1-A IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A MARKET
Cartel-ish in the long run.Brian provides toothy points on the APR over at MGoBlog, calling bullshit on our APR/NCLB comparison:
Orson’s analogy to No Child Left Behind is inapt. NCLB, oddly, takes money from failing schools. The APR takes students, leaving behind a smaller corps of kids the Idahos (Idahoes? In your area codes?) of the world can fail.
Technically, they are taking scholarships, which is money spent on the open market of recruiting athletes on your depth chart, which in turn kills your ability to compete, etc, etc. It damages a school’s ability to compete if they cannot beef up on the academic support side. NCLB is a perfect comparison because, rather than offer some ameliorative way out of failing status, it simply stamps FAIL on a program until it pulls itself up by its own bootstraps, just as the APR does.
The inexactitude lies in the subject compared: education versus having a football program. As Brian points out, having a division one football program is not a right. (Unless you’re in the SEC. But Brian sagely points that out, too.) However, the reason the APR chafes me is its inexactitude and susceptibility to manipulation by larger schools who may tip the scales with boundless tutoring and academic support programs to support comparable marginal academic cases who fail out at what we suppose we can call the Florida International Select Level of college football.
The college football universe already tilts toward Mammon. Unlike some, we’re not troubled by this. We’re a big, swaggering, swinishly capitalist country, and our universities appropriately follow suit. College football is business. The APR is a small but pesky protective tariff/tax/duty that raises start-up costs for small universities to an even higher level than the current exorbitant tag. There might be too many programs in Division One, but frankly, that’s for the market to determine, not a wiggly proclamation from the Kiwanis Club of college athletics, the NCAA. (And by wiggly we mean exactly the points Brian cites via Bruce Feldman: the waiver exemptions, the 66 schools who promised to “do better.”)
Looking long-term, it has a faint aroma of cartel behavior. That is the bad part. It’s not injustice; no one outside the locker room will weep more than six tears if Florida International takes a dive to D-1AA. They may not deserve to exist, but they should be given the same allowances, waivers and understanding other member schools are afforded. Ticket sales determine the rest.
(Now, back to writing about RoboWoodyHayes rising from hell to wreak vengeance on Columbus. BTW, if the Big Ten is one half of the mini-cartel consigning college football to a non-playoff existence, they are at least a benevolent one: they’re outpacing all other schools in the EDSBS/Fanblogs charity drive by bounds. Praise Delany and his conference’s generosity, and praise the Rose Bowl!)
Loading ...
1
Clem says:
Damn straight! If nothing else, we Michiganders embrace an opportunity to do good, lower our tax burden *and* smite our football rivals all at once.
Talk about your family values!
May 14th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
2
3rd says:
Orson Is The Real Snake-Oil Salesman Around These Parts
*obviously
May 14th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
3
Orson Swindle says:
Don’t forget my wizard hat!
May 14th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
4
Holly says:
Please don’t make me write under a Michigan banner, y’all. HAVEN’T WE SUFFERED ENOUGH?
May 14th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
5
DevilGrad says:
The college football universe already tilts toward Mammon. Unlike some, we’re not troubled by this. We’re a big, swaggering, swinishly capitalist country, and our universities appropriately follow suit. College football is business. The APR is a small but pesky protective tariff/tax/duty that raises start-up costs for small universities to an even higher level than the current exorbitant tag.
If college football is a business, it is a singularly unsuccessful one — save at the twenty or so largest football factories and, there, primarily because the “capitalists” don’t have to compensate their primary production input at anything remotely approaching market value.
You’re right that the APR as implemented and selectively enforced operates as a barrier to entry for the small fry, but those costs still pale in comparison to the facilities arms race, coaching salary inflation, and other frivolities that are far less well intentioned. Even while doing things the right way (football APR = 965), my alma mater is slowly but surely getting priced out of Division I in everything but hockey. (And I suspect that BCS money will eventually fuck that up too.)
May 14th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
6
DC Trojan says:
DevilGrad @ 5 – The fact that only 20 or so programs make money at college football doesn’t mean it’s an unsuccessful business – success is never evenly distributed across a market.
I wonder if anyone at universities with middle of the pack football programs has ever done a cost-benefit analysis on the cost of the football program versus the potential loss in donations from alumni? Because the schools that don’t make a profit from football might be seeing a benefit in other kinds of income.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
7
maskedavenger says:
Holly –
Just cue up the Appalachian State and Oregon disasters
on Youtube and soldier on.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
8
DevilGrad says:
The trustees like to kid themselves that this is so, but the better view of the economic evidence is that it’s a fallacy.
http://www.knightcommission.org/about/white_papers/frank_report/
Put otherwise, none of the Ivies seem to have suffered from backing away from big-money athletics.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
9
aventius says:
@ #5..
