OT: Lavish College (football) athletic facilities out of control?
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.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:21 AM ^
It's not like this with just athletics. Institutions are always building, always growing, always expanding, always constructing. Whatever is bringing in revenue will be catered to. This guy just chose to look at the athetics, which is fine. But take a look at any college campus in 2005, and go visit it now, and it will look vastly different.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
It's not just the athletic facilities. You should see some of the new rec centers around the country.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:27 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:44 AM ^
Great post.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:41 AM ^
There was a good quote in the Washington Post article on this topic:
Some collegiate players now enjoy facilities superior to those offered by some professional teams. Florida State and the University of Florida have indoor football practice facilities. The NFL’s Jacksonville Jaguars do not. Asked about this, Leider noted a significant difference between professional and college sports.
“When you can pay a player, that changes the equation,” Leider said. “Just look at [Arizona Diamondbacks pitcher] Zack Greinke: He just signed for $200 million. I’ll bet the quality of the locker room isn’t that big a deal for him.”
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:32 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:33 AM ^
is really just another toy of the wealthy now. That's just the sad truth.
Don't think so, ask yourself where Michigan Football, or for that matter, Michigan Athletics would be without Mr. Ross's contributions.
In return for those contributions the big money guys expect a level of control and access to programs. They become defacto professional sports franchise owners.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:34 AM ^
And schools complain there isn't enouch money to pay the players...
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:42 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:50 AM ^
College athletics are not a free market - they're teams representing academic, non-profit institutions (some of them public) using unpaid labor. The ridiculous 'facilities arms race' is a byproduct of this. Thats what these schools spend money on instead of the players.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:52 AM ^
Yep, I don't know what paid player system would look like, but I think something needs to change. I'd like to see parents of players receive some kind of travel vouchers to see their kids play. And football players (and other athletes, for that matter) are so busy, there's no time for a paying job on the side. Really, being on the team is work in and of itself, and some kind of compensation (beyond tuition, room, board, books, and fees) should be out there.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:19 AM ^
But in terms of competition, this is a free market I guess. There's def no regulations on this type of spending and NCAA does nothing to level the playing field between schools like Michigan/Clemson and Akron or San Jose St. Maybe it is a free market - just a really warped one.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:06 AM ^
An example of a paid model for years. There isn't one that solves problems and doesn't involve the top few programs with a recruiting advantage so big that the college game would be unrecognizable.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:50 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:55 AM ^
I was looking at taking some online classes, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay the same $400+ per credit hour as a regular class would cost. Online courses should cost 1/3 as much as classes held in a physical building.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
I completely agree the whole system is broken. Half the reason my daughter is an Aegis Computer Network Technician in the Navy is because they're giving her a ton for college costs. We didn't have the money for her to go to a great school, and she didn't want to rack up ridiculous college debt. It is crazy that 35 years ago, I could make enough money in a summer and school year to pay for everything . . . tuition, room, board, books, and spending money. And some of the luxuries (from my perspective) at colleges are just catering to pampered brats growing up with silver spoons in their mouths.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:17 PM ^
I completely agree the whole system is broken. Half the reason my daughter is an Aegis Computer Network Technician in the Navy is because they're giving her a ton for college costs. We didn't have the money for her to go to a great school, and she didn't want to rack up ridiculous college debt. It is crazy that 35 years ago, I could make enough money in a summer and school year to pay for everything . . . tuition, room, board, books, and spending money. And some of the luxuries (from my perspective) at colleges are just catering to pampered brats growing up with silver spoons in their mouths.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:48 PM ^
To keep her security clearance current through college and she'll be in position to care for you financially over your lifespan. Gynormous issue nowadays in highly-paid, US-only-sourceable work is acquiring and maintaining topspec military-level security clearances. With AEGIS, she's platinum.
