You can argue that it's about enriching the educational experience. But intramurals achieve the same thing for FAR more students at a tiny fraction of the cost.

So, what drives a school to earmark tons of dough just so a sliver of its student population can go out on a Saturday afternoon and try to knock snot bubbles out of an equally tiny slice of another school’s student body?

And speaking of those snot knockers … what makes THEM so important to the school that its administrators will take extraordinary steps -– from relaxing admission standards to breaking the law -– in order to lure and keep them for as long as four or five years?

Somehow, those athletes and this sport bring a value to universities that transcends money, academic reputation and -- in most cases -- even other sports.

Anybody think they’ve got it nailed?

[RadMann]

As an alumnus I can't think of a better excuse to go back and visit campus and get involved with my alma mater than a saturday afternoon in the fall at a football game. If anything, football more than any other sport for a college/university is a focal point of amumni invovement in school affairs. For that reason alone it is a worthwhile "loss leader" for a college as it probably brings in ten times its cost in alumni donations simply by the good will and "feel good" spirit it brings for students, parents and alumni. Add to that some schools make good money on football (like my alma mater) and it is a no-brainer. If anything, I'd turn the question around and ask most BCS school administrators what are their priorities for creating a "football factory" environment out of their athletics department and for many of them a total disregard for academic standards for admission of their "student athletes".

Finally, if big-time money were the only consideration as to what sports were played in college, there would be widespread implications of such a philosophy on college athletics in general including:

1) There would only be one or two sports played at most schools, even BCS institutions (primarily men's football and basketball)
2) No small college (division II or III) would play any sport since almost none of their sports make money. To be honest over half of I-As and a majority of I-AAs would not field teams for any sport either.

[rokamortis]

Well, I can speak from the perspective of a fan from a school that started playing football 2 years ago. This is my opinion of how things transpired and their affect to Coastal caraolina University. Many of the facts i've gleaned off of newspaper articles.

History
Coastal Carolina University was a branch / feeder campus for big brother U of SC for about 35-40 years. In 1993 the school broke away from USC and became an independant university.

Coastal was enjoying some success in its growth but it still resembled a commuter school. The graduation rate was horrible, about 30%. In order to attract better students that would want to finish their degree at Coastal the university would need to create more of a campus community for students.

The alumni weren't really connected to CCU, as most of them had degrees from USC. How do you try to bring them back to Coastal? How do you create a permanent connection to the future alums?

The community (Conway / Myrtle Beach) had been supportive of CCU but not overly so. Many people from the community drove by CCU but still did not know much about it, let alone ever visited campus.

Decision to add Football
When they announced that football was going to be added there were a lot of people that complained that it would take money away from other sports, academic programs, and employee salaries. Others asked why we would create a team when we couldn't compete with USC or Clemson, of which most football fans in Horry County consider themselves a fan of one.

But there was also an excitement buzzing around the campus and community. Finally there would be college football in the area.

After the announcement there was a spike in applications, average SAT score , and average GPA over the next few years. The retention rate also improved greatly.

2003
So football was added and surprisingly we packed our stadium. We played a weak schedule but we enjoyed a winning season of 6-5 with a roster consisting mainly of freshman.

Logo Licensing went from about $2,000 the previous year to around $17,000. this isn't sales, just licensing fees. The athletic department doesn't pay a fee for the merchandise they sell.

2004
Again, we pretty much packed the stadium even playing a weak schedule. Finished 10-1 and won a conference championship.

2005
??? - We'll see how it turns out but it appears to be off to a good start so far. We have upgraded the schedule and play the I-AA champ JMU at home, SoCon big 3 ASU away (they ahven't lost a game there in a good while),a nd away at top 25 SC State.

During the last few years we've seen more dorms being built, the faculty salaries raised to avoid 'compression', the hiring of Buzz Peterson to turn our basketball program around, re-signed our successful baseball coach to a larger contract, have private developers wanting to build a $50 M arena on campus. We have also just completed the largest fundraising campaign ever at the university.

