Thursday, March 04, 2010
Student Demand for College Sports
Funding has dried up for a lot of things in the Great Recession, including college sports programs. At Cal State San Marcos, the most recent addition to the UC system, students recently voted on a measure to increase their fees from $80 to $200 per year to support their fledgling intercollegiate athletics program. CSUSM is an interesting case. This is a campus in which the prospects are remote for a major college football team, or even a basketball squad seeded 64th in the NCAA tourney. The revenues generated by the fee increase would apparently add $1.2 million to a current budget of $1.7 million. This looks like a significant step up in funding for a very small program of intercollegiate athletics. I assume that the students who voted had a decent sense that what they were voting for was to better fund a small-time program, rather than an entry into the major college sports landscape. Turnout was not large: about 1300 out of 9200 students voted, with 866 supporting the proposal. The immediate consequence would appear to be the formation of men's and women's basketball teams.
Roger Noll once made the observation that sports on campus must be demand driven, ultimately, and not just the result of a conspiracy among boosters, coaches, and board members. After all, boosters and million-dollar coaches are nowhere to be found at small private colleges, which operate in an unsubsidized, competitive market. Yet small colleges compete for students, in part, by spending a significant (5%) chunk of revenue on small-time intercollegiate sports. If reallocating this expenditure yielded a better crop of applicants, you'd expect to see that choice made.
Student votes are taking place at a number of institutions in the current environment, and not all of the sports-funding initiatives are winning. Students at Long Beach State, for example, rejected a $190 per year increase in fees that would have covered "rising costs, cuts, and a new soccer-track stadium." My sense is that Long Beach is a commuter school, and soccer and track don't exactly "galvanize the community." That package seems a tough sell.
Here's the story on CSUSM, with a brief discussion of other fee-based sports funding proposals around the country.
(Note: The original post confused CSU San Marcos with UC Merced, which I attribute to my pre-6am reading and posting on the story. Thanks to CM Gayley for the correction.
Roger Noll once made the observation that sports on campus must be demand driven, ultimately, and not just the result of a conspiracy among boosters, coaches, and board members. After all, boosters and million-dollar coaches are nowhere to be found at small private colleges, which operate in an unsubsidized, competitive market. Yet small colleges compete for students, in part, by spending a significant (5%) chunk of revenue on small-time intercollegiate sports. If reallocating this expenditure yielded a better crop of applicants, you'd expect to see that choice made.
Student votes are taking place at a number of institutions in the current environment, and not all of the sports-funding initiatives are winning. Students at Long Beach State, for example, rejected a $190 per year increase in fees that would have covered "rising costs, cuts, and a new soccer-track stadium." My sense is that Long Beach is a commuter school, and soccer and track don't exactly "galvanize the community." That package seems a tough sell.
Here's the story on CSUSM, with a brief discussion of other fee-based sports funding proposals around the country.
(Note: The original post confused CSU San Marcos with UC Merced, which I attribute to my pre-6am reading and posting on the story. Thanks to CM Gayley for the correction.
Labels: college sports, NCAA
Sunday, November 22, 2009
I'll Have What He's Having: Curious Contract Provisions in the NCAA
The job of a sports agent is to get the best contract terms for his/her client. The best/most notorious is Scott Boras, famous for his reputation of being a tough negotiator for baseball players. His newly-drafted clients have no qualms about saying "no," even if that means sitting out an entire season of minor league baseball. The willingness and ability to say "no" is one of the most important determinants of absolute bargaining power. It helps when there are numerous independent leagues, good substitutes where Boras clients like Arizona's Max Scherzer can continue to hone their craft while negotiations are ongoiong.
Perhaps Neil Cornrich, who represents embattled Kansas football coach Mark Mangino, should be mentioned in the same breath as Mr. Boras in terms of uber-valuable sports agents.
Perhaps Neil Cornrich, who represents embattled Kansas football coach Mark Mangino, should be mentioned in the same breath as Mr. Boras in terms of uber-valuable sports agents.
