Future(?) of College Football

[IdaGriz01]

Based on numerous eGriz discussions, I think most of us agree that the health (and problems) for college sports in general, and football in particular are all about the money. There is now a huge furor about funding for public colleges and universities … which, of course, includes most FCS school along with the FBS. Here's just one of the many hits I got if when I Googled "public university funding" :
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/21/155524647/are-public-universities-still-public

If you'd like to download the report that most of the state-level numbers came from, go here
http://www.sheeo.org/finance/shef-home.htm

According to the report you can download at the second link above, student tuition paid 43% of the annual cost for public higher education in 2011, across the U.S. Some of the numbers are shocking: Vermont college students, including at their FCS school, paid 83% of the cost of their education via tuition. New Hampshire (another FCS participant) was not far behind at 75%, Delaware just over 70%, and Rhode Island was about 67%. That is, in Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Rhode Island, the legislature is picking up less than a third of the tab for their public colleges and universities. Maine is about 56% tuition revenue, while the number for Montana, statewide, is about 53% … in case you're wondering.

Students (and their parents) are complaining about huge jumps in tuition charges, coupled with less bang for their buck: larger classes, fewer offerings (they have to wait longer for some classes required for graduation), more sessions taught by graduate assistants or inexperienced part-timers, and so on. Many already graduate, into a tight job market, with huge amounts of debt -- I believe the average is up to over $25 thousand. That can only get worse.

This funding crunch has got to be scary for lower-tier FBS and most FCS football programs, which don't come close to breaking even financially. Unless things turn around dramatically -- and no one seems to think it will, no matter who gets elected President in the fall -- I look for more schools to drop football, or at least suspend it for awhile. Fortunately, alumni pride will surely salvage some programs that are financial basket cases. Plus, students at least know what they're getting, pretty much, from the athletic department ... and parents know exactly what they're getting when they buy season tickets.

"Public" Universities???
BTW, considering these financial realities, I perhaps made a misstatement during our discussion of big-time schools being ripped off by bowl game organizers. I said legislators should be complaining about schools that lose money going to bowl games. Turns out, although the states generally own the land the schools sit on, a bunch of them don't pay even half the annual cost of running the damn school.

Keep in mind that the state does not pay all those costs not covered by tuition revenue (averaging 43%, see above). Private fund-raising, endowment returns, research grants (from government, industry, foundation sources, etc.) pick up a chunk of the rest. Based on a small sampling, it seems that state appropriations, on average, may now pay less than half the overall annual cost for "public" higher education.

Discrepancies for individual schools can be even worse, but the numbers are harder to dig out. Here's some extreme values, gleaned from that bunch of articles:
U Michigan "receives less than 5% of its total operating revenues from state appropriations."
U Virginia gets 6-7% from the Commonwealth of Virginia
UC-Berkeley : "state funding represents about 10% of overall revenue"
U North Carolina - Chapel Hill : "the state contributes only about 18%"
Rutgers : "state [funds] ... currently constitute just 19.5 percent"

That means the state Department of Education is not even a significant “stakeholder” in the day-to-day operations of these school. Maybe it is best if they “butt out” of any discussion of how the schools spend their money.

 

[Tod]

Yeah, seems like bs that a state can fund so little, but gets to call all the shots.

 

[Silvertip]

With escalating costs and the growing concern over head injuries, I'm predicting the future will see football replaced with foosball...one man rosters, get rid of the strength coach and Engstrom authorizes a revenue-producing binocular concession at Wa-Griz...

 

[first11]

not only athletic teams...but academic support dollars are very small too from State of Montana....

tuition, endowments, grants...etc. are the lions share of funding Montana Colleges and universities.

 

[moose/squirrel]

Yeah, seems like bs that a state can fund so little, but gets to call all the shots.

So who do you suggest should "call the shots"?

I'm an advocate for education but as a taxpayer I see the educational establishment not really providing a bang for the state funded buck.

For instance, why is the COT system under the thumb of the University system? I was working out of state when that fiasco happened or I would have screamed to high heaven.

I have a very dedicated and passionate friend that teaches a marketable skill at the COT. I know his students will leave his program with a good attitude and a marketable skill. His program deserves more funding but it won't happen as they suck hind tit to UM. So UM pumps out thousands yearly with degrees in many cases that are irrelevant in real life unless they can remain in academia and there are only so many spots there. So we have lots of waiters with advanced degrees in town.

