Ultimate Sports Insider

How to become an Athletics Director - Part 10 - Test your theories on stage

2013-06-12T02:00:00.000-05:00

As a Director of Athletics you are in a highly public position where your comments are interpreted and scrutinized. Preparing for this increased level of public attention isn't easy, but there are some steps you can take to be as well prepared as possible. The easiest way is to test your theories and opinions "on stage."

You should identify opportunities for people outside your department – at your institution, in your conference, at the national level – to see your work and the value you bring to the table. While doing this you are also going to be in situations where you have to present your views in a more public way than you encounter in your regular day-to-day position. Going public with your views allows you to establish your own personal brand and this brand helps differentiate you from many other worthy candidates.

My personal recommendation about a great way to do this is to write - for trade publications, for a blog - yours or guest write on someone else’s, or tweet (a 160 character limit challenges you to be interesting. If you choose to do it, do it about things that matter to your profession, not about your cat or vacation). There is nothing wrong with being provocative. But aiming for sensationalism with each posting isn't a target to pursue.

When you do these things, you open yourself up to criticism and dialogue and discussion. So take the risk of putting yourself out there, risk the possibility of failure or criticism that comes with public statements. This is a low risk but meaningful way to prepare you for the 24/7 public aspect of being an AD.

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled "Moving from the business office to the athletic director's chair." Since that talk a number of people have asked me for a copy of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking.

How to become an athletics director - Part 9 - Investing in yourself

2013-05-09T02:00:00.000-05:00

There are many types of investments you can make - real estate, as well as stocks and bonds are common. But how about investing in something more sustainable and completely under your control – yourself? Not all personal profit is financial. Using some of your hard earned cash for something that yields dividends throughout your life is important, even if it requires meaningful financial sacrifices.

One of the leading excuses why people don’t go to conferences and meetings or advance their education is that their institution won’t pay for it. This approach can be revealing. You can and should invest in yourself. If you aren't willing to, why not? And if you aren't willing to, what does this say to others about your commitment and belief in yourself? Compound interest is an amazing concept and it works not only in financial terms but in terms of investment in your skills, knowledge, and professional connections. If you aren't willing to invest financially and with your time outside of your job to advance your career, how hungry are you? Have you made any financial sacrifices recently?

Take this needed step to advance your education. Enroll in the Sports Management Institute. Register for a webinar. See a motivational speaker. Subscribe to the Sports Business Journal. Purchase a new book (preferably something outside of the sports biography genre) or borrow one from the library. Obviously it’s ideal if someone will pay for all of your costs or at least assist with your costs. But if they won’t, are you investing your own capital and building your brand, your base and your future?

How to become an athletics director - Part 8 - Your current AD as a mentor

2013-05-01T02:00:00.000-05:00

Most people who are successful can look back on their careers and identify key people who served as mentors to them as they made their way in this profession. Who you work for is just as important, if not more so, as where you work.

Working for someone who has a track record of growing his/her staff from within and developing staff is a very attractive opportunity. Do you consider your current boss a mentor and role model? If not, then identifying someone who can serve in this capacity for you is important. AD's who take promotion and staff development seriously and provide consistent and productive feedback are incredibly valuable. Someone who is a demanding, principled and experienced can provide a lifetime worth of lessons and opportunity through their guidance and trust in your skills.

A mentor of mine often used to say that "you take a job for the next job." Said differently, you aren't likely to be in the job you currently have for life. Knowing how your current position or a new opportunity you are considering positions you for the opportunity beyond this job is important and thoughtful planning in your career path. Looking at those who have walked the path before you can provide clues about how a position you are considering might position you for the future. Have any senior associate AD's gone on to bigger and better opportunities? Do people within the department show progressive upward movement? If you see some of these patterns, you could be entering a good situation. Just as there are coaching trees, there are AD trees as well. Working for a leader who has staff who move on to greater opportunities could be just the launching pad you need to contribute to your professional growth.

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled "Moving from the business office to the athletic director's chair." Since that talk a number of people have asked me for a copy of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking.

How to become an athletic director - Part 7 - Geography and family

2013-04-24T02:00:00.000-05:00

Becoming a director of athletics requires more than a resume, cover letter and references, the standard documents that were covered in Part 6 of the series. It is important to sit down with your spouse or partner and have some candid conversations about their commitment to your profession. Your spouse must be fully on board with you becoming an AD. The position is much more than job, it is a lifestyle choice and this lifestyle can be enhanced or undermined by geography and family considerations.

You and your spouse must be on board with the location of the school - the state and region are important, as is the setting - urban, suburban or rural. Hate the cold and snow? Upstate New York, Maine or Minnesota might not be good options. If you are from a coast and you've never been to the mid-west, you’ll have to be prepared to explain to a search committee or President why you want to live there and how your family will adapt. Every part of the country has its particular “feel”, norms and culture.

If you are going to move away from a close knit family or grandparents, you have to know how their personal situations such as health, willingness to travel and a desire to have an in-person presence in your life and the lives of your children might impact your satisfaction in a particular area. These are important conversations to have well before you submit your information for a position, not after you are under serious consideration.

Many athletic director searches include significant interaction with your spouse, and what is learned during those interactions can be every bit as important as what you personally say during the formal interview. Make sure s/he is on board and can handle the personal questions that will come during these interactions. If your partner is not in favor of where you are interviewing, that information usually shines through and may impact your hire-ability.

Finally, there will be many stretches where you are simply not available for your family. If you have children, this can significantly impact your spouse who will bear the brunt of your absence. For example, how will your wife feel being the only mom at cub scouts? How will your son feel? Are you comfortable missing your daughter's soccer game? What type of support system do you have – or can you create – where you are considering moving? Your children’s ages should be taken into consideration. When children are small, it can be much easier to re-locate than when you have a daughter who is a junior in high school. If your kids are old enough, you may want to involve them in the conversation and make it a family discussion. Ultimately you may still have to move children who don’t want to be moved, but at least they will feel like they had a chance to weigh in and were heard.

To be successful, your spouse or partner and family MUST be fully on board with the demands of you being an AD, and with it all that relocation brings.

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled "Moving from the business office to the athletic director's chair." Since that talk a number of people have asked me for a copy of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking.

How to become an athletic director - Part 6 - Resume, cover letter and references

2013-01-09T23:47:00.000-06:00

If you are going to become an athletic director, presenting yourself well on paper is crucial. Having a well prepared resume and cover letter is crucial. Having a list of meaningful references is also important.

Your resume should be updated and ready to submit at all times. If it will take you longer than a few days to provide your resume to a prospective employer it isn't nearly close enough to fully prepared to be seriously considered. Your resume should be proof-read multiple times by you and someone you trust who has strong editing skills. It must be meticulously accurate. Google and fact checking will be done before, during and after the hiring process. You want to avoid any questions regarding the accuracy of the materials you create.

Cover letters should be rewritten every time and proof read three times. A common mistake is to send materials that have the name of the wrong school or refer to a position other than the one the person is seeking. I've seen it happen many times in coaching and staff searches. If you do this for an AD position you are dead in the water.

Your cover letter should not be a review of your resume. The reader already knows this information, its on your resume! Share your values, philosophy, and the vision that you have been developing – anything but what is already stated in your resume.

If you are lucky, your materials will be read for 1-2 minutes and after that time likely go into one of three piles – yes, maybe and no. You want to be in the yes pile, or the maybe pile at a minimum. No one ever moves out of the no pile. Your materials have to look great and contain impeccable grammar, spelling and punctuation. Miss on these details and you can find yourself quickly in the “no” pile.

You need to have a significant list of at least ten references. Your references should be aware of your search. And you should know or have a very good idea what they will say about you if they are called. Will they keep your search confidential? It is also helpful to explain why someone is listed on your resume. The people reading your resume don’t necessarily know why you chose someone unless you tell them. “Celebrity” references can be helpful if you know them well, but if they really don’t know you, be careful. They could hurt more than help. Again, you need to have a clear picture what the person will say when called.

So if your materials aren't ready, its time to put them together. It's your first chance to separate yourself from the competition.

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled "Moving from the business office to the athletic director's chair." Since that talk a number of people have asked me for a copy of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking.

How to become an athletic director – Part 5 – How you go about your business

2012-11-09T06:30:00.000-06:00

Now that you have answered some questions related to your knowledge, skills and experiences necessary to become an athletic director, it is also important to determine where you fit best in the athletic landscape.

The following three questions, and your answers, will go a long way towards defining your values and how you go about your business on a daily basis. The ability to explain these personal answers will provide specific insights about your fit as an athletic director at various types of institutions.

1) What is your personal philosophy related to athletics? The answer to this question starts to narrow the field of which jobs you should consider and for which jobs you will be viable. Developing views on academics, competing for championships, resource allocation and rules compliance shows you have the critical thinking skills necessary to become an AD. Do you view athletics as a business or educational enterprise? Who and what will be your primary focus as an AD? This should be easy for you to articulate. If not, you have to start developing your views.

2) What are your personal core values and what are the core values of an athletic program under your leadership? Do your values align with the values of the institution at which you are seeking to work? I have interviewed head coaching candidates and asked “What are your core values?” Numerous times, the individual I was interviewing was unable to answer that question. Stumbling over something this personal shows a significant lack of introspection and is a red flag. It is important to know who you are since you will face many difficult decisions and your core beliefs will influence the toughest choices.

3) What experiences can you point to that inform why you would be a good fit at a particular school? There is more to being hired as an athletic director than winning the press conference, but being able to craft a plausible, logical, and passionate explanation for the public about how you were chosen is a good way to judge if you could fit and be hired at a particular institution. You will hopefully sound like the person that was an obvious choice – either because the institution wants to continue on the path it has been on, or it wants a significant change in direction and you provide a contrast to previous leadership.

For example, if a school is winning conference titles on a regular basis and has high academic achievement, the institution may want someone who can continue that trend. But if an institution is facing significant NCAA violations, a background in compliance may be considered a tremendous asset.

In nearly every case, an athletic department is a microcosm of the institution of which it is a part. Alignment with the institution’s current values, or with values they are seeking to develop under new leadership, could save you heartache and difficulty both in a search and after you arrive on a campus.

Just as teams take on the personality of their head coach, an athletic program will take on your personality. Your ability to answer these three questions can help a search committee and president figure out if you are a fit for their institution. If their institutional values and yours align, you’ll be that much more viable for the position. Being able to articulate your values, philosophy and experiences, will create separators from other candidates that are crucial in the selection process.

