Cal in Trouble Over Facilities Debt

[javadoc]

Can a move to the Big 10 be far away?

http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_23528259/cal-stadium-plan-financially-flawed

 

[Scooch]

$474 million.

But remember, school's cannot afford to pay kids a stipend, or let them maintain their marketing rights.

 

[supp]

$474 million.

But remember, school's cannot afford to pay kids a stipend, or let them maintain their marketing rights.

Forget about that. If this kind of irresponsible spending on athletic facilities keeps up, these schools will upgrade themselves out of existence. Even years and years of P12 network money won't balance their books with millions in maintenance costs and debt servicing annually. And, of course, 10 years from now, they'll have to do another round of multi-million dollar upgrades to keep up with the competition. The UC system is itself in serious trouble already so no bailout there. Pretty soon, Berkeley tuition will be as much Stanford's. But who's going to pay 45K a year to have a grad student teach most of your kid's classes?

You see these kinds of stories and the only conclusion to draw is that big time college sports is ruining higher ed in this country. I say blow it up and start over. And let's string up Delany just for kicks.

 

[OrangePA]

It's an Athletic Department issue.

In major college situations the Athletic Department operates essentially as an entity separate from the University.

The troubles at Cal will apparently be self-contained according to the article.

 

[Scooch]

Forget about that. If this kind of irresponsible spending on athletic facilities keeps up, these schools will upgrade themselves out of existence. Even years and years of P12 network money won't balance their books with millions in maintenance costs and debt servicing annually. And, of course, 10 years from now, they'll have to do another round of multi-million dollar upgrades to keep up with the competition. The UC system is itself in serious trouble already so no bailout there. Pretty soon, Berkeley tuition will be as much Stanford's. But who's going to pay 45K a year to have a grad student teach most of your kid's classes?

You see these kinds of stories and the only conclusion to draw is that big time college sports is ruining higher ed in this country. I say blow it up and start over. And let's string up Delany just for kicks.

Agree with that, I was just being snarky about one little aspect of this obscene spending spree.

Spending half a billion dollars on "upgrades" while blathering on about amateurism and "student athletes" is obnoxious and disgusting.

Blowing it all up might be for the best.

 

[Scooch]

It's an Athletic Department issue.

In major college situations the Athletic Department operates essentially as an entity separate from the University.

The troubles at Cal will apparently be self-contained according to the article.

It's an institutional problem. AD's can't spend half a billion dollars without approval from a BOT.

Obscene.

 

[OrangePA]

It's an institutional problem. AD's can't spend half a billion dollars without approval from a BOT.

Obscene.

That seems right to me, but a good friend of mine who is an AD at a good school continues to assure me that in major college athletics, the Athletic Department operates as an individual financial entity.

When I complained that becuase the U of Minnesota fired Tubby Smith with years left on his contract - the taxpayers would be stuck - he disabused me of that notion.

He explained that the financial fall out from the Smith termination would be within the Athletic Department. That is, the money that would have to be paid to both Tubby and a BB new coach for example, could have been used for say, a new women's soccer training facility or an upgraded track and field locker room or a third men's soccer coach. That's where AD financial decisions impact the schools.

He has repeatedly told me that the Athletic Departments of public schools like Cal do not use taxpayer money - they use money generated by the their athletic programs. And he has told me that for the most part, the same holds true for private schools.

I do not know if BOTs get involved in some or all AD decisions at schools like Cal.

 

[longtimefan]

That seems right to me, but a good friend of mine who is an AD at a good school continues to assure me that in major college athletics, the Athletic Department operates as an individual financial entity.

When I complained that becuase the U of Minnesota fired Tubby Smith with years left on his contract - the taxpayers would be stuck - he disabused me of that notion.

He explained that the financial fall out from the Smith termination would be within the Athletic Department. That is, the money that would have to be paid to both Tubby and a BB new coach for example, could have been used for say, a new women's soccer training facility or an upgraded track and field locker room or a third men's soccer coach. That's where AD financial decisions impact the schools.

He has repeatedly told me that the Athletic Departments of public schools like Cal do not use taxpayer money - they use money generated by the their athletic programs. And he has told me that for the most part, the same holds true for private schools.

I do not know if BOTs get involved in some or all AD decisions at schools like Cal.

How about Rutgers' athletics? Didn't they take money from other state and university sources?

 

[Scooch]

That seems right to me, but a good friend of mine who is an AD at a good school continues to assure me that in major college athletics, the Athletic Department operates as an individual financial entity.