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:53 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 8:57 AM ^
Nope, we don't. The athletic facilties and academic support facilities can be top of the line. Weight rooms, rehab facilities, training table, practice fields, tutors, study facilities, housing, can all be great. But the entertainment stuff is nonsense.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:56 AM ^
It's a balance between recruiting good players and making your team soft. I feel like Brady Hoke was too far towards the former but then Ohio state has a lavish facility with lots of 5 stars and they win a lot without getting entitled.
December 23rd, 2015 at 6:31 PM ^
I dunno, they played pretty soft and entitled all year long until after MSU beat them and kept them out of the playoffs.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
How in R kelly's piss stains will the players have even remotely enough time to concentrate on their course load while they are out ridin' coasters and gettin' fades at the barber shop on top of their lifting, practices and meetings?
I only played soccer - read: SOCCER, not even football - and it was hard enough to weigh studies with practice, games and lifting.
We dont need this shit.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:12 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:13 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:15 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:14 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:24 AM ^
As a tax exempt entity, Michigan is not free to do as it pleases with the profits from Michigan Football.
The last I checked, Michigan Football was bringing in $85 million annually in revenue on $25 million in costs for a $60 million annual profit. Where that $60 million is forced to go (a good portion parked in Taj Mahal non-revenue facilities) should be the focus of the story.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:30 AM ^
I expect Michigan to have state of the art FOOTBALL AND EDUCATIONAL facilities and capabilities. The arcades and mini golf course are not classy and are not Michigan, if you ask me.
Hopefully Michigan will beat out the Clemsons for the Rahan Garys who are both great football players and actually care about academics and great football coaching. I'm confident that people like Harbaugh, Hackett (or a strong replacement) and Schlissel will do just that.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:33 AM ^
Depends what type of college it is. I agree it's shameful if it's a place like Maryland that heavily subsidizes their program. If it's funded by it's own athletic department, it's fine. If we don't do it and a place like Ohio Stateor PSU do it, then we're in a big disadvantage.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:38 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 23rd, 2015 at 5:19 PM ^
The Lavish "Ascots" vs the Frugal "Bugles"
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:44 AM ^
Since they can't pay the players, this is all an end-around way of "paying" them. Give them a lot of stuff they would typically pay for themselves as part of their facilities environment.
It's a clever solution to a dumb problem. If they spent the money on paying players some spending money, they would not need to go through this charade.
Talk about isolation . . . players will never even step foot on the regular university campus. They'll go four (three) years without ever leaving the athletic campus bubble.
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:45 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:49 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 9:51 AM ^
I'd say this is a good argument for not paying the players. They already get thousands of dollars in tuition money, training, food, housing, coaching, miniature golf etc. along with the new stipend. They don't get paid directly but make bank based on the net value of everything they receive free of cost.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:33 AM ^
Alabama had seven guys drafted last year. At least one didn't make a team and appears to be out of the league already. They signed 25 new recruits to replace their departures.
Average salary in the CFL is about $80K and in the Arena League it is under $50K and most guys have a second job (with the same short average span as the NFL).
For the overwhelming majority of college football players, getting a free education and room&board (plus the perks mentioned in the article as well as the increased name recognition and the job opportunities that can come with that) ends up being a vastly superior deal to what they would receive on the open market, even at the supposed football factories.
December 23rd, 2015 at 1:31 PM ^
College football needs at least 50 players for a competitive squad (and that's probably low, but we'll go with it; it's similar to the NFL). You need starters, reasonable backups for injuries and resting, special teamers, and a few developmental players. You need to be able to practice in full.
Thus, Alabama needs all 50 guys (not just the 7 NFL guys) in order to generate the $100 million in revenue their annual championship contending team requires. All 50+ guys have value.
So, beyond those 7 guys, there will be a market for the other 43(if we truly opened it up to copmetition). Alabama (unless they have Tom Brady, I suppose) can't just say "We'll keep the sure-fire NFL guys and for the remainder, we'll take anyone else off the street."
Alabama would compete for those non-NFL types with OSU, UM, Texas, etc and drive up those players' value. You could pay each of those 43 players, $200k/year, and still only be at $8.6 million. You think Alabama wouldn't spend that to keep achieving 11+ win seasons? They'd probably easily spend double or triple that, if unconstrained.