Next – Internal preparation

How to become an athletic director – Part 4 – A two minute quiz

2012-10-17T06:00:00.000-05:00

As you prepare to become an athletic director, the next thing you should do is stop and grab a pen.

Ok, now that you have it, answer three questions honestly:

What knowledge do I have to become an athletic director?
What skills do I have to become an athletic director?
What experience do I have to become an athletic director?

Now that you have the answers to these three questions, you also have a plan.

The answers to these three questions outline your skills and strengths, but more importantly point out the holes, gaps and weaknesses you need to address to become an AD.

Perhaps you need more education. Maybe more experience at a senior level. Fundraising experience. Coaching supervision. Facility construction experience.

Your personal list may be short or long, but everyone has holes. Now that you know what your holes are, take a step, TODAY, to start filling one of them. Write down the gaps, create a plan to close them, and most importantly, overcome inertia and start taking steps to achieve your goal.

Next – Part 5 - How you go about your business

How to become an athletic director – Part 3 – Questions to ask yourself as you look to become an AD

2012-10-09T07:00:00.000-05:00

There are numerous questions you need to be asking yourself on a regular basis as you prepare to become an athletic director. These questions are basic, yet important, and will begin to guide your preparation. They are:

"What type of job are you seeking?” Different NCAA divisions and institutions have different expectations. Understanding the differences between Division I, Division II and Division III is important. There are personal and financial trade-offs, quality of life questions and different lifestyles possible in each position. Likewise, AD jobs in the NAIA and at the junior college level offer different perspectives as well. And the role each athletic department plays within the larger context of its institution will vary widely – from an alumni driven and public relations focus to an enrollment management enhancement model and many levels in between. Like a good pair of shoes, AD jobs come in all shapes and sizes, and its important to find the right fit. USA Today recently published a very informative article looking at this topic and it's worth reading.

“Do you have a preference for a public or private institution?” Each type of institution brings significantly different expectations into play. In particular, public institutions operate in a very open manner. Many states have “sunshine laws” that make virtually anything you write or do related to your job public information. California, Florida, Ohio and North Dakota appear to have some of the most open sunshine laws. This dynamic also brings an additional consideration into play as you search for an athletic director opportunity – your name and application, including your actual resume, can be published just by applying for a position. Long story short, make sure you are viable and interested before you get in the mix for a position at a public institution. Do your homework and know that even at a private institution, there is little if anything about your life, your job, and your decision making that will be confidential as an athletic director, and much of it will find its way into the media.

“How important is Football?” Football is clearly the economic engine, or an anchor in some cases, that impacts an athletic program like no other. How important the sport is for you, your understanding as well as appreciation of its importance and the attention a football program demands should be a consideration in your search for an athletic director position. Twelve games on Saturday afternoon are just a tiny fraction of the amount of time you will dedicate to making football successful at your institution.

“What level of salary are you seeking?” Aspiring to significant compensation as part of your AD search is common. But as salaries go higher and higher for senior staff at BCS level schools, senior associates and other aspiring athletic directors may have to consider a more modest or lateral salary move offered by a school in a lower athletic tier for a chance to advance professionally. Considering a specific athletic director opportunity is not just a short term financial consideration. Achieving your first athletic director position is likely the most difficult job to obtain since you are not a "proven commodity" yet achieving this first opportunity is crucial to your ability to advance in the profession. This may appear to be a strange notion since the assumption is that as an athletic director you will be well compensated. But television money is completely skewing salaries throughout the athletic industry with significant trickle-down effects for upper and even mid level leadership positions.

"How important is divisional mobility?" Once you've sorted through the above four questions, it is important to recognize that in the mind of decision makers and search committees, Divisions I, II and III are not equivalent. Moving "down" from a BCS level program or highly regarded FBS or Division I institution is likely easier than moving "up" from Division II or III to Division I. I put "down" and "up" in quotations because whether these are upward or downward movements is really a personal judgment based on your own values. Asking and answering the questions above is important to you personally because once you are in an NCAA division, movement to another division while certainly possible becomes more challenging. Institutional types are separators, both for you personally and in the eyes of each campus who is determining whether they want to make you a first-time athletic director.

Next - Part 4 - A 2 minute quiz

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled "Moving from the business office to the athletic director's chair." Since that talk a number of people have asked me for a copy of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking.

How to become an athletic director – Part 2 – Athletic director hiring trends

2012-10-02T04:30:00.000-05:00

Athletic director hiring has experienced a number of trends and continues to go through an evolution. Initially, athletic directors were former coaches, often football coaches, who moved into the AD chair as a way to transition out of the head coaching position and insure that the football program had someone who could maintain fund raising and operational support. While this sometimes occurs today, and there are some excellent examples of legendary coaches who have made this move, it is significantly less prevalent than it once was.

As athletics became more expensive, the next trend was to hire people who had significant fund raising experience. This trend has continued with the increased pressure on athletic departments to identify more funding sources in the face of state budget pressures and increasing costs.

The latest trend has presidents seeking leaders from significant business backgrounds, often with little or no direct intercollegiate athletic administration experience. Examples include Michigan's hiring of pizza CEO David Brandon, USC's hiring of Pat Haden from the private sector, and the PAC 12's (PAC 10 at the time of the decision) decision to hire Larry Scott who ran a professional tennis tour.

The increasing complexities of college athletics from television, internet, branding, licensing, marketing and a host of other external emphases makes this trend likely to continue into the future. Indeed it is a trend reflected throughout higher education as university chancellors and presidents are selected less and less from the faculty and more for their fund raising, business acumen and political ties in a tenuous budgetary environment.

Higher education and Division I college athletics are both big business. Because of this emphasis, higher education’s culture, norms, and structure are under significant pressure. And these pressures will continue. For those who view athletics as a business, their sponsoring institutions are even bigger businesses and that means increasing financial expectations for the AD regardless of the background the person brings to the table. Increasing revenue and understanding the business of college athletics isn't a separator, it's an expectation. But those expectations can vary depending on the institution and prompt some important questions you should ask yourself as you consider your path to becoming an athletic director.

Next – Some important questions to ask yourself as you prepare to become an athletic director

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled "Moving from the business office to the athletic director's chair." Since that talk a number of people have asked me for a copy of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking.

How to become an athletic director - Part 1 - Separators

2012-09-24T00:31:00.000-05:00

I was invited to speak last year at the NACDA Convention in Orlando, Florida and present a talk entitled “Moving from the Business Office to the Athletic Director Chair”. Since that talk, a number of people have asked me for a copies of my comments and notes. Since these requests keep coming, I have created a multi-part series that recaps and expands on the NACDA talk. I am far from an expert, but I hope my experiences make this series valuable and thought provoking. Here is the first article of the series:

Blogger Seth Godin in a recent posting indicated that he believes there are only two reasons people aren’t paid more than their current salary – 1) People don’t know what they are worth or 2) The person isn't worth as much as they think they are.

If Godin were to apply this concept to becoming an athletic director, he might suggest there are really only two reasons you haven't become an AD yet – 1) People don’t know that you are ready to be an AD, or 2) You aren't (currently) ready to be an AD as much as you believe you are. But I would add a third reason - you may not be the fit that a particular institution is seeking.

So how do you overcome these issues? I had breakfast recently with Boston Celtics Assistant Coach Kevin Eastman who suggested a great concept - "separators". You need to create separators - specific things that distinguish you from the competition - to move up in your career.

There are many, many talented people who are striving to become athletic directors from undergraduate students to senior associate athletic directors. Focusing on daily responsibilities and doing them well is crucial, but going beyond those responsibilities is even more important. Clearly establishing a personal brand – whether by serving on NCAA committees, being visible in conference meetings, or publicly sharing your views via social media in ways that are helpful can be separators. These activities force you to think and be open to criticism from the outside. When you say something publicly it more clearly defines who you are. Being able to articulate your views is necessary as an AD and is something you must be prepared to do when interviewing to become an AD.

Carve a niche, and make your brand relevant – but not relevant to everyone, because that isn't possible. Explain who you are and what you stand for and this will help you find the ubiquitous yet illusive “fit”. Your beliefs are your brand. And don't compromise those things just to get the job. Conscious and purposeful expression about your view of intercollegiate athletics can be a separator.

Start today. The investments you make now may pay the biggest dividends later and provide the separator that lands you that next opportunity.

Next – Athletic director hiring trends

Who is your sweetheart?

2012-02-06T05:17:00.001-06:00

One of the all time great candies is everywhere this time of year - The Sweetheart. They're on desks and in grammar school goodie bags. The candy itself is reasonably tasty but that's not why it's existed for more than 150 years. It persists year after year because of the short sayings written on the hearts - you could argue Sweethearts are the original Twitter! Say everything necessary in two words or less. Its hard to find someone who doesn't like reading these things.

Good fun.

If you were to design your own sweetheart and give a personalized note to each of your staff, what would you write to them? What would you write to each coach? Your compliance director? Your equipment manager? Your athletic trainers? If you want to tell them something in a maximum of two words, what would it be?

Start thinking.

Hopefully for most people it would be positive. But in some cases it might not be so glowing. Take a minute, write a few out, and give them to your staff. Regardless of whether it was a good sweetheart or a bad one, it's going to start a conversation. And wouldn't that conversation make the person you wrote to feel better about themselves, or give clarity about what they might do to improve? In either case, the message is.....

I care.

So start the ball rolling. Forward someone this article and explain what you are doing. Tweet it, post it to Facebook or just comment below but take 10 seconds to send it and use two words to say something very direct. You might be surprised at the results.

Good luck.

Running with scissors in 2012

2012-01-01T22:57:00.001-06:00

Carol Brady, one of the great American examples of the stereotypical television mom always said, “don’t play ball in the house” (although she never actually said this in any episode of “The Brady Bunch.”)

And during the Christmas season, it’s hard to come up with a greater cautionary message than in “A Christmas Story” when Ralphie’s pursuit of an official “Red Rider” BB Gun is squashed by his mother’s concern that “you’ll shoot your eye out”. Timeless.

Running with Scissors is the name of a popular brand of wine. It's name suggests riskiness, danger, recklessness and conjures up images of disapproving parents. Nothing good can come of it.

I hope you can look back at the past year and recognize some moments (maybe even more than a few) when you ran with scissors – took risks and went against the conventional wisdom or the safe choice and took a path less traveled. The outcome is less important than the willingness to test your boundaries.