When I complained that becuase the U of Minnesota fired Tubby Smith with years left on his contract - the taxpayers would be stuck - he disabused me of that notion.

He explained that the financial fall out from the Smith termination would be within the Athletic Department. That is, the money that would have to be paid to both Tubby and a BB new coach for example, could have been used for say, a new women's soccer training facility or an upgraded track and field locker room or a third men's soccer coach. That's where AD financial decisions impact the schools.

He has repeatedly told me that the Athletic Departments of public schools like Cal do not use taxpayer money - they use money generated by the their athletic programs. And he has told me that for the most part, the same holds true for private schools.

I do not know if BOTs get involved in some or all AD decisions at schools like Cal.

I'm extremely skeptical of that notion of containment.

We know that general funds are "appropriated" for athletics issues at many schools. An AD being deep in the red impacts financial decisions across a university.

And on a more conceptual level, money is in fact finite. The booster giving a school millions of dollars for a weight room probably is less likely to give money for academic needs. Now maybe that booster wouldn't fund academics anyway, who knows. But it's sickening to think that schools are tapping their deepest pocketed alums for sports, when that money could be going to the actual mission of the institution.

 

[billsin01]

Forget about that. If this kind of irresponsible spending on athletic facilities keeps up, these schools will upgrade themselves out of existence. Even years and years of P12 network money won't balance their books with millions in maintenance costs and debt servicing annually. And, of course, 10 years from now, they'll have to do another round of multi-million dollar upgrades to keep up with the competition. The UC system is itself in serious trouble already so no bailout there. Pretty soon, Berkeley tuition will be as much Stanford's. But who's going to pay 45K a year to have a grad student teach most of your kid's classes?

You see these kinds of stories and the only conclusion to draw is that big time college sports is ruining higher ed in this country. I say blow it up and start over. And let's string up Delany just for kicks.

Great, great post. I couldn't agree more. I keep saying this (though I think relatively few actually care about it) but this spending never ends. Everybody chases these dollar signs to new, completely random conferences with no particular geographical connection but no one seems to realize that the money is already spent. Upgrading facilities is great, but it never, never ends. The cuse built the dome in the mid-80's and yet I can remember Wilbon giving me a lecture of how outdated and abysmal that place was in the early 2000's. Now I'm the first to admit that Wilbon is something of a blowhard, but the fact remains.

I also feel like the spending in general, as much as I love sports and enjoy watching competitive teams, is just so misguided. I mean, I guess if I have a ton of coin I give some to the university athletics department, but you mean to tell me that should be in the top 100 worthy causes?

I don't know -- it's all good if they want to build a dedicated hoops practice facility and I'll enjoy all the recruits we get because of it. But I still say it'll never end and it just seems misguided.

 

[supp]

It's an Athletic Department issue.

In major college situations the Athletic Department operates essentially as an entity separate from the University.

The troubles at Cal will apparently be self-contained according to the article.

Read the article. The Cal AD is drawing a substantial yearly stipend from student fees a la Rutgers. And their longterm solution to wean themselves off the general fund and service their debt for this facilities project, which couldn't generate anywhere near enough fan interest to pay for itself, is to get more fans to buy tickets. Sounds like a winner. Bears fans have shown that they'll only support a winning program and the AD has with this debt handcuffed itself in terms of coaching salaries, recruiting budgets, and marketing money in the short to mid-term future to make that turnaround significantly more difficult. But, hey, they might get lucky!

IMO, long term this kind of spending on athletics spells doom for higher ed in this country. This isn't a problem that's contained to basketcase institutions like Rutgers and Maryland. When you read that the Tennessee AD is millions in debt, you wonder what the real situation is elsewhere. Obscene rises in tuition across the country over the past two decades are at some level connected to irresponsible spending on athletics and the increasing diversion of university donations to sports programs (now estimated at 25% of all university donations). I don't think people will realize the monster we've created until the middle classes are completely squeezed out of college by the sticker price. By then I fear it will be too late to save some of these schools in their current configuration. I think the U. of Phoenix will have a lot more competition in the future.

 

[billsin01]

Spending half a billion dollars on "upgrades" while blathering on about amateurism and "student athletes" is obnoxious and disgusting.

I don't think you're really pimping the notion of a stipend for athletes, but for some reason that argument (for stipends) always bothers me.