If the Kansas athletic department’s investigation into KU coach Mark Mangino’s treatment of players results in the school firing Mangino for cause, that decision could spark a battle for more than $6 million, according to Mangino’s contract.Mangino would be given a 21-day window after his firing to submit a written appeal of his termination to either KU chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little or athletic director Lew Perkins. The appeal would be reviewed by a three-person committee appointed by Gray-Little, comprised of faculty or professional staff employees, one selected by Gray-Little, one selected by Mangino and one agreed upon by both parties. Mangino would have the right to attend committee meetings and have legal counsel.
Two of the three committee members would have to rule in favor of the school to uphold the termination for cause. In that case, Mangino would be paid only what he is owed through the date of termination. But if the committee ruled in favor of Mangino, turning the termination for cause into a termination without cause, Mangino would be owed $6.6 million — the remainder of his contract ($2 million per year for three years plus a buyout in the range of $600,000). KU would also have the option of reinstating Mangino as coach.
The following brought forth my inner Spock when it caused me to raise an eyebrow:
Mangino would be given a 21-day window after his firing to submit a written appeal of his termination to either KU chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little or athletic director Lew Perkins. The appeal would be reviewed by a three-person committee appointed by Gray-Little, comprised of faculty or professional staff employees, one selected by Gray-Little, one selected by Mangino and one agreed upon by both parties. Mangino would have the right to attend committee meetings and have legal counsel.
Two of the three committee members would have to rule in favor of the school to uphold the termination for cause. In that case, Mangino would be paid only what he is owed through the date of termination. But if the committee ruled in favor of Mangino, turning the termination for cause into a termination without cause, Mangino would be owed $6.6 million — the remainder of his contract ($2 million per year for three years plus a buyout in the range of $600,000). KU would also have the option of reinstating Mangino as coach.
You could argue that Self is such a good coach, so confident in his ability, and such a known commodity that the value of extra-protective language is negligible to Self.
Yet the article ends by noting that another one of Cornrich's clients is former Kansas State University football coach Ron Prince, he of the super-secret $3.2 million in deferred payments, something that rightly rankles much of Wildcat Nation.
Once again, as with Mangino, Prince may have had more value from such an agreement than a coach of Self's stature. But bargaining is a two-way street. It takes two to tango. Pick your cliche. Any language has to be mutually agreeable to both sides to appear in a final contract.
Kansas State, when it gave Prince his extension, knew that he was a new coach and hadn't exactly been tearing up the North Division of the Big XII. Likewise, Kansas was well-aware that Mangino's reputation was not one of a jolly old elf.
Considering that Prince was fired shortly after signing a contract extension and that Mangino also recently signed his own extension, what in the blue blazes is going on with coach negotiations in northeastern Kansas FBS athletics?
Labels: bargaining, college sports, NCAA; college sports; football; coaching salaries
Monday, November 17, 2008
Active bidding for BCS TV rights
The story is pitched as "first major sports event goes to cable," but for me the real information is in the size of the bids:
On Monday afternoon, current rights-holder Fox Sports notified the BCS Group that it wouldn't match an offer from ESPN for a rights package that will begin in 2011. Fox Sports is in the middle of a four-year deal for the BCS Championship as well as the Orange Bowl, Sugar Bowl and Fiesta Bowl.That's a 51.5% increase folks. Perhaps it's a sign that we'll avoid economic armageddon after all.
ESPN had offered $500 million for four years, compared to Fox Sports' $400 million. Even Fox's offer is still up compared to the current rights deal, which pays $330 million.
Labels: college sports, demand for sports, media
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Title IX Grim Reaper
A follow-up to Phil Miller's May 13 post, Arizona State Eliminates Three Sports. When I saw this, I wondered what lay behind the decision. Past investigation and observation suggested three possible explanations:
1) The university decision makers are in a budget pinch. They overestimate the savings from dropping a sport by using budgetary "costs" that include fixed (often sunk) costs that won't change if the sport is dropped.