And before we get too far into 2012 I encourage you to spend some time thinking and talking about how you can identify opportunities to take risks and grow – professionally, personally, physically, mentally, emotionally, in your faith, and with your family. Write them down, tape them to your mirror and in 365 days, I think you will be happy you did.

All the best for a Happy New Year from UltimateSportsInsider.com.

The Unknown Future of the Longhorn Network

2011-08-06T11:29:00.009-05:00

Months after its inception, the future of the Longhorn Network is still to be determined. As stated previously, University of Texas, Big XII and NCAA officials have an intricate process of finding out what exactly can be aired legally on the new Longhorn Network. With no ruling from the NCAA or the Big XII on the network's capabilities, the University of Texas took action in mid-July, signing a deal with Texas high school Brenham ISD (preseason ranked 7^th in Texas 4A) to play their second game of the season against Lamar Consolidated on the Longhorn Network. It should be noted that Brenham has two student-athletes committed to Texas, but also two students who are committed to Texas A&M. Despite the equal number of future Longhorns and Aggies, Big XII presidents, even Texas A&M’s President R. Bowen Loftin, continue to fear what airing high school athletics on the Longhorn Network might do to the rest of their conference and the rest of the NCAA universities. On July 20^th, Big XII commissioner Dan Beebe put a halt on Texas’ plans until “the league had a chance to meet and discuss the matter further.” This week, the Big XII established a “minimum one year moratorium on university-branded media platforms in the Big 12 broadcasting any high school content of any kind.” It seems that the Big XII will use this year to discern how the University of Texas can proceed with the Longhorn Network. Hopefully, the year moratorium will give the Big XII and the NCAA enough time to determine what is best for college athletics.

TCU's Journey to National Recognition: Next Stop, Big East

2011-02-27T14:00:00.031-06:00

It has been three months since Texas Christian University made the announcement to become a member of the Big East beginning fall of 2012, and it has taken me almost three months to process the reasoning behind this move. While it may mean more national exposure and financial gain for the parties involved, are we moving further away from common sense thinking? Neither party, in a different college athletics landscape free of BCS ratings and automatic qualifiers, would feel the overwhelming need to align; thus it is difficult coming to grips with this latest reshuffling in college athletics.

Trying to Find an Identity

Although TCU has a proud athletic tradition, winning is still relatively new for the Horned Frogs. The football program was virtually a non-factor from the 1960’s until 1998 when winning became the norm. However, with just over a decade of consistent winning, the nation is still trying to understand where TCU athletics, particularly football, fits on the national scene. More than that, however, TCU has struggled to find an identity with old in-state rivals and new conference affiliates since the break-up of the Southwest Conference. The move to the Big East will be TCU’s fifth conference since 1996 and I am not sure this move will satisfy the long term fit that the TCU administration is hoping to find.

This move isn’t the first “have to” move to a new conference for TCU. TCU experienced its first forced move when the Southwest Conference (SWC) started splitting in 1991 after Arkansas moved to the Southeastern Conference (SEC) and in 1994 Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor announced they would join the newly created Big 12 in the fall of 1996. As a 1994 Sports Illustrated article highlighted, TCU (along with SMU, Rice, and Houston) were left out in the cold. Why? As McCallum wrote, “The hightailing Southwest Conference members exited, predictably, for the TV money, figuring they would be better off with new friends like Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado instead of their old buddies.” Interestingly enough, we have learned that friendship in college athletics does not last very long, as Nebraska bolted for the Big 10 and Colorado for the Pac 10. Why? Better friends with more TV money!

TCU, along with SMU and Rice, later joined the expanded Western Athletic Conference (WAC) in the fall of 1996 with the hopes of creating a 16-team super conference that would command a major television contract. However, the conference design of “success in numbers” did not develop and the 16 members were quickly chopped in half when eight schools (Colorado State, Utah, BYU, Air Force, New Mexico, UNLV, Wyoming and San Diego State) left the WAC to begin the Mountain West Conference. Tom Dienhart and Mike Huguenin highlighted specific problems associated with the breakup of the WAC in an article that appeared in The Sporting News in June of 1998. Three specific problems are listed in the article: 1). Scheduling: the divisional rotation and the confusion created by separating teams into divisions, limiting rivalries and any consistency in scheduling. 2). Travel: expensive and time consuming for both schools and fans. 3). Revenue sharing: Dividing revenue, among 16 teams, especially those that were not winning, was very difficult. Interestingly enough, one of the schools not winning at the time was TCU – (1996: 4-7; 1997: 1-10). Thus, when the eight schools decided to leave the WAC and create the Mountain West Conference, TCU was not invited, once again leaving them to wonder about their athletic future.

Two years later, TCU was extended membership to Conference USA; this time, moving with Rice and reuniting with the University of Houston, but leaving long-time rival SMU behind in the WAC. The move to the third conference was supposed to create a national football identity with schools that offered stronger competition. Administrators announced at the time that the move to Conference USA was in the best interest of TCU. In an article published in the TCU Daily Skiff in the October 12, 1999 issue, Chancellor Michael R. Ferrari wrote, “The decision to join C-USA was made after considering the long-term strength and promise of this league at the national level. We have stated on numerous occasions TCU's goal of becoming a nationally recognized and respected athletic program at the Division I level. Joining C-USA is consistent with that goal."

Similar to the 16 team model of the WAC, C-USA decided to try and join the more prominent conference by using the more teams, more success approach. However, similar to the WAC, Conference USA could not provide the national recognition or long-term strength that TCU was ultimately looking for, especially when Marquette, Louisville, Cincinnati, DePaul and South Florida left for the Big East. Left with a different type of conference, administrators again scrambled to join a more stable conference and in 2004 made the decision to join the Mountain West Conference, with the schools that only 6 years earlier did not extend membership to TCU. In a 2004 Fort Worth Telegram article, reporter Damien Pierce wrote that this move would, “end months of speculation about TCU's athletic future and solidify a place for the Horned Frogs in a major conference.” In response to why TCU was added, MWC Commissioner Craig Thompson stated:

TCU is a fine academic institution that boasts a highly-competitive athletic program and possesses long-standing tradition. TCU's mission and values are also a solid fit with the collective and individual philosophies of the Mountain West Conference and its member institutions. More specifically, TCU's addition will enhance the MWC by:
• Bringing additional depth and competitive strength to virtually every one of the MWC's 19 championship sports.
• Balancing the annual football schedule, so that each member will have four home and four away conference games each year.
• Adding the nation's seventh-largest television market to the MWC footprint.
• Contributing the Plains Capital Fort Worth Bowl to the MWC's bowl line-up.
• Expanding the MWC's recruiting base as 10-13 percent of current football and men's basketball student-athletes hail from Texas.

Certainly all of these factors are a major reason why a conference would be interested in TCU, including the Big East. However, one very important factor that did not make Commissioner Thompson’s list was that TCU football was no longer the bottom feeder of the conference. TCU, at the time, just finished their second season in the Top 25 (2002: 10-2 and a final ranking of #23; 2003: 11-2 and a final ranking of #24). One of the major differences between 1998 and 2004 was that TCU football started to have success. TCU, of course, jumped at the opportunity to join the MWC and a chance at more television money, which later came in the form of a new 2006 television deal between the MWC and CSTV.

The Move to the Big East

This historical progression brings us to the present day conference shift. TCU will join the Big East as its 17th member and currently its strongest football member. Time will tell if the move works for both the Big East and TCU, but examining conference realignment from TCU’s historical perspective, the move to the Big East does not appear to be the long term solution for either TCU or the Big East. Some prominent issues that have plagued TCU’s past appear to be present with the new move to the Big East:

1. The mega conference model does not work: Once conferences get as high as 13+ members, the size of the league creates issues that become too complex. The exception to this rule has been the Big East, but most “experts” agree that the Big East is still a prime picking ground for another conference to come calling if expansion remains the move of the day. Similar to the problems that plagued the WAC and C-USA, factors such as greed, logistics, and a lukewarm response from alumni and fans have doomed “the more schools more success” model of conference realignment. Using TCU’s own history emphasizes the reasons why the mega-conference has not worked:

Greed: If the past is any indicator, schools that have football success get upset when they have to share revenue with conference members that are not competitive, and thus are a financial burden. It also hurts the schools chances of improving their BCS status in football and RPI standings in other sports if their conference schedule is filled with schools that are not competitive.

Logistically, it is difficult to travel across the country to play conference games. The two current defenses of TCU’s move to the Big East are that it is similar or perhaps a little bit easier to travel in the Big East than in the Mountain West. That may be true, but just because it is better, does not make it ideal. Travel, and other logistics, makes this a very difficult issue. Travel for TCU remains expensive and incredibly time consuming throughout the entire athletic season, not just in football. If TCU is offered an opportunity at a BCS conference with closer ties to Fort Worth, in a few years, than they will likely leave the Big East in a New York minute. As TCU has shown in the past, it is not afraid to jump conferences for a better opportunity.

TCU has drawn well recently, but historically attendance at TCU home games had been down since leaving the SWC. There should be major concern about fan attendance if TCU football drops out of national championship contention. Are fans in Fort Worth going to remain loyal to a TCU team that could have 2-3 losses and be playing for a second-tier bowl game? TCU’s current run of football success is incredible and one would have to assume that this success may not continue at this level. Based on the recent past, TCU’s alumni and fans did not always respond in the early 2000’s when the team was having good, but not great success. Also consider that the conference schedule did not excite their fans base; but how could it, since there has been no consistency in home date opponents since playing against the Texas schools in the SWC. TCU’s conference “rivals” have changed so many times that fans have not had time to develop any passion for a traditional opponent. It is also important to note that the visiting conference members are typically not sending many fans to TCU because of the distance, thus eliminating any geographic benefits.

2. Conference membership does not equal loyalty and therefore you would have to assume that conference realignment is not over. The move of adding TCU may save the Big East for this BCS evaluation period, but it will not guarantee Automatic Qualifier (AQ) status in the long term unless the other football playing members of the Big East can earn respectable non-conference wins and be consistently ranked in the Top 25. The logical thinking is that TCU will remain a top football school and other Big East schools will have to improve their programs to be competitive. However, it is possible (as Nate Silver points out in his blog post for the New York Times) that TCU could become mediocre in football. Average results in football and what is anticipated as virtually no benefit to Big East basketball and other Big East members might find that sending their teams to Fort Worth is not so rewarding. Depending on the football success of schools over the next 5-7 years, the Big East could once again see a defection of schools that are looking for greener pastures, including but not limited to, TCU.