For one, I know these kids spend a ton of time working on athletics, aren't really amateurs (they're not really even in high school anymore), and the school makes a bunch of money off them.

However, it's not like it isn't a pretty fair payout to the athletes, particularly in the revenue sports.

-- ~$200k worth of eductation at an institution many of the kids wouldn't have had a prayer of gaining admission to outside of being really tall or fast. And even that value is low when you consider the networking connections available as well as a potential grad year and whatever earnings potential the degree carries (vs. not attending college or at least possibly a much lower regarded school).

-- Access to quality coaching that could help with development of a pro career, high-end workout/practice facilities, film rooms, etc. as well as meal money and travel to parts some pretty interesting destinations (hoops in particular).

-- Access to as much academic support as needed as well as priority scheduling -- huge advantages

-- Elevated social status on campus. Let's not pretend like 4 years worth of all the 18-22-year-old girls you can handle isn't a pretty nice perk (unless you're committed to a fake online girlfriend like t'eo).

I don't know, I guess I just don't really see the need to add a little bit of coin to an already pretty good situation that many of these guys still manage to tick away or at the very least take for granted anyway.

 

[OrangePA]

I'm extremely skeptical of that notion of containment.

We know that general funds are "appropriated" for athletics issues at many schools. An AD being deep in the red impacts financial decisions across a university.

And on a more conceptual level, money is in fact finite. The booster giving a school millions of dollars for a weight room probably is less likely to give money for academic needs. Now maybe that booster wouldn't fund academics anyway, who knows. But it's sickening to think that schools are tapping their deepest pocketed alums for sports, when that money could be going to the actual mission of the institution.

I agree.

I am just reporting what an AD tells me.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

This and get rid of collegiate sports all together, other than intramurals, intermurals and club. Let pro sports fund developmental leagues.

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Scooch]

I don't know, I guess I just don't really see the need to add a little bit of coin to an already pretty good situation that many of these guys still manage to tick away or at the very least take for granted anyway.

I'm 100% in favor of letting college athletes make money off of their likeness. It seems absurd to me that SU can sell a ton of #3 hoops jerseys for four years and Gerry McNamara doesn't see a dime of that money. Arguing that his "compensation" for playing hoops at SU is his free education and all the other benefits you mention is a reasonable debate. Forbidding him from profiting from a school appropriating his likeness is not reasonable to me.

But I'm mostly just using that topic to highlight the broader point that college plead "amatuerism" when it suits them, but the operate like professional organizations every sense of the word when it comes to athletics.

It's obnoxious.

 

[javadoc]

IMO, long term this kind of spending on athletics spells doom for higher ed in this country. This isn't a problem that's contained to basketcase institutions like Rutgers and Maryland. When you read that the Tennessee AD is millions in debt, you wonder what the real situation is elsewhere. Obscene rises in tuition across the country over the past two decades are at some level connected to irresponsible spending on athletics and the increasing diversion of university donations to sports programs (now estimated at 25% of all university donations). I don't think people will realize the monster we've created until the middle classes are completely squeezed out of college by the sticker price. By then I fear it will be too late to save some of these schools in their current configuration. I think the U. of Phoenix will have a lot more competition in the future.

Athletics plays a part, for sure, but tuition is sky high at small private colleges as well. Too many bells and whistles offered outside the core mission, administrators adminstering "fluff" or "feel-good" nonsense, and the government subsidies and guarantees for loans (=cheap money) all led to price inflation. U. Phoenix et. al. are indeed going to bite into that market, but they are likely going to face government obstacles brought by the rent-seeking established schools.

I read an essay once about the danger in losing the liberal arts base in education when more people opt for a U Phoenix type of education. Interesting times ahead.

 

[Moontan]

I don't know, I guess I just don't really see the need to add a little bit of coin to an already pretty good situation that many of these guys still manage to tick away or at the very least take for granted anyway.

Laundry, a movie, a slice at the Varsity and an occasional trip home aren't free. Not all kids come from families with $ to pay for these things. That's what the stipend is all about.

 

[billsin01]

Laundry, a movie, a slice at the Varsity and an occasional trip home aren't free. Not all kids come from families with $ to pay for these things. That's what the stipend is all about.

So then are we giving stipends to every other student who may not come from a bunch of money and is wracking up huge debt?

