Let's Celebrate Non-Revenue Sports
In the discussions surrounding Brandon I feel that Olympic (aka non-revenue) sports have come under fire. The strawman argument that gets portrayed is that without Brandon’s brilliant money gathering methods, all those Olympic sports wouldn’t have their wonderful facilities. But further, the tone is more “they don’t deserve those facilities because they don’t make any money.” That pisses me off, for many reasons, which I haven’t bothered to list out. Until this came across my Twitter feed:
Out here early helping clean up the grounds at Scarlett Middle School. Great start this Sunday. #LetsGoDo #GoBlue pic.twitter.com/n6VPhp0VEX
— Michigan Wrestling (@umichwrestling) October 19, 2014
The University of Michigan is a public university. The open market system is not necessarily supposed to me the one and only ruler of all things at the University. Some things are expected to lose money and that’s okay because we all recognize the greater good they provide. Non-profit sports provide a greater good.
- They allow hundreds of student-athletes to attend amazing universities on partial or, in some cases, full, scholarships.
- They help create various kinds of diversity (racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, religious, hometown etc) among the campus community.
- They give young kids, girls in particular, a group of role models that don’t exist in the professional sports world.
- Each sport, in its own right, is a great sport. Each sport has wonderful tradition and people who care about it greatly, even if not every sport is “made for TV.”
- Sports are fun. All types of sports are fun. It is fun to go to soccer, baseball, softball, volleyball, field hockey games and take in high-level competitions.
- If I ever have a daughter that loves Field Hockey, I will be eternally grateful for the University of Michigan and the ability to take her to games and let her dream of playing at that high level.
Back to the money, though. The football team makes almost all the money made by individual teams, true. It also spends the most. Did you know football has 85 full ride athletes, but baseball has just 11.7 full ride scholarships that need to be split up among its 34 players? Field hockey gets 12.
While field-hockey and softball may have some of the best facilities in the Midwest, let’s not forget that football’s facilities are world-class. They are not ignored.
Finally, let’s not forget that Michigan has ALWAYS been devoted to non-revenue sports. In fact, Michigan’s performance in non-revenue sports has declined since Dave Brandon took over. I believe Brian noted that before Brandon’s tenure we were in the top 10 of the director’s cup for a decade straight.
Let's stop acting like all these other Michigan teams are lesser because they don't make the money that football does. For many reasons, football evolved into what it is today. It's popularity is great, it's a sport I love, but I can't say that it is a better sport than any other sport. Athletic competition is something we love because it represents the human competitive spirit, sportsmanship, dedication, work ethic, respect and teamwork. All of Michigan's teams do that, and many do it at an elite level. Nobody that calls themselves a Michigan fan should discount their importance.
.@WolverineRose, @KayyGoode and @lexidann talk to kids at Bishop Elementary about blocking out bullying!! pic.twitter.com/HdV7oc38bk
— Michigan Volleyball (@umichvball) October 14, 2014
EDIT: Okay, this was meant to be a fun, postitive thread that has clearly spiraled out of control, so I'm changing the title to what I meant the OP to convey. Are a ton of people attacking non-revenue sports? No. But there seems to be a general dismissive attitude towards them right now and that is understandable given the football price gouging that Brandon has going on. I don't know the numbers well enough to say what percent of your $500 PSD goes towards the new Field Hockey facility. I'd love to know those numbers. But I don't know those numbers and the bigger point is that nobody does, so instead of getting upset that field hockey has a great facility, let's be happy for field hockey while still demanding fiscal responsibility from the athletic department - especially in athletic administration personel and salaries.
Sorry to stir the pot so much.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
So pointing out that "non-revenue" sports tend to live up to that label is "attacking" them? I haven't seen anyone say they are undeserving of the largesse Brandon has delivered, but rather that he's not the sole person in the world capable of delivering it.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:34 PM ^
I haven't seen anyone say they are undeserving of the largesse Brandon has delivered
See this isn't an attack, but I think it ignores the fact that Michigan has ALWAYS poured money into non-revenue sports. My question is, why is it now suddenly being pointed out? The reason is football attendees are being gouged. But, they weren't gouged before when non-revenue sports were still being funded well.
There's a couple reasons. One is that we're pouring MORE money into everything, non-revenue and football and basketball included. Another reason is that Dave Brandon has increased the athletic department staff and wasted who knows how much money on advertising gimmicks that nobody wants.