3. The TCU - Big East relationship is flawed. You have to give credit to the Big East, because they have managed to stay relevant in the BCS. The problem is the Big East Conference’s status as an Automatic Qualifier is being challenged by other conferences, (the Mountain West) and more importantly by public perception. The only way to fix this is for members to win big games, including TCU. TCU will now have to carry the torch, so to speak, for all the Big East members, but what happens if they lose? Does a TCU football team with 2 or 3 loses benefit the Big East? Probably not. The first few years of this relationship could determine the long term future of TCU as a Big East member.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the TCU-Big East relationship is TCU is essentially being asked to “save” a conference that has issues too big for one member to solve. A long standing issue has been the conference operating under the dichotomous relationship of being loyal to the past (a history of strong private basketball playing schools) and committing to the promise of the future (building strong revenue generating football programs). This creates underlying problems starting with the number of schools that do not play football at the FBS level and yet benefit greatly from FBS football playing conference members. It still creates challenges at member institutions to perhaps spend above their financial means to remain competitive. Specifically, consider the current decision that Villanova has to make or remember that schools like DePaul, Seton Hall and Providence are asked to compete financially with the likes of Notre Dame and state schools like UConn and West Virginia, and you quickly realize the unique challenges of the Big East. Now add into the mix TCU (a 17th member with a history of changing conferences), and the overwhelming expectations that the Horned Frogs’ football program will legitimize the Big East and you quickly realize the fragility of this relationship. Under these circumstances, one would have to assume that one or more of these issues will rise to the top and the Big East will see changes over the next 5 years.

4. The BCS is flawed. The biggest injustice of the college football system is not the idea of the bowl games versus a playoff, but rather the Automatic Qualifier status. I understand the argument of a playoff but the AQ status is absurd based on the thought that you are denying a team, such as TCU, the opportunity to play in a relevant bowl game. In April 2010, the BCS Group released their formula for deciding if another conference(s) should be added to the AQ status starting in 2012. For a seventh conference to even get consideration for the AQ status for 2012-2013, the BCS committee will review conference results from 2008-2011. As stated on the Bowl Championship Series website, “results from the 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 regular seasons will be evaluated to determine whether a seventh conference earns automatic qualification for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 bowl games.” Essentially, the success of a school’s football season is in part determined by a formula that measures how conference members played as many as 4 years ago. The bottom line is that the success of a conference in the past should not determine the ability of a team in the current year to play in a bowl game (nor should a team benefit from conference history). The current set-up encourages short-sighted conference moves, such as the one by TCU to the Big East, in order to have a chance at a BCS game.

After almost 3 months of analysis my conclusion is this…I don’t blame TCU and the Big East for joining forces. Both are in near impossible situations to remain part of (the Big East) or get more of (TCU) the BCS dollars. I have come to believe that a school like TCU with a well respected athletic program and strong academics should not have to continue to try and “fit in” to the college athletic landscape because voting members do not feel they are worthy. Administrators should not feel like they must send student-athletes across the country to play conference games in order to get national recognition. Rather than praising a school like TCU for its academic and athletic success, critics of college athletics can point to TCU as the next school to join the highest level of the Arms Race. Shouldn’t TCU be able to enjoy its current run of success and not have to make an awkward move to the Big East? Remember, TCU just beat Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl – it may not get any better than that! Likewise, the Big East conference should not have to search out and add the current “hot football team” in order to survive in college athletics. Athletics is cyclical and the hot team 10 years from now may not be TCU but perhaps another upstart in college football ready to jump into the Arms Race. Maybe even a future BCS football playing member, like Villanova? At the end of the day, the decision for TCU to join the Big East might make “cents”, but it just does not make sense. From a bigger picture perspective, the move has brought attention to the imperfections of both TCU and the Big East, as well as the flaws of the current college athletic system and how the system has devalued both entities.

The Future of the Longhorn Network

2011-02-22T21:50:00.008-06:00

Now that the ink on the University of Texas’ new 20-year, $300 million Longhorn Network has dried, it is time for the NCAA to revamp their rulebook in an effort to ensure the playing field of college athletics is still even. Texas’ new contract allows them to air some high school events, which is enough to make other schools question whether Texas is receiving an unfair advantage. Will prospective high school players be glorified on the new network? Will the teams of prospective student-athletes be covered more closely? Is this fair recruiting? Can other universities do the same thing? Clearly, the NCAA has some work to do, and quickly. In the next 20 years, Longhorn Network will test the boundaries of the NCAA rule book by voyaging into uncharted waters. In the near future, however, Texas and the NCAA will begin the intricate process of examining what is legal under the network.

Pac 10 Faces Both Revenue and Expense Pressure

2010-11-27T11:29:00.037-06:00

With his recent decision to suspend Tennessee Head Men’s Basketball Coach Bruce Pearl eight games, Southeastern Commissioner Mike Slive demonstrated once again why he might have the most powerful job in college athletics. We would be remiss though not to include Jim Delaney, Commissioner of the Big 10, as a part of any conversation about power and college athletics; even Big 12 Conference Commissioner Dan Beebe, who has survived a tough fall, would still have a seat at the table of any major decisions in college athletics. Let’s not forget, though, their counterpart to the West, Pac-10 Conference Commissioner Larry Scott, who in just over a year on the job has positioned his conference as a major player in conference realignment, recreated a brand that was in need of a transformation, and now appears to have set up the Conference for a major television rights deal. The question is can Commissioner Scott not only generate new revenues, but create an environment of fiscal responsibility among future Pac 12 members? These days both sides of the equation must be met for him to be considered among the most powerful people in college sports. This is no simple task, however, because his efforts to move the Conference forward and restore the Pac-10, has been slowed by a number of recent challenges.

In Scott’s short time at the Pac-10 he has witnessed one of its most powerful members, USC, get knocked around by the NCAA, the dream of a super conference Pac-16 get temporarily shelved and reestablished as the Pac-12, and the University of California drop athletic programs. Perhaps no one in intercollegiate athletics is dealing with the volatility of the industry more than Larry Scott. With the Pac 10’s past accomplishments and the current football success of the University of Oregon it is easy to become very optimistic about the prospect of making the future Pac 12 a nationally known brand. Certainly the idea of a strong, vibrant conference with incredible financial potential is possible. Nonetheless, not all may see the addition of Utah and Colorado as beneficial but rather as a compromise to the failed attempt to add six Big 12 schools. In fact, when taking a closer look at the Pac 12 Conference, it appears that many schools are state universities struggling to overcome major budget deficits. Thus, it might be wise to hold off on our judgment of Mr. Scott and his place among the heavy hitters in college athletics until we see how he and the conference members handle the potential financial windfall.

Judgment of his vision of the new Pac 12 should not be based merely on the ability to market a new brand in order to increase television revenue but on how the additional television revenue will be spent. More specifically, a positive rating for the Pac 10 Commissioner should be given when the new monies obtained help the budgets of its poorest members and possibly create a new level of financial efficiency in college athletics. A closer look at the issues of the Pac 10 membership indicates that the members are collectively headed to a financial crossroads and are in need of strong leaderships at the institutional and conference levels.

The Television Deal

The television deal is obviously very important and has the opportunity to be extremely lucrative. Recently, Bruce Pascoe of the Arizona Daily Star provided projections by Navigate Marketing of Chicago that suggested if the Pac 12 incorporated a television media rights model similar to the Big 10, revenue could be as high as $172 million dollars, more than triple what the conference earns now.

A new television deal, along with the new conference split and the promise of shared television revenue, should help schools such as Washington State, Arizona and Arizona State, with a major boost to the athletic department revenue. Ideally, these decisions would put all of the Pac 12 schools in a stronger financial position. However, television revenue sharing cannot be the only solution to digging the membership out of financial debt. A collective attitude change toward financial spending needs to happen, and now presents a perfect opportunity.

Back to the Future (2006)

Television money, although getting much recent media attention because of the major jump in revenue, is not new found money. In 2006 the Pac 10 signed a 6 year contract that pays the conference $125 million for football and $52.5 million for basketball from ABC/ESPN and $97 million from Fox for football. At the time, this was a television deal that was certainly competitive and should have helped the conference membership with a much needed revenue boost. Yet, during this time period expenses have increased at a rapid rate and many schools in the Pac 10 have not been able to operate in the black. A quick reaction might be to blame the recent recession; and although that has had a major impact on college athletics, it is not the sole problem. The major problem that has been consistent in college athletics is that as schools bring in more, administrators spend more. The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Libby Sander's blog entry addresses the long history of athletic departments’ pattern of using new revenue sources to bail programs out of a financial deficit, rather than adding to a financial surplus. In the article, Bob De Carolis, Athletic Director at Oregon State, highlights this point by saying, “I got in this business in 1979. Cost containment was on the table then, and it’s on the table again [now]…Every four or five years,” he said, “we [athletic departments] find some sort of revenue nugget that helps us.” In this case, the nugget appears to be television revenue.

Around the same time the Pac 10 was signing the current television deal, an interesting and still relevant article appeared in the August 2006 CFO Magazine. The article discusses the business habits of athletic directors and quotes Iowa State's Athletic Director Jamie Pollard about the environment in which decisions are made:

"In college sports, the bottom line is a championship, and everyone else goes home unhappy." He says this drives athletic departments to spend everything they can to further that goal. "They could stand up and say, 'This is insane, I'm going to stop it,' but they would get fired." College ADs are under pressure to do everything they can within the rules to win, says Pollard, including spending all of their resources. Anything less means they didn't try hard enough.

Spending all of the resources to remain competitive would explain how Pac 10 programs find themselves in the current financial deficit. Take for example two Pac 10 programs, the University of Washington and University of California at Berkeley, were listed in the 2006 CFO Magazine article as 2 of the least profitable athletic departments in the country (Washington was running at a deficit of $2.2 million, and Cal had almost an $8 million deficit). Over the last 5+ years, many Pac 10 schools, including Washington and Cal, have not been able to take advantage of increased revenue earned via television contracts, BCS Bowl payouts, and other additional sources of revenue, and thus, remain in debt.

Still in Debt

The end result is that the past Pac 10 television deals, although not as lucrative as a new Pac 12 deal, did not create a financial surplus for most members. In August, Jon Wilner of the San Jose Mercury outlined the necessity of increasing additional revenue through a new media rights deal in order to support struggling athletic departments’ budgets. He states that the additional dollars from a new television deal could bring much needed revenue to the Olympic sports and stabilize the growing debt. Wilner writes, “That windfall, while generated by the football programs, won’t be used specifically for the football programs. Rather, it will bolster ailing athletic department budgets and preserve that which the conference holds near and dear to its heart: the so-called Olympic sports.”