2) The decision makers understand #1 but are using this strategically to make athletics appear as if it is "sharing the pain" of budget cuts more than it is. This might come about at the top administrative level or because of transfer prices to the athletic departments are set in a way which creates the incentive to reflect budget "costs" rather than actual costs savings.
3) Title IX goals are creating the incentive to cut men's sports.
I have seen #1 in action at my institution many years ago, and possibly #2 in action just recently in the dropping of men's soccer (although it maybe #3). I was not inclined to suspect #3 in the Arizona State because much of the Title IX reshuffling at schools like ASU already took place in the 1990s. A column, however, in the Arizona Republic (Title IX Headlock -- pointer from Saving Sports blog) pulls no punches:
1) The university decision makers are in a budget pinch. They overestimate the savings from dropping a sport by using budgetary "costs" that include fixed (often sunk) costs that won't change if the sport is dropped.
2) The decision makers understand #1 but are using this strategically to make athletics appear as if it is "sharing the pain" of budget cuts more than it is. This might come about at the top administrative level or because of transfer prices to the athletic departments are set in a way which creates the incentive to reflect budget "costs" rather than actual costs savings.
3) Title IX goals are creating the incentive to cut men's sports.
I have seen #1 in action at my institution many years ago, and possibly #2 in action just recently in the dropping of men's soccer (although it maybe #3). I was not inclined to suspect #3 in the Arizona State because much of the Title IX reshuffling at schools like ASU already took place in the 1990s. A column, however, in the Arizona Republic (Title IX Headlock -- pointer from Saving Sports blog) pulls no punches:
Yes, the decision to eliminate men's wrestling, swimming and tennis is a reflection of the state's free-falling revenues. Facing a $3.4 million deficit, eliminating the three programs will save ASU $350,000. Budget cuts, of course, are necessary for all enterprises that must meet a bottom line, and the programs headed by Lisa Love, the ASU athletic director, are no different. But the choices that left ASU with eight men's programs and 12 for women were forced on the university as much by federal requirements regarding proportional resource allocation for men and women - Title IX, in other words - as by the need to cut spending. Given the extraordinary impact - both good and bad, by the way - that Title IX has had on college sports, it is irresponsible to pretend that elephant isn't there.As part of the story, it does come out that ASU is engaging in some of #2. By the schools statement in Phil's post, they would save $1.1 million. By the Republic's figuring, this is more like $350,000, which lines up with studies of athletic accounting that I have done. For goodness sakes, the school is not filling in the pool or building a new structure on the tennis courts. The wrestling mats and facility -- well, they will be continue to rented to a local group.
Labels: college sports, Title IX
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Arizona State Eliminates Three Sports
A quick note: Arizona State has eliminated three sports.
Labels: college sports, NCAA, Title IX
Monday, March 24, 2008
Eight per cent
The latest estimate of the applications bump from winning the national title in college football or (men's) basketball is 8 per cent. A top twenty-type finish is worth 2 to 3 per cent. The systematic analysis is in a paper by Devin Pope and Jaren Pope, forthcoming in the Southern Economic Journal.
I always find the anecdotal cases in this subject area informative (I last blogged about this with regard to Rutgers football). This is from the AP story on the paper by Dena Potter, "Schools Score Big When Sports Teams Win:"
For the record, here is the abstract from Pope and Pope's paper:
I always find the anecdotal cases in this subject area informative (I last blogged about this with regard to Rutgers football). This is from the AP story on the paper by Dena Potter, "Schools Score Big When Sports Teams Win:"
For George Mason University, just outside Washington, the positive effects of its unlikely Final Four appearance two years ago were wide-reaching.Potter wrongly states that the evidence was "mostly anecdotal" prior to Pope and Pope, who make no such claim, but that's par for the course I guess. Potter is right to emphasize that the applications boost is temporary (absent any additional investment to capitalize on the increased awareness). Once on the NCAA treadmill, always on the treadmill. Unless you are Chicago.
In addition to increases in fundraising, attendance at games and other benefits, freshman applications increased 22 percent the year after the team made its magical run. The percentage of out-of-state freshmen jumped from 17 percent to 25 percent, and admissions inquiries rose 350 percent, said Robert Baker, director of George Mason's Center for Sport Management who conducted a study called "The Business of Being Cinderella."