My argument would be this: Michigan is in a capital spending spree. A lot of that money is coming from donations. I'm sure a lot is coming from the insane money we are pulling in from the BTN which is a recent thing. Given all that money coming in, why does Brandon need to continue to gouge people?
And no, as many are pointing out, everyone isn't attacking non-revenue sports. A few are. Most aren't. However, as another poster below points out, it's not tough to see where the anger is going to be directed if Brandon keeps trotting out "non-revenue sports" as the reason for all these price increases, whether that is true or not.
October 19th, 2014 at 2:54 PM ^
We always have poured money in non-revenue sports? Maybe some money, but this much?
October 19th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^
"Nobody that calls themselves a Michigan fan should discount their importance."
I agree that the non-revenue sports are important. But I am really f@cking sick of manipulative statements such this, including the superfluity of statements that conflate criticism of the football program with not supportign the players. Make a sound, logical argument. Dont manipulate me through my Michigan fandom. Doing to de-legitimizes all your previous arguments.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
If my argument wasn't sound or logical enough for you, then I'll add this:
Without field hockey and women's rowing, there would not be 85 football scholarships due to Title IX. Ergo, if you like football you understand the importance of those sports.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:36 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
It's not really my argument, so much as I was pointing out there's a fucking law about it. Which is dumb. There shouldn't need to be a law - but there is one. There shouldn't need to be laws about a lot of things there are laws about, though. That's why I didn't include Title IX in my OP.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
That says more about the ridiculousness of Title IX than anything. Giving 20 scholarships out to women's rowers is unbelievable.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:39 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:40 AM ^
This isn't true on its own. It achieves the same end by reducing other men's sports.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
but the important thing here is, for those of us that believe (know) that the football program (the lifeblood of the ath. dept) will continue to struggle and eventually stop keeping the ath dept in the black if Brandon remains in charge. If Brandon stays, whether he keeps Hoke or not, a top tier coach is not coming here and this program will continue to wallow in mediocrity until he is gone. That most definitely will affect the NR sports. The NR sports are vital to the Ath dept, but but so to is a healthy and well-intentioned Ath dept. (which right now it is not).
October 19th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
Wrestling is one of my favorite sports and would hate to see it go because it makes no money. I think all starting division 1 athletes should be given a full scholarship for achieveing such success. Especially Michigan we can afford to give our starting athletes full rides to play there sport here at Michigan. Not all the money should go to football and basketball. Those sports should help out all atheltes at the university. I know we could afford it, we just choose not too.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:27 AM ^
At least for any one institution. The NCAA has scholarship limits set up both for competitive reasons and to make Title IX compliance easier. Michigan couldn't just start making every sport a "head count" (NCAA term for one full ride being one counted scholarship) sport because it would be against Big Ten and NCAA rules and would most likely find the Michigan AD under investigation by the Department of Education.
I agree there should be more scholarship money- most especially for hockey and baseball where those sports make money- but it's a much bigger issue than Michigan choosing to do one thing or another.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^
I'm pretty sure hockey guys are all on full rides.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:35 AM ^
Hockey gets 18 scholarships to break up per team, and there's no limit on counters.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
We're allowed to have 18 scholarships, the roster currently has 27 players. Some guys are only getting partial money.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:56 AM ^
Well by that standard, not all football or basketball players are on scholarship either.
I'd agree that it'd be nice to bump it up to 20 or so, but at any rate It's a lot closer to covering the full roster than the baseball limit (11.7) is - which is odd given that college baseball is probably more popular nationwide.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
MBB gets 13 full rides with 5 starting positions, football gets 85 and 15-20 guys are redshirting every year. Hockey dresses 22 and most of them will play or are the backup goalie, I'd say 24 full rides would be more fair and in Michigan's case that would cost about ten percent of the profit the team put into AD coffers.
I agree about baseball, places like Texas or Vandy or whatever shouldn't have a majority of their baseball team paying to attend.
October 19th, 2014 at 8:32 PM ^
Deviating from the glory that is yet another argument about the AD and football...
Was watching Texas scrimmage itself the other night on Longhorn Network. Auggie was saying that he can carry 42 or 46 guys in fall baseball before they have to cut to 31. He thought, and I agree, that it's a wonderful opportunity for those kids to see if they have what it takes to make it at that level. He was adamant that every kid on that roster will play somewhere in the spring whether at Texas or elsewhere.