Whether this is all tied to football or not is not proven, but many feel that it is.

Edit - I wanted to add that there are many season ticket holders who are also USC season ticket holders. Many will try and make it a double header if they can.

[golionsgo]

<<<Several recent posts got me thinking …

Given the enormous cost and administrative demands, you have to wonder why a university even wants to be bothered sponsoring a football team below the IA (or even below the BCS) level.

What’s the incentive?>>>



It's pretty simple. Football (and athletics in general) helps boost the identity of a particular school and is probably the single biggest marketing tool a university has at it's disposal. I can tell you as a supporter of a school that has been with and without football, there is no comparison in how we are perceived now as to the period after we dropped football in the mid 80s. Obviously you don't want to lose so much money that it affects the academic side of the university but a certain amount of loss is acceptable given the alternative.

[DFW HOYA]

To ask why a school should even sponsor a sport below the presumed top 60-100 programs of I-A is like asking why a school would even sponsor a major or teach a course that wasn't at least a top 100 program. If so, about 900 schools would be out of business as a result.

So how many schools make money on their English department? Or the student newspaper? Or the concert band? Few schools would think about cutting any of these, but football gets a bad rap in this regard. Schools should have an English major, a newspaper, a band, and yes, a football team when those activities allow the school to provide a broad range of interests and activities to its students--with the understanding that they may not make money, but their intangible benefits to the university give it a value worth pursuing.

Harvard could drop athletics tomorrow and it would still be a great school. But it wouldn't be the same Harvard, because the physical pursuits of its students are vital to its intellectual growth as well. Harvard was among the first schools to make athletics a part of its intellectual environment and still sponsors more sports (43) than any other Division I program--not that they can simply afford to do so, but from an educational perspective they can't afford not to. Contrast that with the marginal I-A schools who sponsor a minimum six men's sports just to say they're a "big time" school.

Why do schools pursue football? It reminds me of the famous speech John Kennedy gave in Houston known as the "Why does Rice play Texas?" speech. When discussing why the U.S. would commit to space exploration, he said that chellenges are undertaken "not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

[DTSpider]

Money actually can be a reason to have 1AA football. Most of the losses come from scholarship costs, which isn't a ture cash outflow. Consider that at many schools that these scholarships are privately funded and the cost is even lower. Plus add in donations from alumni who follow football and it can be a money maker. I've heard at Richmond that the program clears a few million a year.

[ngineer]

A football program, or any athletic program, can be a great rallying point for a school in terms of spirit and cohesion. But beyond that, large participation should be considered part of the overall academic experience if run properly. An athletic program should not be viewed as a money maker any more than the English Department. With the right balance it can be part of a very rewarding four years. When I see a resume and the applicant played an intercollegiate sport for four years and graduated with honors or better (or even a good B ave) it says something about the person's discipline, time management skills, and perseverence.
At the Division III level, I think you find the purest form of collegiate athletics where very few have 'scholarships' per se, some have financial aid packages, but you also find alot of 'walk ons' and kids playing for the pure fun of it. The way it was meant to be.

[JohnStOnge]

I'd change the question to "Why sponser football if you're not one of the elite (meaning true major I-A football such as at, for example, LSU)?" "Smaller" I-A schools lose more money on average than I-AA schools do.

[Lapper]

Well, I can speak from the perspective of a fan from a school that started playing football 2 years ago. This is my opinion of how things transpired and their affect to Coastal caraolina University. Many of the facts i've gleaned off of newspaper articles.

History
Coastal Carolina University was a branch / feeder campus for big brother U of SC for about 35-40 years. In 1993 the school broke away from USC and became an independant university.

Coastal was enjoying some success in its growth but it still resembled a commuter school. The graduation rate was horrible, about 30%. In order to attract better students that would want to finish their degree at Coastal the university would need to create more of a campus community for students.

The alumni weren't really connected to CCU, as most of them had degrees from USC. How do you try to bring them back to Coastal? How do you create a permanent connection to the future alums?

