OT: Lavish College (football) athletic facilities out of control?

Submitted by StephenRKass on

There's a paywalled article in yesterday's Chicago Trib about college athletic facilities being out of control. The poster child for the article is Clemson. Thankfully, Michigan gets nary a mention.

On the one hand, it sounds like sour grapes from some reporter with another agenda. We're in a free market, after all. Boosters and colleges can spend money however they want.

On the other hand, some of this stuff seems over the top. To wit,

The people in charge of Clemson University's athletic department have not settled on a design for the miniature golf course they are building for their football team, but they know it will have just nine holes, not 18. That will leave room for the sand volleyball courts, laser tag, movie theater, bowling lanes, barber shop and other amenities planned in the $55 million complex that South Carolina's second-largest public university is building exclusively for its football players.

And again,

Clemson, whose undefeated Tigers are one of four teams in this year's College Football Playoff, is building a football complex with an aspect school officials tout will be the first of its kind: a "players' village" entertainment wing with attractions more commonly seen in arcades and theme parks than on college campuses. "I am pumped," Coach William "Dabo" Swinney said in a video the school released promoting the new building. "It is going to be the epitome of Clemson: fun, special, unique. It's going to be the best in the country, without a doubt."

Of course, the writer lines up the required opposition quote, a guy named Gurney who heads up the "Drake group." (never heard of them).

Clemson's new facility likely will be the best for just a matter of months, critics of college sports said, until the next school decides to transform a corner of its campus into what Drake Group President Gerald Gurney terms "day spas" designed to entice teenagers. "This is all about pandering to the fantasies of 18-year-olds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the mission of a university," said Gurney, whose organization advocates an overhaul of commercialized college sports in America. "What's probably next down the line is a floating river attraction. ... Why don't we have a roller coaster?" said Gurney, who has worked in athletic departments at the University of Maryland and the University of Oklahoma, where he now teaches. "It's embarrassing that we're even discussing this."

What do you think? I guess I don't have a problem with Universities opting to have great facilities for their athletes. Food, weight training, medical facilities, rehab, indoor fields, locker rooms, academic study facilities, all make sense to me. But does there come a point where it really is just wretched excess?

To be fair, college campuses have changed a lot since the time I was a student in the 70's. Crummy dorm food, lack of air conditioning, few amenities, are a thing of the past, I guess. But I don't know what the future holds, and for sports teams, how much is too much. Something seems out of kilter.

bronxblue

December 23rd, 2015 at 1:30 PM ^

Considering the vast majority of athletic departments rely on student contributions to cover expenses, it's annoying to read about them also spending millions of facilities that are used by a couple of students.  I get that it's an arms race, but unless Dabo is going to pay off a couple of the students' loans if Clemson wins it all, it sure seems like a one-way relationship here.

kehnonymous

December 23rd, 2015 at 2:58 PM ^

While you might be right about Harbaugh vehemently being opposed to a miniature golf course in Schembechler Hall, this is the same dude who corpse camped a 10 year old kid in laser tag so I could very easily see him wanting to do same to a second-string lineman who isn't keeping up in practice.

jsquigg

December 23rd, 2015 at 4:02 PM ^

A mini golf course?  Other entertainment?  Bo would roll over in his grave.  The road to success is paved with hard work.  No pain, no gain.  Wouldn't be surprised to see future Clemson teams win the talent battles but lose the war on the field.

trueblueintexas

December 23rd, 2015 at 4:39 PM ^

AD's complain about students not showing up to support their fellow students playing for the school's team. At what point is the football program no longer really part of the school? If the players spend 80%+ of their time in football only facilities, the only place athletes and non-athlete students intersect is in the classroom. There is not that much interaction taking place during class. Basically you have an athletic organization associated with a school in location and name only. Throw in the reality that students have to pay to get into the game and the argument to go just isn't that compelling unless you are really into sports to begin with. So much for using those 4-5 years to be building the loyal fan base of the future.