Skeptics might find it hard to believe that the additional monies would go toward digging out Olympic sports. Assuming that a television deal does happens and schools are able to increase revenue, it is likely that expenses at each school will increase just as quick, if not quicker. The bottom line is that although the television deal would be a significant increase, it will still leave a revenue shortfall when compared to other BCS conference television deals such as the Big Ten or SEC. One would have to assume that the conference expansion and the ongoing arms race is going to cause all Pac-10 schools to spend more than what they currently have, especially when competing for BCS Championships. Washington athletic director Scott Woodward summed up this thought in the Wilner article by saying:

“We cannot compete with the Big Ten and the SEC if we don’t close that gap. We cannot afford to pay top coaches, or build facilities. All this emphasis on souping up our brand — it’s all about staying competitive.”

Interestingly enough, it sounds like the anticipated television money is already earmarked for increasing coaches’ salaries and building new facilities. Recent history suggests that additional dollars generated have not gone to reducing the debt of the Olympic sports, but rather to increasing budgets of the potentially profitable sports, football and men’s basketball. Supporting the revenue generating sports such as football and men’s basketball only makes financial sense, as Woodward states, in order to stay competitive. From a broader athletic departmental point of view, the majority of the Pac-10 schools have struggled financially to maintain the heavy burden of the arms race in football and basketball, in addition to the growing expenses in other nonrevenue Olympic sports. Even if additional monies come into the department, there will most likely still be a financial shortfall at many Pac 12 schools, unless major financial restraint is implemented or athletic departments continue to rely on state money to reduce annual debts. This thought may explain why the Chancellor’s Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics at Cal Berkeley made such drastic decisions.

Chancellor’s Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

The Chancellor’s Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics chose to eliminate sports and put a limit on future institutional dollars used to support athletics, rather than wait for the television pot of gold that appears to be coming to Berkeley and other Pac 12 campuses. The reality is that Cal, like many other schools, has been at these crossroads before, as recently as 2006. Increased dollars from a new and exciting revenue source, especially a source as public as television revenue, typically will raise expectations of success at these campuses, forcing an increase in expenses to keep up with the Arms Race, only to realize later that the department has far outspent revenues.

Examining the Report of the Chancellor’s Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics, the decision to become more fiscally responsible by cutting sports, placing a limit on future institutional dollars, and holding the Chancellor and athletic director personally responsible is unprecedented, considering all of the recent publicity highlighting the future revenue that is just around the corner. These cuts may indicate the only realistic decision for Cal if they hope to remain competitive in football, basketball and what is left of the prestigious Olympic programs. The members of the Committee made a clear decision not to wait for the anticipated television revenue to address the financial debt, because they do not believe it will address the problem.

The report states:

“However, notwithstanding the possibility of substantial new revenues beginning in 2013, we note that the general upward pressure on costs, the scope of the program, and the increased operating costs of the retrofitted and improved stadium (estimated at an additional $2.4M) will result in a significant short- and probably intermediate gap between costs and revenues. Indeed, an expanded Pac 10 could lead to increases in travel costs, as well as further fuel for the arms race, discussed below; the rumored division into North and South groups could also make ticket revenues more volatile.” (p.4)

The report also indicates that the financial problems of the athletic department should not be solved with the continued reliance on student fees and institutional dollars. One very important solution the Committee provides, among others, is a very specific order calling for “Chancellorial leadership in the Pac 10 and NCAA.” Specifically, the Committee is calling on University of California at Berkeley Chancellor Birgeneau to assume a major leadership position not just on campus, but within the Conference and even within the NCAA to reduce spending. However, rather than ask Chancellor Birgeneau to be a part of change, the Committee wants him to lead the change, even if it means he would act alone.

“Chancellor Birgeneau can and must be the first move in an attempt to slow athletics spending. He is exceptionally well-positioned to do so, first, because of the national leadership for which he is so well recognized; second, because of his membership on the Executive Committee of the Pac 10; and third, because he has already, through appointing this Council, taken significant steps to unite his local constituencies behind him.” (p.11)

But Cal is not the only Pac-10 school that is facing financial scrutiny, perhaps just the most recent and public. Arizona State athletics is also facing a multi-million dollar deficit. The University of Oregon’s expenses are rapidly increasing and Oregon State was close to $6 million dollars in debt. Washington State athletics, operating with the smallest athletic budget in the conference, is falling further behind the larger budgets in the Pac 10 and the University of Washington athletics made adjustments to respond to the massive state cuts.

Fast forward to 2015 and perhaps we will be able to read about how the Pac 12 Conference television revenue and the fiscal responsibilities of leaders such as Chancellor Birgeneau and Larry Scott allowed the Pac 12 to become a model of good business practices. At that point, maybe we will read articles labeling Larry Scott as the most powerful man in college athletics, not because he negotiated the largest television contract but because he directed the Pac 12 Conference into financial security.

This posting was authored by Tony Weaver, Assistant Professor of Sport and Event Management at Elon University. Tony has agreed to occasionally provide research summaries. Prior to teaching at Elon, Dr. Weaver was an athletic administrator at Iona College, Siena College and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Refocusing on Financial Restraint

2010-09-02T10:04:00.011-05:00

After a summer of reading about the potential revenue generated by conference realignment, and watching school after school negotiate behind the backs of their current conference members one realizes how quickly agendas change in college athletics. Most recently, BYU added to the chaos by declaring its football independence and becoming a member of the West Coast Conference in all other sports. It was less than two years ago that many in higher education, including college athletics, preached about the impact of economic recessions and restraint on spending. Yet, attention to cost cutting measures has been trumped by the appeal of bigger and better conferences and chasing revenue.

Perhaps the most recent report by Daniel Fulks will remind us yet again that Division I schools are spending more in an effort to maintain even higher athletic standards, in particular relying on institutional dollars to support growing budgets. The response by some schools has been to pursue larger revenue streams through television, sponsorship and fundraising, rather than remain focused on where to cut. However, the issue of financial sustainability still remains a large problem for most Division I athletic programs due to the fact that the revenue just cannot keep up with expenses. In an effort to not just restate the problems, a dedicated focus on practical, cost cutting solutions appears to be needed. Some of these solutions below have been implemented by athletic departments across the country and rightfully deserve more attention.

Gather More Information

As discussed in a previous USI post, the issue of transparency will remain at the forefront of college presidents and the NCAA office. In the past, many believed that college athletics has operated in an environment of “secrecy”, even to the point where those working in the industry can be unaware of the financial decisions of their NCAA competitors. Over the last year, Winthrop Intelligence has provided a solution to athletic departments across the country by creating several online databases filled with accurate and timely data specific to Division I athletic programs. Why is this important? Athletic departments can use these data to make sound financial decisions, perhaps saving thousands of dollars on decisions related to coaching contracts, game guarantees, and sponsorship rights. The provision of usable data to athletic directors without the need for wasting time and energy trying to gather old data could be a lifesaver for athletic departments. An article in Athletic Business highlighted one example of a Pac-10 school saving $50,000 on a potential game guarantee. Perhaps even more beneficial is the fact that the database allows a user to not only compare financial data, but go deep into the contracts of coaches, administrators, sponsorship agreements, and game contracts to pull out the details of multi-million dollar decisions. Putting good data in the hands of the athletic director provides much needed leverage for better financial decisions.

Other opportunities also exist for the NCAA and athletic departments to continue gathering data by relying on the expertise of scholars to provide analysis, including financial analysis. The financial reports generated by Dr. Fulks has brought several issues to the forefront and allowed professionals to gain a more comprehensive financial picture of Division I athletics; kudos to the NCAA and Dr. Fulks for their on-going work. NCAA research staff members Todd Petr and Thomas Paskus wrote in an article appearing in the Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, "The study of intercollegiate sport is a discipline that would likely benefit substantially from an enhanced commitment to sharing research data." Similar to the business plan of Winthrop Intelligence, these data need to get to the hands of the decision makers.

Let the "Haves" Go…They Can Always Raise More Money

If nothing else, conference realignment and the additional information from the Fulks report has taught us that more schools are in the “have-not” group than perhaps the public may have imagined. As the Big 12 started to break-up, reports surfaced that suggested schools like Kansas, Kansas State and Missouri, were going to be left out because of limited football revenue potential. Imagine a school like Kansas, a major Division I brand, being labeled as “not good enough” or a "have-not".

That label, in higher education and particularly in college athletics, can be devastating. Avoiding membership into that category can be a great motivator to administrators, coaches, players, and fans. Just last week supporters at Boise State were asked to dig deeper into their pockets for a new football stadium in order to maintain their position in the Top 25 and avoid the future descent back into mediocrity. Chadd Cripe details Boise State's impressive rise to become one of the best football programs in the country. But, according to the administration, Boise State still falls short financially and thus the request for donations. Is it reasonable to think that donors can support the school’s ambitious future? Is it possible that the donors of Boise State could come together and build a stadium? Sure, but at what point does the well run dry? Financially, the donor base at most Division I schools cannot maintain the pace set by athletic funds at schools like Alabama, Florida and Texas, which annually could bring in close to $15-30 million more than a school like Boise State. The disparity in philanthropic giving to athletics is staggering and one that is very difficult to overcome, and for some reason continues to escape the attention of the public. Maybe it is time to let schools whose donors can consistently raise well over $30,000,000 annually for athletics run free.

Conference Mandates

In July 2009, Boston College athletics director Gene DeFilippo and former Arizona athletics director Jim Livengood stated that "the only way to slow down the arms race in college sports is to do it through NCAA mandated change." However, what major financial changes have been made in that time? Rather than waiting on the NCAA, conferences need to continue cost cutting measures. Conferences offer a manageable number of schools with similar profiles and thus could be the most realistic place where financial control can take place. Asking individual schools to take the lead on spending restrictions could be placing athletic directors and coaches at an unfair competitive advantage, which could cost employees their jobs. The reality is most athletic administrators or coaches are not going to sacrifice something that their competitors still have. This environment has created a helplessness that has made its way to college presidents who have stated that they are limited in their cost controlling role. Ironically, it appears that some presidents are right in the middle of the conference realignment chaos, which could raise more questions about their “powerlessness”.