Let's not forget the perception of many that "Higher Education" seems more intent on keeping their cushy little corner of the universe intact, more intent on saving their hides than actually offering a marketable skill.

The "Higher Ed" machine is being questioned with good reason, we are not getting value for our taxpayer dollars, administrative costs, etc. Tuition costs way above inflation...you seem to think we should just say yes because you are in the system. News for you bro, not any more. Until the machine offers value for the dollar you are on notice, the next step is up to you.

 

[TxGriz]

The "Higher Ed" machine is being questioned with good reason, we are not getting value for our taxpayer dollars, administrative costs, etc. Tuition costs way above inflation...you seem to think we should just say yes because you are in the system. News for you bro, not any more. Until the machine offers value for the dollar you are on notice, the next step is up to you.

Politicians in search of applause lines and votes don't help any when they publicly proclaim "college education for everyone in America". College isn't for everyone and we are seeing the dilution of the generic college degree now in the post 2008 economy.

It looks to me like all we have to show for that notion of 'college for everyone' is the phenomenon of political correctness, where billions of dollars spent has yielded an infinite number of asinine ways of being offensive and offended. With an economy going into a fourth year of contraction or stagnation, college graduates should be looking to take something away more valuable to employers and themselves.

 

[bengal]

I'm a member of the National Football Foundation and a recent email I got from them showed that the number of colleges playing football is going up, not down. But I agree with the general thought that eventually, stakeholders (students and taxpayers) are going to get tired of paying for something (athletics in general, football in particular) that is not an essential part of the mission of the institution.

I think you'll continue to see the BCS schools that take in more money than some small countries' GNP play football and basketball -- why not, it's not costing them anything? And I think you'll continue to see a lot of small, liberal arts colleges that play Division III (non-scholarship) football, because the costs are low, the program focus is in context and they are attracting students who are paying $30 K to $40 K in tuition with a relatively cheap enticement.

But the schools in-between, especially state-run schools, are going to have more and more difficult times justifying attempts at "big-time football." Idaho, for example, just got lectured by the State Board Chairman when the Vandals came to the board to ask for permission to go independent. Among other things, he told them, "Don't come back here looking for state money." Idaho already has a fixed limit on the amount of state money its schools can spend on athletics, and it's very difficult for the universities to justify raising student fees for athletics when the economy is so bad, and costs continue to rise for other, more-academically oriented purposes.

Football is not part of the "core mission" of these institutions, and sooner or later, some of them are going to say, "It's not worth it," and get rid of football (like many of the smaller state schools in California have already done).

 

[IdaGriz01]

I'm a member of the National Football Foundation and a recent email I got from them showed that the number of colleges playing football is going up, not down. But I agree with the general thought that eventually, stakeholders (students and taxpayers) are going to get tired of paying for something (athletics in general, football in particular) that is not an essential part of the mission of the institution.

I think you'll continue to see the BCS schools that take in more money than some small countries' GNP play football and basketball -- why not, it's not costing them anything? And I think you'll continue to see a lot of small, liberal arts colleges that play Division III (non-scholarship) football, because the costs are low, the program focus is in context and they are attracting students who are paying $30 K to $40 K in tuition with a relatively cheap enticement.

But the schools in-between, especially state-run schools, are going to have more and more difficult times justifying attempts at "big-time football." Idaho, for example, just got lectured by the State Board Chairman when the Vandals came to the board to ask for permission to go independent. Among other things, he told them, "Don't come back here looking for state money." Idaho already has a fixed limit on the amount of state money its schools can spend on athletics, and it's very difficult for the universities to justify raising student fees for athletics when the economy is so bad, and costs continue to rise for other, more-academically oriented purposes.

Football is not part of the "core mission" of these institutions, and sooner or later, some of them are going to say, "It's not worth it," and get rid of football (like many of the smaller state schools in California have already done).

First, I find it a bit odd that the number of football programs programs is on the rise. Does anyone offer an explanation?

But other than that, thanks for your input. I totally agree that it's the "mid-level" programs that are at the greatest risk. They don't offer the results (winning and playing in significant bowls) to attract major TV money and contributions. Conversely, they incur the higher costs associated with trying to compete at that level -- large, generally higher-paid coaching staffs; heftier recruiting budgets; fancier facilities, and so on. It seems unlikely that the situation can continue. (But I have no idea how it might finally shake out.)