That’s because Miami of Ohio sucks. It’s not the real Miami and it’s in Ohio. Suck + Suck = Double Suck.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
10
DevilGrad says:
Well, I guess not everyone could get an education that yields a wit like yours.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
11
robert says:
The APR is the tax system of Louis XVI–the nobility/biggest programs have the smallest burden, while those with the least influence carry the highest burden. And it’s all doomed to failure by an “honor system” about loan payments/future athlete performance.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
12
aventius says:
Yep … that definitely is sad.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
13
Orson Swindle says:
DG, you can’t compete with flame like that. Your asbestos bikini briefs won’t even save you from that kind of zazz.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
14
DevilGrad says:
Not to mention that the asbestos chafes my pubes like you wouldn’t believe.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
15
aventius says:
Hahaha. Gross.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
16
shanensga says:
Orson, the BCS programs “tilt toward Mammon”? They don’t tilt,They revell in it. Thet sit naked in tubs full of money and bathe in it. I love it when people talk about the “purity of the game”. A local talk show host here replied to a caller that said a playoff would mar the purity of the game by saying, “Purity? BCS football is a prostitute in a white wedding dress!” I love college football, but I have no illusions that it is about anything other than money, at least to the university fat cats.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
17
aventius says:
“Put otherwise, none of the Ivies seem to have suffered from backing away from big-money athletics.”
That’s because football isn’t important to the Ivy’s or their applicants. I currently live at Yale, dating a Yalie, and nobody here give’s a crap about sports here.
I remember the first college football weekend I lived here… last year and I walked downtown, expecting to see people getting a little crazy (like I was used to seeing at Penn State)… and I found nothing. Zilch. Nada. Zip. It was sad. It depressed me.
Nobody goes to games and nobody cares… with the exception of one game. The Yale/Harvard game. Its the only game in the entire realm of sports that Yalies pretend to care about and it doesn’t come close to the importance of say Penn State vs. East Carolina State Tech Junior College.
The Yalies only care about the tailgating and its not even good tailgating. It’s douchebags in BMWs dressed up in full length fur coats and fur hats drinking champagne. To a fan of FBS level tailgating (Big Ten, SEC, etc..), it’s obscene. Worse… nobody even goes into the game. I went this past year and they couldn’t even fill 1/3 of the stadium. They tailgate for like an hour, maybe watch a quarter of the game, then go home.
Backing away from sports hasn’t hurt the Ivies because they just don’t care about sports…. at least at Yale.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
18
DevilGrad says:
DevilGrad @ 5 – The fact that only 20 or so programs make money at college football doesn’t mean it’s an unsuccessful business – success is never evenly distributed across a market.
Fair enough, but even the success stories suck as “businesses,” unless you think that centrally planned, subsidy-addicted crony capitalism is a market outcome. Keep in mind that even Michigan managed to run a deficit as recently as a couple of years ago, and you might come around to my cynical view that most BCS athletic directors would feel perfectly at home in your typical East African finance ministry.
The business analogy, more to the point, is a completely inappropriate lens through which to view intercollegiate athletics, but we’re talking on a fan blog here, so I won’t chase that argument too far down the line.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
19
DevilGrad says:
Re #17: You have to remember that the Ivies used to care very deeply about spectator sports and essentially invented college football as a widespread commercial phenomenon. My point (in response to DC Trojan’s post) was that de-emphasizing athletics in the Ivy League had basically NO effect on alumni giving — despite the deep traditions that had developed there.
BTW, of course, the Game sucks in New Haven. It’s in fucking New Haven. It’s much better viewed in Cambridge. (Though I’ll admit I’ve seen better aggregate talent levels in northwest Ohio on Friday nights.)
May 14th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
20
maskedavenger says:
DG – Michigan ran a deficit in its athletic department not the football program. This largely had to do with financing too many non-revenue sports while the other money maker, men’s basketball, was imploding due to the Chris Webber/Ed Martin fiasco.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
21
Paul says:
The interesting thing is, where you mention “a cartel”, during the time you were at UF and at the beginning of when I was, there was a class called, “The History of the NCAA.” It was one of the most popular and difficult to get into classes at the University. The professor CONSISTENTLY referred to the NCAA as an actual cartel and explained why that term was apt and accurate as a description.