 

[supp]

Athletics plays a part, for sure, but tuition is sky high at small private colleges as well. Too many bells and whistles offered outside the core mission, administrators adminstering "fluff" or "feel-good" nonsense, and the government subsidies and guarantees for loans (=cheap money) all led to price inflation. U. Phoenix et. al. are indeed going to bite into that market, but they are likely going to face government obstacles brought by the rent-seeking established schools.

I read an essay once about the danger in losing the liberal arts base in education when more people opt for a U Phoenix type of education. Interesting times ahead.

For sure. That's why I said sports "at some level" plays a role in tuition hikes. They're not the only reason. But at the same time, there's more money in the budget at those smaller privates for tuition remissions as well. There was an article in the Philly papers a few weeks ago that students at Penn State now graduate with more college debt than do students at most private universities in the state.

Also, you talk about administrators administering fluff: one of the biggest spikes in college costs in recent decades has been precisely at the administrative level. We have administrative bloat at the same time that the percentage of full-time faculty on campuses is rapidly declining. One way many do-nothing administrators have sought to deal with this problem is following the U. of Phoenix model by pushing massive open online courses. But since the long-term sustainability plans of many universities seems to be identical, perhaps what we really need is institutions sharing their administration planning and costs (what one academic has called "massive open online administration"). If this were to ever happen, I could see it having an effect on sports conferences too. We'd likely go back to smaller, regional conferences of like-minded institutions whose affiliations with one another would go well beyond sports competitions to shared library facilities, research consortiums, shared departments (especially in the liberal arts), and shared administration costs.

 

[billsin01]

I'm 100% in favor of letting college athletes make money off of their likeness. It seems absurd to me that SU can sell a ton of #3 hoops jerseys for four years and Gerry McNamara doesn't see a dime of that money. Arguing that his "compensation" for playing hoops at SU is his free education and all the other benefits you mention is a reasonable debate. Forbidding him from profiting from a school appropriating his likeness is not reasonable to me.

But I'm mostly just using that topic to highlight the broader point that college plead "amatuerism" when it suits them, but the operate like professional organizations every sense of the word when it comes to athletics.

It's obnoxious.

The likenesses is a very interesting topic and it does seem crazy to think athletes shouldn't get a piece of that pie. I wouldn't say I feel that bad for them, but they certainly have a good argument.

 

[javadoc]

Also, you talk about administrators administering fluff: one of the biggest spikes in college costs in recent decades has been precisely at the administrative level. We have administrative bloat at the same time that the percentage of full-time faculty on campuses is rapidly declining.

One of my friends from grad school is tenured at ESF now, and the stories he tells about the proliferation of "deans" is funny, but scary. Associate Assistant Special Under-dean for blah blah blah.

 

[MassOrange]

Wasn't the issue under Buzz / Jake that the $$ from our athletic successes in the 90s was directed back to the university general fund, rather than say Field Turf?

 

[Moontan]

So then are we giving stipends to every other student who may not come from a bunch of money and is wracking up huge debt?

Non-athletes are able to get part-time jobs. That's how I got my spending money. Scholarship athletes are explicitly prohibited from obtaining such employment. Not that they'd have time for that any way.

If an athlete is offered "a full ride", shouldn't he/she get that?
A Total Cost of Attendance scholarship would address that.

I'm also on board for four-year scholarships.

 

[billsin01]

Non-athletes are able to get part-time jobs. That's how I got my spending money. Scholarship athletes are explicitly prohibited from obtaining such employment. Not that they'd have time for that any way.

If an athlete is offered "a full ride", shouldn't he/she get that?
A Total Cost of Attendance scholarship would address that.

I'm also on board for four-year scholarships.

Athletes not only can work during the summer but are often given pretty sweet gigs -- I know this b/c I worked with SU athletes doing lawn work in summer in high school at the house of an extremely wealthy booster. The dudes would only show up on Fridays to collect their cash and then leave. I can't imagine this is rare.

But the point remains -- non-student athletes are allowed to get jobs but are rarely given anywhere near the scholarship money so I still don't get how that evens out. And if these guys want to work 10 hrs a week at the stupid help desk kiosk or something, I don't really see what's wrong with that. It would seem to me the argument should be more about finding some way to allow for employment instead of just handing some cash to these dudes.

 

[Scooch]

The likenesses is a very interesting topic and it does seem crazy to think athletes shouldn't get a piece of that pie. I wouldn't say I feel that bad for them, but they certainly have a good argument.

On sale right now for $75 online via the SU Bookstore:

CJ Fair won't see a dime from that.

$75.