Alone, financial restraint appears impossible, however as a group, perhaps financial control could become possible. It is true that conferences may be put at a disadvantage against other conference schools but the bottom line is that financial restraint needs to happen. Over the past year, conferences have discussed, and in some cases implemented, simple cost cutting measures such as hotel stays for home games, media days, size of coaching staffs and tournament participation and NCAA gifts. These changes, if implemented need to remain; if they are being discussed, they need to be implemented.

Financial Responsibility Includes All Departments, All Programs

Frequently the media and the general public focus on the financial data of prominent sports such as football and men's basketball, the perceived cash cows. But all Division I programs, revenue and non-revenue sports, men's and women's, need to be added to the conversation of financial responsibility. At this point, we have too many Division I teams that just cost too much, including basketball and football programs (see recent moves such as the University of New Orleans and Centenary College, reclassification to Division III, as well as Northeastern and Hofstra football programs). Although it would be an unpopular move to reclassify to a lower level division or cut programs or scholarships (legal issues could also arise), it may be a necessity. In a time when tuition continues to rise at a rapid rate and student fees continue to be tapped, a reexamination of all programs (as well as the mandatory Division I requirement for sponsoring 14 sports) needs to be put on the table.

Based on the current financial model used by Division I schools (relying on, at best, 2-3 programs generating money, while the other 12+ programs lose money) the pursuit of a sustainable budget is nearly impossible. At some point, schools will just not be able to keep up - maybe now is that point. As Dennis Dodd reminded us last year, "It [the business model] works at Ohio State and Texas. It doesn't at New Mexico State, Florida International and most everywhere else."

Even through all of the glamour of conference realignment, most Division I schools and conferences need to remain focused on reducing expenses, spending wisely and establishing long term projects that are grounded in good financial security. Although the article does not establish any groundbreaking ideas, it can serve as a gentle reminder that the goal of economic stability for most remains on the expense side.

This posting was authored by Tony Weaver, Assistant Professor of Sport and Event Management at Elon University. Tony has agreed to occasionally provide research summaries. Prior to teaching at Elon, Dr. Weaver was an athletic administrator at Iona College, Siena College and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Nebraska and Conference Realignment: Beyond Television Revenue

2010-08-26T08:30:00.017-05:00

After reading Pat Forde’s article on ESPN about Nebraska football, I began thinking that perhaps the biggest winner in the conference realignment shuffle is the University of Nebraska. The obvious advantage to the move to the Big Ten is the television revenue; however, as Tom Osborne is quick to point out, there are other interesting advantages to the realignment. In an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Osborne highlights three additional advantages to the move:

1. The increased exposure from the Big Ten Network could help recruit students on a national level
2. Nebraska could better compete in outdoor sports such as baseball and tennis against their Northern competition
3. Significant academic opportunities, including opportunities for more research funding

As a faculty member, the last advantage interested me the most for several reasons. First, and not surprisingly, this benefit did not receive as much national attention on the sports page as television revenue and championship games. Second, I continue to reexamine the idea that athletics helps academics. Certainly the value of a successful athletic program has many advantages, but does it directly help the academic reputation of the institution? The idea that an athletics decision (such as moving conferences or upgrading a new athletic facility) could improve academics is not a new revelation created by the Nebraska administration. Although many scholars dispute this claim, it is one that administrators still use to justify major support to the athletic department. In the case of the University of Nebraska, the idea that academics could see rewards from the move to the Big Ten is one that many people at UNL believe to be true. Why? The biggest reason is the new relationship with the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). The CIC is essentially an “academic Big Ten Conference” or a consortium of Big Ten schools and the academically prestigious University of Chicago. Similar to an athletic conference, the CIC is a formal relationship that allows the 12, soon to be 13, schools to collaborate on projects and share resources as a group rather than operate as an individual campus. Sound familiar? It should – it is a similar model to their athletic colleagues at the Big Ten and the development of the Big Ten Network: Leveraging opportunities through strength in numbers. But does this work on the academic side of the institution and could this benefit Nebraska?

The answer is ‘yes’ it does work for the current members of the CIC and one would think it could also work for the University of Nebraska. The benefit of the CIC, as stated in the 2008-09 Annual Report, is connecting “people with resources and opportunities, enhancing the distinctive strengths, assets and expertise of each member university.” Some interesting results of the collaboration stated in the annual report show that the membership has gathered over $6 billion in funded research, saved a combined $5.9 million in purchasing, $6 million in library savings, and $19 million in technology savings for 2008-2009, and provide incredible learning opportunities for students through programs such as the Travelling Scholar Program.

Supporters of the move point directly to the improvements of Penn State since joining the Big Ten and the CIC in 1990. Specifically, Adam Smeltz refers to statistics included in the U.S. News rankings that “show Penn State-University Park graduation rates went from 57 percent in 1990, when the university joined the Big Ten, to 85 percent in 2008. The average University Park freshman's SAT score is up, too -- between 1,100 and 1,300. Before 1990, the average had been just below 1,100.” Certainly other factors contributed to the growth of Penn State over the last 20 years but as the article suggests one cannot ignore the importance of the move to the Big Ten and the invitation to the CIC.

Perhaps more important than the tangible research dollars and projects that may develop, the CIC has provided the University of Nebraska with a public relations victory among the rest of campus and beyond. In a recent article in the Lincoln Journal Star, Ellen Weissinger, interim senior vice chancellor for academic affairs at UNL is quoted as saying, “I’m about as happy as I’ve been in my 24 years at UNL because of what it says of the Big Ten’s perception of the premiere status that we’ve achieved academically.” In addition, the University’s press release highlights several opportunities, with one of them being the ability to attract high-caliber faculty and to “open doors to new investors, entrepreneurs and others interested in expanding regional and national markets.”

Conference Realignment by the Numbers

One of the measuring sticks of “academic success” is the U.S News & World Report Best College Rankings. Using the recently released 2011 listings, a quick analysis indicates that the University of Nebraska will be associating itself with what many would consider a more prestigious group of schools. Or as John Nichols, a Penn State associate dean and former faculty senate president said in a recent article in the Omaha World Herald, “Simply put, it’s [the Big Ten Conference membership] very fancy company.”

U.S. News & World Report Big Ten Rankings

U.S. News & World Report Big Twelve Rankings

Currently, UNL is ranked 104 in the National University category, which would be much lower than any school in the Big Ten (the lowest Big Ten member is Michigan State at 79). All the schools in the Big Ten are considered to be “more selective”, with Northwestern and Michigan listed as “most selective”. Also consider that the affiliation with the CIC puts UNL in the same circle as the University of Chicago, considered by the 2011 rankings to be the ninth best National University in the country. That is exceptional company, considering the Big Twelve has no school listed higher in the National University category than the University of Texas at 45. In terms of selectivity, the Big Twelve schools are all listed as “more selective” with one school, Texas Tech ranked at 159, listed as “selective”.

While the University of Nebraska may have in fact joined the Big Ten because of football and television revenue, athletic departments and conferences across the country should pay close attention to the perceived benefits to the academic side of the institution. Time will tell if the Big Ten move was advantageous to the Cornhusker athletic department as well as the rest of the university, however it appears that embracing the change to the Big Ten could pay big dividends.

This posting was authored by Tony Weaver, Assistant Professor of Sport and Event Management at Elon University. Tony has agreed to occasionally provide research summaries. Prior to teaching at Elon, Dr. Weaver was an athletic administrator at Iona College, Siena College and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

College athletics in 2010: The Intersection of Conference Realignment and Transparency

2010-07-01T15:41:00.011-05:00

The following post authored by Tony Weaver is the second entry in a series that will examine the role of conference realignment strategies of universities. The long term financial implications of conference realignment could be the key to financial stability and success for some schools, and have drastic revenue limitations for others.

In the midst of the conference realignment chaos that appears to have taken over the state of Texas, Richard Justice reminds us of the “other” schools that participate in Division I athletics in Texas. His blog caught my attention for a couple of reasons. One, it reminded me that although the massive realignment did not happen the way Justice hoped, schools outside of the Big 10, Pac 10, and Big 12 are going to be impacted by any realignment, now and in the future. And two, Justice briefly touches on a former football powerhouse, Southern Methodist University. He describes Southern Methodist University as “a model program of a realistic vision and a beautiful on-campus stadium”. While this may be true the model program has not been built without some concerns from members of campus, particularly concerns related to the increasing dollars budgeted to athletics and the lack of financial transparency from the SMU administration. As the thought of conference realignment remains in the minds of many athletic directors across the country, including schools like Houston and SMU, members of the Knight Commission have brought to the forefront the issue of transparency and financial accountably. On June 17th, as the media and most Division I athletic departments remained focused on the impact of conference realignment and played out multiple scenarios, the Knight Commission released the most current report titled Restoring the Balance: Dollars, Values, and the Future of College Sports. In the report, the Commission focuses on the area of financial transparency. However, the latest report is not the first time transparency in college athletics has been addressed. In fact, one of the leaders in the call for greater transparency has been the president at SMU, R. Gerald Turner.

When I read Justice’s article about conference realignment and SMU, I thought about an editorial in the Washington Post in December of 2009 written by SMU’s President R. Gerald Turner and William E. "Brit" Kirwan, chancellor of the University System of Maryland. At the time President Turner and Chancellor Kirwan wrote that “The real crisis facing college athletics is the sustainability of its business model, which is on a path toward meltdown.” The editorial continued, “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.”

Transparency in higher education is a hot topic and not limited to just athletic departments. Similar to SMU, other athletic departments have been asked to produce financial, academic and athletic data, despite the fact that athletic departments already release a tremendous amount of financial data, especially in comparison to other departments on campus. To begin with, financial data such as high profile coaches’ salaries, sponsorship agreements, and NCAA revenue distributions and other forms of revenue generation find their way to media outlets. In addition, each institution provides information to the Office of Postsecondary Education of the U.S. Department of Education on an annual basis that allows the general public an opportunity to view the budgetary priorities of an athletics program. The available data however is presented with a “cautionary note” and perhaps does not answer every question but it certainly does address some issues of transparency. Over the years the data has become more detailed however each school has their own way of reporting the data.