The professor was John Lombardi.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
22
DevilGrad says:
Re #20: The point remains that even at Michigan any athletic department revenues get feathered back into its own nest with the result that, at least in some years, it’s a net drain on the university. UM is a well-endowed US News top performer and can afford such frivolities. But imagine running the department at Western Michigan and trying to match even a third of UM’s budget.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
23
Allahver Fist says:
Paul, #21
Was taught a lot about sports cartels at UF in Economics classes. It wasn’t Lombardi, but he was President at the time.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
24
maskedavenger says:
DG – I understand the point you are trying to make, but Michigan’s AD is financially entirely separate from the rest of the university. It has to pay scholarship money to the university for each student athlete. There is no “net drain” even in year’s that there is a budget deficit.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
25
aventius says:
I’ll pass on viewing The Game ever again, regardless of the venue because I agree with you: Friday nights yield better talent on the field.
Yes… the Ivies (with Rutgers) pretty much invented college football (it still drives me nuts that Yale has more championships than Penn State… something my girlfriend rags on me about) but I highly doubt that football has ever had an effect on alumni giving…. positive or negative. I just think they are in a different league regarding this discussion.
My point is… people go to Big Ten and SEC schools because they’re good academically and they have great football much the same for the ACC and basketball. But you never went to or currently go to an Ivy for football. You go there because it’s an Ivy. You go to Yale so you can join Skull & Bones, Scroll & Key, etc… so that you can do coke, skip out on Vietnam, fail in oil, fail in baseball, and be President someday… not to play corntoss. I just don’t think that the Ivies are a good precedent.
Oh and BTW… you’d be surprised with New Haven. It’s nice. It’s enjoying a nice revitalization. From the locals I’ve talked to, you wouldn’t recognize it from itself five years ago.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
26
DevilGrad says:
Read the Frank report I linked above. Even at “football schools,” sports have far less effect on alumni giving or admissions than is commonly asserted or assumed.
Good to hear about New Haven. It needed it. And it’s been *ahem* quite awhile since Cambridge vs New Haven smack was on my regular agenda, so I’m probably behind the times.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
27
DevilGrad says:
Re #24: That would be true only if you assume that every single dollar donated to the athletic department would not be donated to the university at all in the absence of an athletic program. Opportunity costs count, too.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
28
dawgaddict says:
But imagine running the department at Western Michigan and trying to match even a third of UM’s budget.
why do we give good g–d*** if Western Michigan fields a D-1A football team?
why all the socialist slants around here anyway?
the “top 20 or so” programs that are profitable have sacrificed for a hundred years to get profitable, and now Boise State and Hawaii want to come in and make money from the BCS?
that’s like taking food off a table spread expressly for the BCS schools. when did Hawaii sue the NCAA for TV rights? when did BSU play games to packed houses in the 40’s? like the man says, fielding a D-1A team is a privilege, and it is expensive. if some schools find it too expensive, perhaps they should be playing club-football, like Georgia Tech…ahem, i mean George Mason.
why do i care if there are 120 D-1A teams?
all it does is increase the whining about playoffs.
if there were only the BCS schools playing in the BCS Bowls, we wouldn’t have to listen to all these bit@#es.
if the smaller schools don’t like it, they should start their own bowl series, like the “top 20 or so” programs did….
OU, and UGA almost singlehandedly popularized college football to current levels and did it at their own expense (and the expense of the NCAA cartel), so they should reap the rewards.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
29
aventius says:
See.. I skimmed the report and I agree tend to agree that withdrawing sports wouldn’t hurt donations. But where’s the fun in that?
All I’m saying is that I believe the Ivies are a bad example.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
30
dawgaddict says:
PS- every single scholly trimmed from these potential D-1AA schools is one less failing student the school will recruit next year. how is this bad?
it would seem to be self-correcting over time, and lead to the coaches desire to recruit intelligent and capable (in the classroom) student-athletes. if the coach loses a few games along the way, maybe his job is in danger, but i don’t see how the ability of a school to compete is the responsibility of the NCAA. the only thing they profess to care about is graduating athletes, and this measure serves that purpose in my mind.
no scholarships?
no failing athletes.
simple.
why does everyone think it is the NCAA’s responsibility to ensure a perfectly level playing field?
they do what they can (maybe more than they should), but attempting to limit the amount of tutoring a college is willing to commit to keep a student from failing or leaving school early is ridiculous. it is actually a pretty good gauge of the school’s willingness to compete at all levels.
-even at the national disaster relief levels…
May 14th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
31
DevilGrad says:
But where’s the fun in that?
Exactly. I make my hypocritical peace with the very notion of quasi-commercialized college athletics by rationalizing that they’re a unique part of an American college experience. But even those of us who love the spectacle probably ought to keep in mind that college athletics aren’t necessarily any more important than other aspects of campus culture and that many schools arguably over-allocate resources to sports based on their economic return and overall contribution to campus life.