Baker also found that SAT scores went up by 25 points in the freshman class, and retention rates as freshmen moved into their sophomore year increased more than 2 percentage points.
"You will certainly have critics who say it would have happened anyway, but I think the general consensus is that it happened faster because of this and that it allowed this university to reach new heights more quickly," Baker said.
Gonzaga was virtually unknown in most parts of the country until it broke into the national tournament in the mid-'90s. The Zags have been in the tournament every year since 1999, and during that time enrollment has grown from just over 4,500 to nearly 7,000, said Dale Goodwin, a university spokesman.
Inquiries have jumped from about 20,000 per year to 50,000, and the Spokane, Wash., school attracts students from eastern states where it doesn't recruit.
"There's no other way they would have heard about Gonzaga," Goodwin said.
The study found that private schools saw even larger increases than public universities.
For the record, here is the abstract from Pope and Pope's paper:
Many analysts question the role of college sports within higher education. However, one hypothesized benefit of high-profile college sports is that they can influence college choice decisions. Empirical studies that have analyzed the impact of a school’s athletic success on the quantity of student applications and the average quality of those students have produced mixed results. This study uses two unique datasets to shed additional light on the indirect benefits that sports success provides to NCAA Division I schools. Key findings include: (i) football and basketball success significantly increase the quantity of applications to a school, with estimates ranging from 2-8% for the top 20 football schools and the top 16 basketball schools each year; (ii) the extra applications received are composed of both low and high SAT scoring students, thus providing potential for schools to improve their admission outcomes, and (iii) schools exploit these increases in applications by increasing both the number and the quality of incoming students.Update: The link to the Pope and Pope paper has been changed to a more recent version.
Labels: academia, college sports, NCAA
Sunday, March 16, 2008
The Madness Grows
Selection Sunday has arrived. By nightfall the field of 65 teams that will participate in the spectacle known as the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament will be revealed. The much-discussed “bubble” will burst.
In the olden days, those left out of the field of 65 would skulk off to the National Invitational Tournament (NIT) for a couple of additional home games and, if they shake off the disappointment of missing the Big Dance and play well, a potential trip to Madison Square Garden for the NIT finals. Those days are gone. The 2007-2008 college basketball season features a new entrant into the post-season men’s basketball tournament market, the College Basketball Invitational, a sixteen team elimination tournament sponsored by the Gazelle Group, a sport consulting firm that organizes several early-season college basketball tournaments like the College Hoops Classic in November.
The College Basketball Invitational has a television contract, albeit with Fox College Sports which is available on cable television providers that have roughly 46 million subscribers (I have no idea if the Fox Sports Channel is part of the basic cable package on these providers). The games will be played at on-campus sites, and the championship “series” consists of three games in a home-away-home format to be played on March 31st, April 2nd and April 4th (if necessary). The addition of the College Basketball Invitational means that 113 Division I men’s basketball teams will participate in some sort of postseason tournament this season.
The existence of a new entrant in this market raises some interesting economic questions. This tournament is in direct competition for teams with the NIT, and it will be interesting to see if it is able to induce any teams to defect from the NIT field in the first year. I have no idea what sort of payouts are made by the NIT to participating schools, but they are likely larger than those offered by this start-up tourney. The winner of the College Basketball Invitational could host up to five additional post-season basketball games which could generate substantial additional revenues, if there is demand for tickets. The long-run viability of any new entrant into a sports market is inevitably tied to television revenues, so the value of the television contract with Fox College Sports will likely have a large impact on the long-run viability of the College Basketball Invitational. It will be interesting to see if it can survive. Anyone interested in joining a CBI pool?