The Knight Commission argues that the “real long-term progress in athletics financing across all NCAA Division I institutions requires the availability of clear, comparable, and complete financial data, together with strategies to improve accountability”, which I believe to be true. However, there can be a downside to financial transparency. The reality is that more data also means more information which in some cases could be used to actually quicken the pace of the ongoing “Arms Race”, not slow it down. Imagine if all athletic constituencies, coaches, administrators and yes, even boosters, knew exactly how much their arch rival was spending or how much the new facility cost or how much the athletic director was making. On one hand, data would allow constituents to hold the administration accountable for dollars spent. But, data gathered could be used as an ongoing benchmark highlighting exactly how much the completion is spending and where they are spending. Budget comparisons would be an ideal way to show why more money is needed, not less. For example, look at the escalation of coaches’ salaries. A major part of the reason why coaches’ salaries have escalated so quickly is because everyone knows what coaches are making. Contracts have become very transparent, yet that has not stopped the escalation, but rather they have been used as a guideline for the next salary negotiation. If additional financial information was readily available (which in many cases, it is) wouldn’t that just add to the Arms Race? Yes, it would create more accountability, but does it really stop anyone from spending?

Transparency at SMU

Since President Turner’s article in December 2009, the Daily Campus at SMU has examined the issue of transparency at SMU (see Hidden on the Hilltop below), and in particular the athletic department. SMU’s athletic budget is facing scrutiny for major increases in their athletics budget since 2006, and thus members of the community are calling for more access to financial information about athletic spending. But wasn’t the increases in athletic spending somewhat predictable and to the “trained eye” very transparent? SMU, the university not just the athletic department, is making a push to win. That is precisely why President Turner hired a proven athletic director in Steven Orsini from the University of Central Florida in 2006. Since Orsini’s hire SMU has rebuilt facilities, programs and coaching staffs, most notably hiring head men’s basketball coach Matt Doherty and head football coach June Jones; both of whom were head coaches at other high profile Division I programs. The only problem is that men’s basketball and football have not won at a consistently high level – yet. Although basketball continues to struggle, football finished last season with 8 wins, won the Hawaii Bowl and received a vote for the final USA Today Top 25 vote. These are certainly respectable results, but not necessarily when compared to the type of money being spent and the recent success of in state football rivals such as Texas Tech and TCU, programs that have recently received national attention for big wins in football.

Currently, SMU loses money on athletics…a lot of money, and apparently more than many other schools across the country; but another side of the SMU’s story needs to be told. Not everyone is disappointed with the direction of SMU athletics and President Turner. In fact, in an article that appears in the New York Times in December 2009, alumnus and writer Joe Drape praises President Turner for his leadership in making great improvements, including improvements with the football program. A few days later, Dr. Stanley Katz, a former trustee at SMU and currently professor at Princeton University wrote that it is “good to have SMU back”. More recently, the athletic department posted a press release highlighting their record setting fundraising efforts, an impressive mark in a tough economy for a small private school with a checkered past and no major recent victories on the resume.

But, major victories could come, perhaps as early as this fall. Keep these two dates in mind: Sunday September 5, 2010 and Friday, September 24, 2010. Why? On September 5th SMU will play Texas Tech in Lubbock on ESPN and on September 24th SMU will play host to preseason Top 10, TCU, also on ESPN. Imagine if SMU can win one or even both of those games and go on to a successful 2010 football season. Does transparency and their $19 million debt remain an issue or does the idea of bowl games and conference realignment make the pages of the Daily Campus?

Although conferences have stated that for now realignment is done, most believe that this stop is only temporary. As conferences begin to add schools again, SMU could be a school that eventually benefits from such moves. As Justice points out, they have made major moves to rebuild their athletic program and would provide a large media market (Dallas is Number 5).

Even if the desire to know more about spending in college athletics increases, it probably will not change the financial landscape. Currently, we have enough data to understand that even when a school like SMU wins football and basketball games, the school will probably not generate enough revenue to cover the cost of running an athletic department. Yet, athletic departments continue to go further into debt with the hope that future gains could come from a big football win or an invitation to a more prestigious and perhaps more financially lucrative conference. As issues such as financial transparency (what is) and conference realignment (what could be) continue to intersect, administrators will be left with yet another difficult decision of cost containment and accountability or investing in prestige and national recognition. If the past is a predictor of future decisions, prestige and national recognition will win.

SMU

Hidden on the Hilltop:

Part One

Part Two A

Part Two B

Part Three

The author of this posting was Tony Weaver, Assistant Professor of Leisure and Sport Management at Elon University. Tony has agreed to occasionally provide research summaries. Prior to teaching at Elon, Dr. Weaver was an athletic administrator at Iona College, Siena College and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Conference Realignment Strategies

2010-06-16T15:40:00.006-05:00

The following post is the first in a series that will examine the role of conference realignment strategies of universities. The long term financial implications of conference realignment could be the key to financial stability and success for some schools, and have drastic revenue limitations for others.

At the moment, there are only 3 schools that have realigned. They are:
University of Nebraska: Will leave the Big 12 Conference and will join the Big 10 conference
University of Colorado: Will leave the Big 12 Conference and will join the Pac-10 Conference
Boise State University: Will leave the Big 12 Conference and will join the Mountain West Conference

However, the biggest news coming from conference realignment is not the schools that have left, but one that decided to stay: The University of Texas has decided to stay in the Big 12 Conference. Why?

Andy Staples from SI.com sums it up perfectly. Two very important points that need to be highlighted:

1. Pay attention to the apparent deal that the University of Texas will receive from the Big 12 Conference regarding television broadcasting rights. If reports are correct, the University of Texas will generate between $20-$25 million in television rights and be able to start their own television network. This could be a dangerous precedent, as this deal clearly gives the University of Texas leverage on future conference decisions. It could also be a model for other top-tiered schools to use when they wish to explore the possibility of conference affiliations.

2. Conference realignment is not over. There is money to be made in conference realignment. In Commissioner Beebe’s white paper, he points out that more media partners will enter the bidding war for college football, which should drive the market price higher. As conferences negotiate television rights deals, the overall goal for each conference is the ongoing need to make their market more attractive to the media partners. Reducing their market share or remaining flat would certainly jeopardize a conference’s ability to generate more revenue through larger television contracts.

Conferences have been able to increase its market share as regions get bigger. This is a strength that Big 12 Conference Commissioner Beebe also highlighted in his white paper, as he compares the South, where the Big 12 schools are located, to the North, where the Big 10 schools are situated. He states “For any institutions evaluating membership in the Big Ten, I hope full consideration is given to linking the future with a part of the country that is losing population and tax base relative to the Sun Belt. In addition, disconnecting with the Sun Belt region may result in removing significant contact with a region where many alums and fans reside, not to mention a fertile recruiting ground for students and student-athletes. I don’t proclaim to be an expert, but in looking at the long-term positioning of an institution, it seems that its best linkage is to the South and West.”

Finally, market share also increases when you attract new schools from previously untapped parts of the country. The strategy of attracting new markets appears to be the current plan for increasing revenue among conferences such as the Pac 10 and Big 10. The Pac 10 is reportedly interested in adding the University of Utah, which along with the University of Colorado, would extended their reach further east into Salt Lake City (# 31 TV market) and Denver (#16 TV market).

Depending on future decisions related to conference realignment, additional issues may arise. In the past, conference realignment has created a trickledown effect, causing a wider divide between the haves and have-nots of college athletics. Dr. Karen Weaver highlights this point in her guest column published in the Indianapolis Star. Kirk Wessler of the Journal Star also presents an interesting solution for the “basketball schools” that always seem to be powerless during these transitions. Time will tell if college athletics, or specific types of athletic programs, are doomed. Regardless of the type of institutions, the financial implications of realignment appear to be real.

This posting was authored by Tony Weaver, Assistant Professor of Leisure and Sport Management at Elon University. Tony has agreed to occasionally provide research summaries. Prior to teaching at Elon, Dr. Weaver was an athletic administrator at Iona College, Siena College and the University of North Carolina at Greensboro.

Salary Update

2010-03-25T19:18:00.011-05:00

With coaching changes happening at a rapid pace, it is time to give some financial updates from the previous post, the Salary Dilemma. A majority of schools below have decided to hire new coaches at a higher salary than their predecessor. Other schools are still in the process of hiring, yet have made it known that they will be putting more resources into the basketball program, including higher coaching salaries.

Two questions arise when examining these situations:

First, does coaching turnover really make a difference? Many have questioned whether some of these current schools can ever win due to other factors such as recruiting budgets, facilities, and the competition in their league. Using two examples from below, DePaul in the Big East and Fordham in the Atlantic 10, suggests the problems may run deeper than solely the coach. Since joining the Big East in 2005-2006, DePaul has an overall record of 60-155, and a conference record of 23-84. Fordham left the Patriot League in 1995 to join the Atlantic 10 and has also struggled. Since 1995, Fordham’s overall record is 132-266, and the A-10 record is 63-161. They have gone through three coaches since the 1995 season (Nick Macarchuk, Bob Hill, and Derek Whittenburg) and only have two winning seasons in the Atlantic 10 (2005-06, 2006-07).

Second, does a new coach deserve a higher salary than his predecessor? It appears to be a given. The quick answer is that market demand drives the salary higher, but more longitudinal research needs to examine if increasing the new coach’s salary actually helps build a better program.

Fulks (2009) indicates in the 2004-08 NCAA Revenues and Expenses of Division I intercollegiate athletics program report (free download) that one of the largest expenses at the Division I level is salaries and benefits. At the BCS level, salaries and benefits make up 33% of total expenses; at the FCS level, salaries and benefits make up 31% of total expenses; and in the Non-football level, salaries and benefits make up 32% of total expenses. Of course, this line item includes all athletic department salaries and benefits, and certainly athletic departments employ many people which would lead to a large line item. However, at a majority of the institutions the highest paid athletic department employees are coaches. Perhaps administrators could reconsider the amount of money and the length of contracts given to new coaches and spend more efficiently on other areas that could address underlying issues. One could argue that until other departmental areas are addressed, any coach would have a difficult time winning, regardless of their salary.

Mid-Season Firing, New Hire:

At UNC Wilmington, former head coach Benny Moss was fired during the year after a disappointing start to the year. His contract runs through 2012-2013 at $170,000 annually. However, according to Brian Mull with the Wilmington Star News, UNCW is ready to hire a coach with head coaching experience and will pay between $225,000-$250,000 annually.

The Board of Trustees at Fordham University voted to increase the men’s basketball budget in February and then yesterday hired Tom Pecora for $705,000 annually. This salary would place him the top tier of the Atlantic 10 Conference men’s basketball coaches.