What I found most appealing is he said they don't have to sit out if they transfer because of the NCAA rules. It was almost like a good way to do what the SEC already does in football.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:44 AM ^
I'll just respond to this but it is a general note to the board - if anyone is in fact interested in the scholarship limitation for official sports at NCAA member institutions for both men and women, that listing is here - LINK. It also makes the disctinction between head count and equivalency sports towards the bottom of the page and explains how the distribution works.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
It's not our choice, it's the NCAA's. But if we had to give out 900 out-of-state scholarships (we pay out-of-state for all athletes, under a weird deal we have with the university) instead of the current 300 or so, that'd cost us an extra $30 million a year. Not that affordable.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
It's abput the college experience- the opportunity - the chance to broaden ones involvement.....I'll support that everyday of the week.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:53 AM ^
So where do we come up with that $30 million? How much more are you prepared for pay for football tickets?
Only in the United States does this argument exist. Nowhere else would people ever expect their schools to actually give a free education to someone for being good at sports. Other countries' universities may have sports teams but no one expects the university to give them a free ride. And yet, the college experience survives.
I think it's great if someone wants to compete under the U-M banner, but if their sports team does nothing but lose money, why do they deserve a full scholarahip, given how expensive it is?
October 19th, 2014 at 12:10 PM ^
"All of the facilities and coaches and the infrastructure required to have 31 teams fundamentally all gets paid for by two programs: basketball and football," he continued. "Those revenues are the reason why we can have so many teams competing in so many activities and have a really broad-based program."
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/index.ssf/2014/03/wolverine_footbal…
According to the article, football brings in $82 million in revenue but "cost about $23 million to operate in 2012-13, meaning it fed more than $58 million into Michigan's other 30 varsity teams."
Meaning that of a season ticket holder's $1,000+, about $700 is going to support non-revenue sports. Now when the football product is nowhere near worth $1,000 per year, it should be of no surprise that ticket holders would like some of that money back. "Too bad, we spent it on rowing" isn't going to calm pissed off ticket holders down.
The ONLY solution is to get the football program back to a state where ticket holders merely grumble but not scream about the $1,000 season tickets because they willingly make the trade of $1,000 per year to see a good football product. Going into this year, I'm guessing just about everyone's worst case scenario was lose the 3 to ND, MSU, & OSU and drop a couple of close ones to middle-of-the-pack teams for a ~7-5ish disappointing season. Who here saw us getting pasted by a middling Minnesota team?
If the football program stays in its current shape, the non-revenue sports are going to be forced to make cuts because that $58 million football profit will surely shrink.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
in terms of funding scholarships and essential costs. it's money going to building ridiculously expensive facilities for non-revenue sports. it's just excessive
October 19th, 2014 at 8:42 PM ^
Every one of them will need upkeep and facelifts at some point. By committing to shiney new things now the university has comotted itself to never ending expenses.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:27 PM ^
I think all starting division 1 athletes should be given a full scholarship for achieveing such success.
I appreciate that they work hard at their sports, but a lot of non-athletes work hard at various endeavors and don't get everything paid for either.
Nothing against wrestlers or other non-revenue athletes, but they frankly should be grateful for whatever partial scholarships they can get, given that their sports teams bring no discernible financial benefit to the university.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:59 PM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 1:11 PM ^
Pay for them with someone elses money? No one forced Michigan fans/alumni to buy football tickets. What the university does with the ticket revenue is up to the university.
Put me in the camp that is thrilled money is pouring into non-revenue sports. I am happy they have great facialities, even though some in this community thnk they are undeserving.
What I find most humrous is that many here think Brandon should be axed because he runs Michigan like a corporation. Then those same people say that non-revenue sports shouldn't have nice faciliies because they don't bring in revenue. Please stop being hypocrites.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:56 PM ^
When you want to spend a lot of money but you have to take it because you can't make it, there will always be limits.
October 19th, 2014 at 6:55 PM ^
I'm not surprised to see ignorant comments about non-revenue sports perpetuated on mgoblog, but that doesn't stop me from commenting on them either.
Non-revenue sports are a recruiting tool to the larger mission of the university, which is attracting the best possible students. By offering competitive varsity athletic opportunities, you and attract and retain some very bright, engaging and successful student-athletes who might have decided to go elsewhere for their undergraduate education. Competing at division 1 athletics, regardless of revenue-generating or non-revenue generating athletics better prepares you for balancing the complexities of post-graduation life, and helps improve connections and obtaining desirable jobs.