To put it differently, at least for me, Miami had “enough” football, basketball, and hockey to add value and fun to the college experience without sucking away resources from the art museum, concert series, etc. And the reason I get so worked up about these issues is that I see the day coming where the unbelievable and unsustainable increases in the costs of competing in athletics are going to force lots of “mid-majors” to choose between sports and those other activities.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
32
DevilGrad says:
Re #28: why do i care if there are 120 D-1A teams?
So Vandy and MSU have *someone* to beat and, thereby, make your wins over them look legitimate.
As for the rest, I’ve said my bit about why this “market” is an utter sham and make it a point not to argue with people who make assumptions about my political views based on reasoned message board posts. Besides, after all this seriousness, I probably owe it to Orson to post a few dick jokes.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
33
dawgaddict says:
let me clarify.
i didn’t call you a socialist.
i said the tone of the posting and the comments seem to be socialist in nature.
maybe you didn’t realize that until i pointed it out to you?
DICK JOKE:
Q: How did Dick Cheney break his leg?
A: Kicking a homeless woman.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
34
hunglikehussain says:
Major league baseball invests millions annually in their minor league programs. Minor leagues train, condition and hone the skills needed for the next level.
The NFL has a ready-made system (College football) that serves the same purpose but, costs them nothing. Sweet deal.
If the NFL would provide funds to be used for academic tutaledge (tax deduction!) to the NCAA to be distributed to the schools with a failing APR, I see a possible remedy.
Orson, don’t you play golf with Goodell? Bring it up.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
35
aventius says:
“OU, and UGA almost singlehandedly popularized college football to current levels”
????
While both were important… there were quite a few more important teams.
Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Alabama… just to name a few (all which I hate).
May 14th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
36
DC Trojan says:
unless you think that centrally planned, subsidy-addicted crony capitalism is a market outcome.
and
and you might come around to my cynical view that most BCS athletic directors would feel perfectly at home in your typical East African finance ministry.
Yes, and yes. Find me a perfect market, and I will show you an economics text book. In the meantime, you could argue that the NCAA and BCS are complementary monopsony boards: the NCAA regulates the supply and pricing of D1-A college football, and the BCS regulates the supply and pricing of “championship” college football. It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it’s more accurate than “centrally planned.” It accounts for the variations in return on investment for different universities, especially since the monopsony boards aren’t paying suppliers at equivalent rates.
As for the Ivies, you could argue that their dominance of college football was done in by the GI Bill massively expanding the ranks of non-Ivy football teams, and that they were able to overcome being left behind in the realm of sheer numbers because of their capacity to raise money from a wealthier slice of the population, and then manage those investments.
By way of selective example:
USC – 33,000 students, 200,000 alumni, endowment of $3.7 billion.
Dartmouth College – 6,000 students, 60,000 alumni, endowment of $3.76 billion.
Harvard University – 19,000 students, (can’t find alumni estimate), endowment of $34.9 billion.
Put it another way, there’s a reason that the Ivies can back way from revenue sports and clean up in things like crew and lacrosse.
None of which is to say that college football programs are an economically rational expenditure of university funds, just that they are one of many ways to do it.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
37
dawgaddict says:
read this:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=1311
(for the lawya’s)
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3486833
(for normal folk)
By the 1980s, televised college football was a significant source of income for the NCAA. Had the television contracts the NCAA had with ABC, CBS, and ESPN remained in effect for the 1984 season, they would have generated US$73.6 million for the Association and its members. In September 1981, the Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Georgia Athletic Association filed suit against the NCAA in district court in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs stated that the NCAA’s football television plan constituted price fixing, output restraints, boycott, and monopolizing, all of which were illegal under the Sherman Act. The NCAA argued that its pro-competitive and non-commercial justifications for the plan—-protection of live gate, maintenance of competitive balance among NCAA member institutions and creation of a more attractive “product” to compete with other forms of entertainment—-combined to make the plan reasonable. In September 1982, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the plan violated antitrust laws. It enjoined the Association from enforcing the contract.
(for those wishing to use Wikipedia as a credible source)
here’s an interesting article about football revenue: http://blog.al.com/bn/2008/02/how_the_sec_got_rich.html
May 14th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
38
aventius says:
http://www.yale.edu/investments/Yale_Endowment_07.pdf
Page 2.. I wish my return on investments was as good as Yale.
It’s no reason why their endowment manager is the highest paid person there.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
39
StageCoach says:
@ #9…
“That’s because Miami of Ohio sucks. It’s not the real Miami and it’s in Ohio.”