DePaul fired Jerry Wainwright in January and now promises to increase the salary for the next coach and possibly address the issue of a new arena. Although the school has not named a new coach, it appears athletic director Jean Lenti Ponsetto is interested in top level coaches.

Keeping their coach (for now):

Penn State and Rutgers decided to keep their men’s basketball coaches for the upcoming season despite poor seasons. Ed DeChellis of Penn State currently makes approximately $650,000/year and is under contract until 2013-2014; however, the Penn State faithful seem to be running out of patience. Fred Hill survived another year at Rutgers, perhaps putting off the inevitable. Tom Luicci of the Star Ledger details Hill’s contract, highlighting the financial hit Rutgers would take if the school fired Hill.

Quick fire, quick hire:

With three years remaining on his contract and a $1.5 million buyout, Jeff Lebo was fired from Auburn University. Lebo was quickly hired by East Carolina University and Auburn hired former UTEP head coach, Tony Barbee.

Holy Toledo:

Gene Cross resigned at Toledo and walked away from the remaining $700,000 on his contract. Before he resigned, Cross was the highest paid employee in the athletic department.

Keep an eye on:

Similar to their conference foe DePaul, it appears administrators at St. John’s and Seton Hall are also willing to pay good money for their next coach.

Iowa fired Todd Lickliter after only three seasons, because Gary Barta, the Iowa athletic director, “felt he couldn't afford to bring him back for a fourth”

Oregon did not renew the contract of Ernie Kent and now is in the midst of a national search.

A New Contract:

What is the value of beating Kansas and going to the Sweet 16? Northern Iowa and Ben Jacobson have agreed to a new 10-year deal that will increase Jacobson's annual salary to $450,000 starting next season, with annual raises of $25,000.

The Salary Dilemma: A Major Investment in College Athletics

2010-03-11T14:59:00.003-06:00

It seems every year during and after football and basketball season, coaching salaries at “major” Division I schools become an issue, and this year appears to be no different. In January, Dr. Andrew Zimbalist recently brought up the point again during the NCAA Scholarly Colloquium on College Sports, asking the NCAA to pursue an antitrust exemption to regulate salaries, which would put limits on the amount of money a coach can receive. The greatest benefit of such a move would allow the NCAA to control an expense that appears to be unregulated by individual schools due to “market demands” and the need to attract and retain highly successful coaches. Ideally, this would provide a level playing field among schools eliminating the need to outbid each other for the next high profile coach. If this were to work, coaches may be more apt to stay in one school and eliminate the quick exits that have become all too familiar. However, this option does not appear to be a valid possibility due to legal issues. Jim Isch, the NCAA's interim president, and Jeff Orleans, former Ivy League executive director, feels that it would not be in the best interest of college athletics or higher education to pursue legal action limiting salaries. The NCAA history of restricting salaries cost the association dearly in the late 1990’s when it tried to restrict assistant coaches’ salaries. Implementing control over how universities spend money can be incredibly difficult due to restraint-of-trade laws and the competitive environment of higher education and college athletics.

Past scholars have attempted to address this issue but have had little to no success of making any significant impact (at least based on the continuous rise of coaching salaries). Even during a recession, attempts to control salaries have been limited to a select few positions at schools that have seen across the board salary reductions. More common has been the continued practice of pay increases, contract extensions or hiring new coaches at a higher salary than their predecessor. The decision to invest in a coach is based on the expectation that your program will win, and in some cases win big, resulting in an increase in revenue for the program and the institution. Such was the case in January of 2007 when the University of Alabama hired Nick Saban to a staggering eight year, $32 million guaranteed contract. At the time the record breaking contract created a large public outcry to control coaches’ salaries. Since then, Alabama went on to win 2010 BCS National Championship Game, and Saban received a contract extension. Another article connects the Saban contract to perhaps the most important bottom line for measuring a coach’s contract: an increase in revenue. In 2008, the University of Alabama football recorded a profit of $38 million. And, according to the USA Today, head coaching salaries for Division I football coaches continued to rise.

Why? Sandy Barbour, athletics director at the University of California at Berkeley, captured the essence of the salary dilemma within the context of college athletics while discussing the contract of Cal head football coach, Jeff Tedford and his $2.8 million a year contract:

"If we let him go because we're not willing to pay market, we'll pay a huge price. Because I don't know that we can go out and find another coach with that combination of skills and (academic) emphasis."

However, not every coach hired brings championships or winning seasons to their respective institutions; meaning some critics could view the large contract as a poor investment. For every Alabama, there are hundreds of schools that have invested in a program that does not produce championships and increased revenue. Administrators seem to be reacting quicker to the “mistake” by firing coaches before their contract expires and now more frequently during the middle of the season.

Finally, with the recession hitting higher education hard over the last 2 years, it appears the salary issue is receiving media attention for other athletic department jobs as well. Recently, media attention has been given to the increase salaries for assistant coaches and athletic administrators, positions that in the past may have escaped the focus of the public and the media. Most constituents have come to realize that the head coaches of major football and basketball programs get paid very well. However, other positions in athletic departments have started to come under scrutiny for their high salaries and large contracts. Higher education administrators, especially athletic directors, will continue to have to make tough salary decisions and determine the market value of their employees. It appears now more than ever the decision to hire and fire will be judged with a high level of public scrutiny. In some cases, the failure to higher the right coach could lead to the demise of the athletic director and president. Perhaps that is why more schools are paying good money to search firms to help find the ideal candidate. Without question the salary debate will continue well beyond March Madness as basketball coaches are fired and hired, contracts are extended and terminated, and maybe we will crown a new coach as the “highest paid basketball coach”. I guess we will then have to wait and see if he or she was worth the investment…many people are watching.

Case Study: The University of Arizona

Last season, Sean Miller left Xavier University after a successful 5 year run to become head men’s basketball coach at the University of Arizona. Similar to many other successful “mid-major” programs, Xavier lost Miller to a BCS school that could afford to pay him more money and provide more resources. Miller, who had signed a 10 year, $850,000/year contract with Xavier in 2007-2008, was offered a 5 year contract with an annual salary of $2 million. The contact made Miller the highest paid employee at the school and thus caught the attention of the Arizona State Board of Regents. In June of 2009, Ernest Calderon, President of the Arizona Board of Regents, commissioned a special committee to examine not just Coach Miller’s contract but review the cost associated with intercollegiate athletics, specifically the Division I programs at the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona University.

In this video clip, President Calderon speaks candidly about the present condition of athletics and in particular the escalation of coaches’ salaries. Note: the discussion about athletics occurs from 1:05-4:52 of the video.

Quick links:

Mid-season dismissals:

UNC Wilmington fires coach; AD takes responsibility for the decision

Andy Katz of ESPN captures the current practice of firing basketball coaches mid-season

Evaluating a coach:

Saban hiring impacts more than just Alabama football

The financial implications of firing Penn State’s basketball coach

The job security of the Rutgers basketball coach

Auburn basketball struggles

Eastern Illinois invests in their basketball coach

University of Toledo’s basketball coach: Highest paid departmental employee, losing season

Division I Head Coaches Salaries:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2009-coaches-contracts-database.htm

Assistant coaches salaries:

Paying Tennessee assistant football coaches

Alabama assistant football coach gets big pay raise

Atlantic Coast Conference assistant football coaches are well paid

Athletic director salaries:

Georgia athletic director gets pay increase

Athletic Director database from 2009 Bloomberg

Athletic budget update #58

2010-03-08T17:15:00.007-06:00

Seton Hall to cut four sports
Track and field will take a big hit under Seton Hall’s new athletic budget, as the school plans to cut its men and women’s indoor and outdoor programs. Seton Hall will add women’s golf to meet Title IX standards.

Cal State Northridge drops swimming
The men and women’s swimming programs will be dropped at Cal State Northridge according to athletic director Rick Mazzuto. The school will save close to $300,000 a year once current scholarships run out.

Montana may reduce out-of-state scholarships
After raising ticket prices and cutting the athletic budget last year, the University of Montana may limit its out-of-state scholarships. This would allow the school to bring in more money from the out-of-state student-athletes.

Oregon athletics suffer deficit
Despite the recent success of its football team, the University of Oregon is currently suffering from a $642,000 deficit. Oregon State is also struggling and was down $5.9 million on June 30, 2009.

Athletic budget update #57

2010-02-24T14:14:00.004-06:00

KSU to cut athletic budget by 10 percent
As part of university-wide budget cuts, the Kansas State athletic department will have its budget cut by 10 percent over the next two years. Athletic Director John Currie said in a statement that eight staff positions were being cut.

Wisconsin raising ticket prices
In the midst of a five percent budget cut, the University of Wisconsin is raising prices on its football tickets. Associate Athletic Director for Business Operations John Jentz said he think the increase will go a long way in helping the school’s financial situation.

Brown considering cutting sports
Amid $30 million budget cuts, Brown University has proposed cutting several varsity sports and athletic staff positions. Ruth Simmons said the school’s athletic problems are there to stay for the time being.

Cutting sports a possibility at UNLV
In an attempt to retain money in its budget, the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV) and the University of Nevada, Reno, are considering cutting athletics. This is in response to the school’s task of cutting $147 million from its budget.

-Alex Mayster

Athletic Budget Update #56

2010-02-21T11:25:00.007-06:00

Tennessee puts record amount into athletics

Tennessee has no problem spending during the recession, as its budget will jump 13 percent this year, meaning the university will spend over $100 million on athletics for the first time. The upgraded budget comes partly because of the SouthEastern Conference's new television contracts.

Iowa cuts recruiting costs
The University of Iowa saw a 40 percent drop in recruiting costs for its football program during 2009. Each Iowa sport had to cut five percent from its budget according to athletic director Gary Barta.

Ohio State will not cut sports
Ohio State University offers the most Div. I sports of any school in the country, 36, but OSU is not considering cutting sports as an option to resolve its budget problems. "There was never a thought in these last discussions about eliminating sports," athletic director Gene Smith said. "We're not doing that."

Hawaii's athletic deficit could surpass $10 million
After accumulating $8,051,123 in debt since 2002, the University of Hawaii expects its deficit to surpass $10 millon during this fiscal year. Hawaii had a $2,632,408 deficit this past year, and has lost money in seven of the past eight years, excluding the 2007 Sugar Bowl year.

Fordham to increase budget for men's basketball
The board of trustees at Fordham University (NY) has announced that there will be a "significant" increase to the men's basketball budget . The school hopes the budget increase will push the team into the upper third of the Atlantic 10.

-Alex Mayster