Therefore, having successful non-revenue sports gives Michigan an advantage of recruiting the female athlete who has a 34 ACT, 4.5 weighted GPA, and is a standout cross-country/track and field athlete who wants to study civil engineering, over say, Northwestern, which barely offers a program, or Rose Hulman, in which her athletic career would essentially come to an end. When she graduates, with an engineering degree, and starts working, her ties to the university will be stronger than many of the general population at Michigan because of her athletic experience - therefore, more likely to make donations and contributions to the University.
October 19th, 2014 at 8:27 PM ^
So . . . having sports teams allows us to recruit athletes? You don't say. I'd have never guessed.
Fielding these sports teams is one thing. Dropping huge sums on brand-new facilities for them is another.
October 19th, 2014 at 9:06 PM ^
Therefore, having successful non-revenue sports gives Michigan an advantage of recruiting the female athlete who has a 34 ACT, 4.5 weighted GPA, and is a standout cross-country/track and field athlete who wants to study civil engineering,
You accuse me of "ignorance" and then act like your imaginary example is representative of non-revenue athletes. Take another look at what our admissions standards actually are for non-revenue athletes, and what they actually are majoring in. I'll spoil it for you: the bulk of them would never have gotten admitted if it weren't for sports, and Sports Management and Communications is their most popular major.
Non-revenue athletes' academic credentials are generally better than those of the big three sports, I'll grant you, but still well below the student body average the large majority of the time. Don't act like they are offering the school some big educational benefit.
Giving scholarships to nonrevenue athletes is a quirky holdover from the days when tuition was cheap and it hardly mattered if a few kids got a free ride. It's now much harder to justify in the era of $50K out-of-state tuition. Giving them luxury facilities is even harder to justify. Title IX doesn't mandate that.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:29 AM ^
to think that a subsequent Ath Dir could cut the prices of anything at a football game from the tix to the concessions.
The die has been cast on the entire realm of facilities and their staff and maintenance.
I get the concept that it sucks to pay premium ticket prices when the football team is not so much win, but dropping the budget down for a poor football season is literally the definition of dynamic pricing which nobody seems to want.
I really think its wonderful that the athletic dept at Michigan is self-funding and I hope it always stays that way. I went to a Women's Softball game last year and marvelled at how nice of an experience it was as a fan.
October 19th, 2014 at 12:14 PM ^
skyrocketing ticket prices would follow. Along with $5 water.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:30 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:43 AM ^
I probably agree with you more than I disagree with you. However, there may very well be a solution that reconciles your position with the OP's. Specifically, the explosion of admininstrative/marketing salaries in the AD in the Brandon regime makes no sense. This may be overly simplistic. But if the Department is dramatically increasing overhead to fly planes over Michigan State games and explore fireworks shows, perhaprs there are savings that can be used to reduce football prices and support non-revenue sports.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:54 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 5:22 PM ^
They can also phase some things in over time, instead of trying to do it all at once just so that Brandon can tell his AD buddies "mine's bigger than your's".
October 19th, 2014 at 12:29 PM ^
anything to do with costs. Costs may follow the increases, but are not a long-term determinant. And as we see with the administrative bloat, costs aren't even carefully managed.
Football season ticket holders will be charged what they are willing to pay. The only way ticket prices will come down is if a sufficient number of season ticket holders decide not to renew. And that could happen. In the. say, 1990s, a season ticket holder would worry about giving up 20 years of seniority and gradually improving his or her seat. Once empty seats start appearing in tiered pricing, a season ticket holder can save this year's check and just buy back a reasonable replacement when the team regains its prowess.
Loyalty works both ways.
October 19th, 2014 at 1:13 PM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:31 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 12:39 PM ^
surplus is not the only role of an AD.
October 19th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
October 19th, 2014 at 12:13 PM ^
Didn't I read somewhere that the Athletic Department salaries have increased by 70% under Brandon too?
October 19th, 2014 at 11:45 AM ^
Bando, thanks for your reasoned response. You're one of my favorite posters here.
I do feel there have been plenty of people attacking field hockey, rowing, soccer. Of course they're not going to pay for their own facilities on their own. That's ALWAYS been the case, however.
Let's also not forget that many of these facilities are driven by donations. It's not like a $100 increase in PSD is going directly into field hockey, for example. However, that's the strawman argument that always gets thrown around.