Excess = Success: College Football in 2012

In the wake of the Penn State scandal and tragedy is the all-too-obvious-truth-we-choose-to-avoid: college football is out of control. While we can only hope and pray that the specifics of the Penn State scandal are isolated, the root causes—win-at-all-costs coaches and administrators, excessive program buildup, and exorbitant spending—are evident from sea to shining sea. As consumers of college football, we have been all too willing to look the other way.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/mensclubvolleyball/psulogo.JPG

While there has always been a separation between the have and have-nots in college football, this distinction was given a name as the BCS-era came to the forefront: BCS conference schools and non-BCS conference schools. This label increased in importance as the profile of college football grew to billion-dollar proportions. As television allegiances grew more lucrative, once obscure conference commissioners became power-brokers sent by university presidents to secure the most lucrative deal for their conference. The marriage of the SEC and CBS, the birth of the BigTen Network, and the ownership of almost all of the bowl games by ESPN are all just samples of these dealings. As non-BCS schools like Utah, TCU, and Boise State burst through their limitations and played in BCS games, these distinctions became even more important. The revenue discrepancy between BCS and non-BCS is laughable. While top programs like Utah and TCU (during the Mountain West Conference years) were pulling in a spartan $1 million per year from their TV contract, doormats in the SEC and Big Ten could anticipate upwards of $10 million flowing into their coffers. That being said, the lack of equity between non-BCS and BCS schools is not the problem with college football, it is the fact that programs see excessive spending as a necessity.

(It is worth mentioning that Utah and TCU abandoned the MWC for the Pac-12 and Big XII, respectively. Why? Because it was the best move for the program, i.e. money.)

State-of-the-art practice, study, film, and medical facilities are the standard now. Add to that bigger stadiums complete with high-tech locker rooms and press box facilities. College football suffers from a “keeping up with the Joneses” mentality. Take the University of Utah for example, the Pac-12’s newest member. The conference exodus and rebirth brought a lot of changes, one of which was the need for a $30 million practice/football facility. The Deseret News headline regarding the new building branded it as a "missing piece." To quote the article:

The new football facility, which will be attached to the Alex Smith Strength and Conditioning Room, is going to house state-of-the-art sports medicine and athletic training space, a multipurpose dining hall, a team locker room, offices for the coaches and support staff, equipment storage, a player lounge, a Hall of Fame, a team auditorium with space for 150 athletes and coaches, plus meeting rooms for each position group with enhanced video capabilities.

"Going into the Pac-12, it's an all-out arms race," Whittingham said. "Everybody is building the bigger and better buildings, and we've got to keep up with everybody."

The new facility, he added, was the selling point in recruiting this year. Football recruits are shown a building model and drawings of what is expected to be in place well before the 2012 season.

Clearly, there was no discussion within the athletic department whether the new facility was truly needed or not. If Utah wants to play with the big boys, they have to spend like them. It is worthy of note that Utah has not technically become a full-member of the Pac-12 from a TV revenue standpoint. In fact, just for the opportunity to play in the Pac-12, Utah was willing to forego receiving any Pac-12 television revenue in 2011 (50% will be allocated in 2012, 75% in 2013, and 100% in 2014). 

An astute Utah fan that points out that Utah made more revenue off of the Pac-12 championship game than what they ever made during a year as a member of the MWC is missing the point. Utah does not have the money, yet they are spending like they do. Why? Because the feeling is that if you want to have a successful football program, you must spend.
  
(In a statistics class I took, I ran a regression looking for the relationship between college football spending and number of wins based on teams' 2009 records. My analysis did not include coaches salaries or other expenses. I found that for every additional million dollars that a team spent on its football program in 2009, they achieved .243 extra wins. Essentially, that extra million a school poured into their football program helped them win one quarter of a football game. To say the least, while the relationship between spending and winning is positive, it is a fairly small positive. I don't think any rational human being would think that spending an extra million is worth that great 3rd quarter against UCLA.) 
 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765582277/Utah-footballs-fancy-trailer-park.html?pg=all

Construction on that aforementioned practice facility will take a year. As we all know, college football does not take any days off--it's become a year-round affair. To accommodate the offseason day-to-day operations of the program, the University has set up a 26-trailer complex. Good old college football. I wonder what a temporary trailer park costs and what are the opportunity costs of a temporary trailer park? Was that even factored into the decision-making process when they discussed the idea of a building a small city?



During the 1999 NBA Lockout, Patrick Ewing infamously stated: "Sure, NBA players make a lot of money, but we spend a lot too." This pithy saying has, unintentionally, become the axiom by which athletic departments direct their college football programs. In order for college football programs to survive at their current spending trajectory, they have to make that much money. If college football programs were allowed to fail, the headlines would be riddled with stories of broke athletic departments and all of the foolish investments they made. Stories not unlike the headline grabbing tales of professional athletes excesses and their empty bank accounts.


Are we fine with this? 

http://bcsknowhow.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ncaa-football-logo.jpg

Noted national columnists Dan Wetzel and Jason Whitlock have used the Penn St tragedy as a time to point out the foundational problems that exist in college football. Wetzel wrote of the hypocrisy of the NCAA that was embodied by the do-nothing regime of Graham Spanier, ex-President of Penn St. Spanier was quick to disgrace an athlete and agent for a $400 suit and willing sit on his hands as Jerry Sandusky preyed on defenseless children. Jason Whitlock explained how society has made college football into something that is "too big to fail." Bigger isn't necessarily better. We, as a society, have accepted that college football is all about the money. Meanwhile, the NCAA, college presidents, conference commissioners and athletic departments hide behind the guise of amateurism and the "student-athlete" even as they too have accepted that it is all about the money. As long as there are tax breaks to be had, this charade will be forced upon our national intelligence.




I love college football. I look forward to it each and every autumn. However, college football has a lot of problems and I cannot stand back, idly by, and watch while college football becomes "too big to fail." Change will not come unless it is, as Whitlock put it, "brought down to a manageable size". Even Whitlock admits, though, that he is "spitting into the wind...[and] There is no chance of college football dialing back." Even something as horrific as what took place at Penn St. will likely do little to alter the culture of college football. Coaches will still make too much money. Conference commissioners will still wield too much power. Football programs will still excessively spend millions of dollars. Bowl executives will still pull in six-figure incomes for doing relatively nothing. Programs will still operate in the red. Players and agents will still break arcane NCAA regulations. Fans will still show up in droves.

As presently constituted and constructed by society, I do not think there is any institution or group of people that can hold college football accountable. The paper tiger that is the NCAA has proven futile in enforcing any sort of order in the sport. I do not think I am the only one who thinks that big-time college coaches, athletic directors, and conference commissioners scoff whenever the NCAA  flexes its measly muscles. The only way fans could enforce their will is to stop showing up (that will never happen, unless there is a way for every team to start losing). As long as fans show up and revenue keeps rolling in, there is no incentive for anyone in a leadership position to impose order. The only way to fix college football is change its structure dramatically, i.e. number of games played, compensation, etc.


That all being said, if those in power truly used the interests of the student-athlete rather than money as their guiding principle, the change would come naturally. As for now and heretofore, Money wins.