I beg to differ. Hate Ohio if you like, but Miami of Ohio was a university when Florida still belonged to Spain, so it IS the real Miami.
No joke there, sorry…as Casey Stengel once said: “You could look it up.”
May 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
40
aventius says:
@ 38.
It was a joke. Get over yourself.
Despite Miami of Ohio being older… which I knew it was…. It’s still “Miami… of Ohio” in conversation. If somebody says “Miami” 9 out of 10 times they’re talking about Da U.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
41
dawgaddict says:
#38
Harvard is bettah…lol
May 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
42
aventius says:
I didn’t go to Yale.
Penn State Endowment: $1.4 Billion
Georgia Endowment: $572 Million
Penn State is bettah.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
43
Because They Can says:
“But even those of us who love the spectacle probably ought to keep in mind that college athletics aren’t necessarily any more important than other aspects of campus culture and that many schools arguably over-allocate resources to sports based on their economic return and overall contribution to campus life.”
Heretic!
BTW- thanks, guys, for the riveting and hilarious lecture series. I’m sure I’ll mentally refer to it as Dr. Rennie Curran performs his first radical cleatectomy this fall.
May 15th, 2008 at 7:33 am
44
dawgaddict says:
@42
Penn State Endowment: $1.4 Billion
Georgia Endowment: $572 Million
but…there are some things money can’t buy.
like pretty Penn State girls. *zing!
or: i would argue that the overall contribution to campus life of attractive females would make them a worthwhile investment, but apparently the state of Pennsylvania disagrees.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
45
Mr. Pelican Pants says:
This dispute reminds me of a one-liner I heard from the comedian, a former congressman, from
“Ask A Republican”….
Audience question–”Why does the government give tax breaks to Big Oil companies and no tax breaks for poor people, even when Oil prices are sky high and profits are at record levels?”
His reply….”Last time I checked, my car didnt run on poor people….next question….”
May 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
46
Papa Lou BSU says:
“but attempting to limit the amount of tutoring a college is willing to commit to keep a student from failing or leaving school early is ridiculous.”
I think a herd of goats could dine very well on the large strawman you just erected (i.e., please note where anyone criticizing the implementation and enforcement of the APR suggested anything remotely close to what you’re postulating here…)
Then again, your grasp of college football history seems similarly shaky, so I’m not surprised.
Speaking as a fan of a MAC school, my beef with the APR is not so much the standards (although it’s pretty clear that the ability to throw money at academic support helps your score here), it’s with the uneven enforcement of those standards, the vague, mysterious “waivers” granted almost exclusively to BCS programs who fall below the cut-off line for punishment but are somehow spared while a non-BCS program doing the same is docked scholarships.
We’ve learned to live with the deck being stacked against us in so many other ways as the price of admission in 1-A, but getting punished for the same low scores that BCS programs are allowed to skate on is too much to take. How “business” concerns are allowed to come into play here is beyond me.
(And when I say “we” I mean other non-BCS programs, not my own. My alma mater came in at 941 this year, safely above the cut-off and ahead of approximately one-third of all BCS programs in the classroom…)
Oh, and FWIW, the APR rules apply to I-AA programs, too, so to make the silly “I-A is an exclusive club” argument really isn’t germane to this particular issue.
May 15th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
47
dawgaddict says:
sorry, i was out of town.
I think a herd of goats could dine very well on the large strawman you just erected (i.e., please note where anyone criticizing the implementation and enforcement of the APR suggested anything remotely close to what you’re postulating here…)
did you read the original post?
However, the reason the APR chafes me is its inexactitude and susceptibility to manipulation by larger schools who may tip the scales with boundless tutoring and academic support programs to support comparable marginal academic cases who fail out at what we suppose we can call the Florida International Select Level of college football.
to me, this reads as an indictment of spending levels and suggests that the NCAA should disallow this big-school pocketbook bullying or something…
if you read my previous post, you are aware that i was not only suggesting the retreat of poor unfortunate pitiful D1 have-nots to D2, but actually to club-level. why is this suggestion discarded and the argument furthered? if D1 is unprofitable, standards are stacked against smaller schools, big schools compensate their coaches too much, and BCS facilities are too nice, why compete? if the rules are unfair, don’t subject yourselves to them. i wouldn’t move to Saudi Arabia as a Christian, why do so many schools make the jump to D1?
PS- i can’t wait to see the Chippewas prove the mettle of the MAC conference this season in Athens. perhaps they will further underscore the necessity of a playoff in CFB in spite of their impressive APR….which most of the MAC cannot brag about.
(UGA 965, eat it Ball State!)
May 20th, 2008 at 11:42 am