The community (Conway / Myrtle Beach) had been supportive of CCU but not overly so. Many people from the community drove by CCU but still did not know much about it, let alone ever visited campus.

Decision to add Football
When they announced that football was going to be added there were a lot of people that complained that it would take money away from other sports, academic programs, and employee salaries. Others asked why we would create a team when we couldn't compete with USC or Clemson, of which most football fans in Horry County consider themselves a fan of one.

But there was also an excitement buzzing around the campus and community. Finally there would be college football in the area.

After the announcement there was a spike in applications, average SAT score , and average GPA over the next few years. The retention rate also improved greatly.

2003
So football was added and surprisingly we packed our stadium. We played a weak schedule but we enjoyed a winning season of 6-5 with a roster consisting mainly of freshman.

Logo Licensing went from about $2,000 the previous year to around $17,000. this isn't sales, just licensing fees. The athletic department doesn't pay a fee for the merchandise they sell.

2004
Again, we pretty much packed the stadium even playing a weak schedule. Finished 10-1 and won a conference championship.

2005
??? - We'll see how it turns out but it appears to be off to a good start so far. We have upgraded the schedule and play the I-AA champ JMU at home, SoCon big 3 ASU away (they ahven't lost a game there in a good while),a nd away at top 25 SC State.

During the last few years we've seen more dorms being built, the faculty salaries raised to avoid 'compression', the hiring of Buzz Peterson to turn our basketball program around, re-signed our successful baseball coach to a larger contract, have private developers wanting to build a $50 M arena on campus. We have also just completed the largest fundraising campaign ever at the university.

Whether this is all tied to football or not is not proven, but many feel that it is.

Edit - I wanted to add that there are many season ticket holders who are also USC season ticket holders. Many will try and make it a double header if they can.


Good post Rok! As a a current senior at Coastal I almost transfered to USC a year ago and couldn't be more happier about the choice to stay here. The colleges I had the chance to go to in 2001 were Emory in Atlanta, USC, Winthrop, CofC, Wofford, and Flagler College in St. Augustine for soccer, but I chose Coastal because of their Wall Fellows program. It seems that I've grown with the school and helped in that transfer from a "community college" to a growing, independent university. But to be honest, one of the major reasons, like many in my class, came because of the new football program, the excitement of building new traditions, and changing the university. WE would be the first to help build this thing. Emory vs. Coastal shouldn't be THAT hard of a choice, but it was b/c of $$$ and the new football program.

[JohnStOnge]

I must say that I think Harvard could drop sponsership of athletics entirely and it wouldn't make one whit of difference in how well their graduates are prepared to function in their chosen fields except for those fields are directly related to athletics.

I love college athletics and hope they never go away. I must admit that as a youngster I wouldn't have wanted to go to a school without a football program because football games were kind of the social center of things and I was pretty interested in socializing (i.e., futile pursuit of females). But I don't think school sponsered athletic programs are essential to the educational experience unless somebody's in physical therapy or something and works with the teams for hands on practice.

[GannonFan]

I look at it this way - colleges and universities outside of the US, on the whole, aren't anywhere near the funding and prestige as American universities - sure, there are a few that are, but there are tons of schools that fall far behind their American counterparts. I think one of these reasons is the attachement that alumni have to their schools - people, in large numbers, give back to their schools, especially in terms of donations, and these in turn have helped make these schools the international bests that they are. I certainly think having college athletics, including football, is a huge reason for this as people have a reason to come back to campus every year in huge numbers. Getting the alumni back to the school, where they meet with the college presidents and the others that wine and dine the elite, is how money gets given back to the schools in such large numbers. Most of these schools couldn't just do away with athletics and expect the donations to continue - sure, a University of Chicago has done it and a Harvard or Yale could, but by no means could the vast number of IA and IAA schools manage without athletics - we as a country like athletics and it has become one of the major ways to get money back into the schools.