I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. A player's value is not just what he could earn in other "business" (e.g., NFL; CFL) but also his worth to the business he's in (e.g., the football factory team, a la Alabama).
Edit: I'll put it another way -- Jake Rudock has basically zero NFL value. How valuable was he to UM this year? I'd be happy to represent him in arbitration and argue that he was was worth well over $250,000, and probably a lot more.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:17 AM ^
While it sure seems over the top, I bet 90% of the colleges across the country could look at Michigan's facilities and say that what our players get (in terms of facilities) is over the top. Wasn't it just recently that Jameis Winston was talking about how great Michigan's facilities were compared with Florida State?
It's kinda like the middle class family that looks at what the upper-middle spends its money on and thinks they're being ridiculous. The upper-middle looks on what the upper class spends its money on and thinks they're being ridiculous. And the upper class looks on the wealthy or super wealthy and thinks they're being ridiculous. We seem to have an inherent bias that our (Michigan's) level of spending is a good happy medium, but what Clemson is doing is over the top.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
People aren't taking issue with the fact that we have the facilities. They're taking issue with the fact that we need to have such facilities.
December 23rd, 2015 at 11:14 AM ^
Yes I agree completely, it's a crazy, but in hindsight probably inevitable result because of the way the rules are set up, to end up with players only facilities like this.
To be fair, most of MGoBlog is pretty rational, but I do see a few comments that Clemson is way over the top and preposterous. I'd guess that if you polled normal people on the street they'd be even more upset with such spending. I'm just saying that schools which sit at the 90th or 95th percentile (and I would assume MIchigan is somewhere up there) are just as much a part of the problem as the school at the 99th percentile like Clemson. It's a broken system and we're all part of it. That said, I'll be at the game on the 1st so it doesn't bother me enough to vote with my wallet. If Clemson wants to do this, I say go for it, it's their money and until the rules of the system change this is probably a smart way to spend it.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:23 PM ^
I'd say you're comparing apples and oranges. If Clemson was spending 55 million on athletic and education and support faciltiies and infrastructure, I'd have no problem. But spending that money on a player's village complex with a private golf course, bowling lanes, movie theater, laser tag, etc.? Yeah, no, that's different, and ridiculous.
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:22 AM ^
How does this not violate the NCAA extra benefits rules (to the extent that anyone even enforces those anymore) if these benefits are only available to football players? Didn't Kentucky have to make their basketball player resort open to some number of non-basketball players to ensure that they were only violating the spirit but not the letter of the extra benefits prohibition?
December 23rd, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^
Fuck that noise.
That is all.
December 23rd, 2015 at 11:05 AM ^
December 23rd, 2015 at 1:12 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
December 23rd, 2015 at 11:12 AM ^
and from studying the play book, not to mention classwork. I thought that athletes were guided into easy majors like sports management, because they wouldn't have the time for the more difficult classes. I'll give it a couple of years to see the results on the the field.
Welcome to Clemson, the dumb jock capital of the world ;o)
Just surprised that it's for football players only. At least, Brandon spread the money around for top facilities for all sports.
December 23rd, 2015 at 12:36 PM ^
...once the collapse in TV/media contracts comes.
While PSLs and suites are costly, and donors (hello, Mr. Ross) do step up to help build these palaces, most of this money is coming from ESPN, CBS, NBC, etc. And they are running out of suckers to extract their monthly fee.
It's been discussed numerous times on the board, including by Brian, so I won't get into it again, but in 10-15 years, when the flow from the money spigot has been reduced, I wonder if we'll start to get stories of half-finished complexes and buildings left with little maintenance, a la the housing market when it collapsed.
If you'd like yet another news story showing this is coming, see yesterday's NYT. Money quote "“Investors must remember that at its core, Disney is a cable network company that has the highest level of fixed costs (sports rights) in the industry,” he wrote. “ESPN now appears poised to become Disney’s most troubled business as consumer behavior shifts rapidly.":