In the olden days, those left out of the field of 65 would skulk off to the National Invitational Tournament (NIT) for a couple of additional home games and, if they shake off the disappointment of missing the Big Dance and play well, a potential trip to Madison Square Garden for the NIT finals. Those days are gone. The 2007-2008 college basketball season features a new entrant into the post-season men’s basketball tournament market, the College Basketball Invitational, a sixteen team elimination tournament sponsored by the Gazelle Group, a sport consulting firm that organizes several early-season college basketball tournaments like the College Hoops Classic in November.
The College Basketball Invitational has a television contract, albeit with Fox College Sports which is available on cable television providers that have roughly 46 million subscribers (I have no idea if the Fox Sports Channel is part of the basic cable package on these providers). The games will be played at on-campus sites, and the championship “series” consists of three games in a home-away-home format to be played on March 31st, April 2nd and April 4th (if necessary). The addition of the College Basketball Invitational means that 113 Division I men’s basketball teams will participate in some sort of postseason tournament this season.
The existence of a new entrant in this market raises some interesting economic questions. This tournament is in direct competition for teams with the NIT, and it will be interesting to see if it is able to induce any teams to defect from the NIT field in the first year. I have no idea what sort of payouts are made by the NIT to participating schools, but they are likely larger than those offered by this start-up tourney. The winner of the College Basketball Invitational could host up to five additional post-season basketball games which could generate substantial additional revenues, if there is demand for tickets. The long-run viability of any new entrant into a sports market is inevitably tied to television revenues, so the value of the television contract with Fox College Sports will likely have a large impact on the long-run viability of the College Basketball Invitational. It will be interesting to see if it can survive. Anyone interested in joining a CBI pool?
Labels: college sports, intercollegiate athletic success, television
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
UGA Wants a Playoff
The Georgia Bulldogs were the hottest team in college football at the end of the season this year, and will finish second in the AP poll behind LSU. Perhaps they could have done better in a playoff system. Certainly, the BCS process led to a series of weird match-ups in the bowls, with teams like Missouri, Southern Cal, and Georgia -- all strong teams with great resumes -- paired against relatively weak opponents. Things would have been much different in a playoff system, probably to Georgia's benefit. Which may explain this open letter from Georgia President Michael Adams to NCAA President Myles Brand:
Adams' take changes my view of this issue - (I'm an advocate of league championships as being the focal point rather than playoffs, but the reality is that we will have some form of playoff, so I've been baying at the moon...). Moreover, the salaries paid to the bowl directors -- $490,000 for the Outback Bowl!!! --- suggest that the colleges are leaving money on the table in a system which is fraught with conflicting interests. While history provides many episodes that make one skeptical of NCAA coordination, there is clearly scope for improvement on the current setup. Let the negotiations begin!
In recent years ... I have become increasingly troubled about the commercial influence of how the college football season is played out, particularly with the post season bowls. The television networks ... have grown too powerful in deciding who plays and when they play, and indeed, whom they hire to coach. The BCS has become a beauty contest largely stage-managed by the networks....Adams is proposing an NCAA-managed 8-team tournament that begins with the New Years Day bowls, to be accompanied by a return to an 11 game season. Adams is the chair of the NCAA executive committee, so this proposal - and the money that will flow from it - carries some weight. Here is Adams' letter to Brand, and a similar statement of the issue.
Colleges need to regain ownership of their football teams.... reorienting the national football championship is an important step in managing a model that benefits students, institutions, and our constituents.
Adams' take changes my view of this issue - (I'm an advocate of league championships as being the focal point rather than playoffs, but the reality is that we will have some form of playoff, so I've been baying at the moon...). Moreover, the salaries paid to the bowl directors -- $490,000 for the Outback Bowl!!! --- suggest that the colleges are leaving money on the table in a system which is fraught with conflicting interests. While history provides many episodes that make one skeptical of NCAA coordination, there is clearly scope for improvement on the current setup. Let the negotiations begin!
Labels: college football, college sports, NCAA
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Coaches vs. Governors: Coaches in a Landslide!
The Kansas City Star has compiled a list of each state's governor's salary and the highest paid head coaches in that state. The coaches win 49-1 with Alaska being the only state where the coach is not paid more than the governor.
Labels: coaching salaries, college sports
