The FBS and the big problem in the future

[4shotB]

In the long run, the politics of the public footing the bill for professional athletic programs at state colleges and universities is not defensible, especially in the face of increasing costs for educational programs.

according to the majority of comments above, if I am reading them correctly, football (when done with commitment) more than pays for itself. I don't think the public pays for FB. Now, badminton, lacrosse and synchronized swimming may be seeking public handouts.

 

[4shotB]

Harvard did a study a few years on the economic impact of football programs. The executive summary is basically that a successful program increases student application count, improves quality of student (higher ACT scores), and is a net positive to the university.

One of the big problems for many though is the high fixed costs to run a program. Major universities like Alabama have 28K students and many times that to support a program; it's more difficult to spread fixed costs over a smaller count.

Still, it's better to be a winner than not.

I would like to think that GT, given its reputation as a school for producing problem solvers, could be smarter than Alabama. The fixed costs to field an 85 man squad has to be approximately the same for most schools in the P5. Where Bama seems to be spending at a rate over and above the others (and generating much better ROI) is in variable costs. I.E, you can recruit with the staff that GT, FSU, Auburn, UNC et al. use...or you can recruit with Bama's staff. The payoff is there (apparently). It's sad that a school like Bama is outsmarting and outflanking their opponents.

 

[Vespidae]

I don't know that Bama is outsmarting Tech. They have a storied football history too. They are just focused on winning. A lot.

 

[4shotB]

I don't know that Bama is outsmarting Tech. They have a storied football history too. They are just focused on winning. A lot.

maybe we are quibbling over semantics here...but they are focused on winning. Winning means more $. The purpose is the bottom line ( as measured in sports by both W's AND $'s). I fail to see how that is not smarter. If focusing on winning meant bleeding red ink, perhaps there is an argument.

 

[Vespidae]

Alabama sees a clear connection between football success and university success. Tech I think, just doesn't want to lose money on sports. I don't agree, but I think that's the reality.

 

[takethepoints]

Im lost, a little. is this a shot at my masculinity?

The people who ought to be most worried are the moms. But not about football; about soccer.

The reason is that girls are almost 50% more likely to get concussions and other traumatic head injuries. The main culprit? Heading the ball in soccer. You think head injuries in football are causing a change in sports? Look at the next girl's soccer match you go to.

 

[takethepoints]

according to the majority of comments above, if I am reading them correctly, football (when done with commitment) more than pays for itself. I don't think the public pays for FB. Now, badminton, lacrosse and synchronized swimming may be seeking public handouts.

It depends. At a school like Bammer, the football program pays it's own way At a school like <Directional> Michigan … well, not so much.

And that's where the danger lies. If the programs like Bammer separate out, the pressure to change the rules to make the kind of cheating they do ok across the boards will be irresistible. It is at that point that many schools will abandon Power5 football. If the Power5 becomes the Power2 or 3, then the political pressure to stop the foolishness will become impossible to resist. What's needed is either a) the NCAA steps up to the plate and regulates or b) the Power5 programs do it themselves. If that doesn't happen, Congress will get into the act. Nobody in his right mind wants that.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/di-distribute-revenue-based-academics

 

[YlJacket]

The people who ought to be most worried are the moms. But not about football; about soccer.

The reason is that girls are almost 50% more likely to get concussions and other traumatic head injuries. The main culprit? Heading the ball in soccer. You think head injuries in football are causing a change in sports? Look at the next girl's soccer match you go to.

FWIW it also extends to volleyball. A lot more concussions in VB than most outside the sport would realize. There are kids that play now that wear helmets.

 

[alagold]

Im lost, a little. is this a shot at my masculinity?

?
the article implied tackle fball could end in the future

 

[Vespidae]

This is all part of the continuing wussification of America.

There are far more injuries I think (translation = I haven't checked the data), from the old days of Astroturf over concrete than playing on turf. Concussions are a problem, but steps are being taken to better understand it.

Rule changes and playing time control could easily address most concerns. I'd hate to see football become wussified.

 

[SteamWhistle]

Anyone got any links that show the number of athletes playing football is decreasing??
It might be true but I can't see it. So many small programs getting better and better because there is more talent out there than ever before. Also New Helmets coming out every year that are making the game safer, football is definitely not dying IMO.

 

[ilovetheoption]

Anyone got any links that show the number of athletes playing football is decreasing??
It might be true but I can't see it. So many small programs getting better and better because there is more talent out there than ever before. Also New Helmets coming out every year that are making the game safer, football is definitely not dying IMO.

http://www.vocativ.com/298019/youth-football-participation-is-plummeting/

 

[Old South Stands]

I mean, it's all valid.

Combine this with the fact that football is demonstrably bad for you, and less kids playing, and I wonder what the future of the game is.

Like, I love football. I played it for 12 years. My brothers played in college. I watch college football for hours every single week in the fall.

I won't let my kids play. If football is losing parents like ME, it's sure as heckfire losing random moms who don't have any particular love for the game. I wonder what 20 years from now what the game will look like.

The six years I played football, I wouldn't trade them for just about anything. If my son wanted to play, I wouldn't discourage him from doing so. No other sport in the world builds the kind of team bonding that football does. Baseball is more of an individualistic sport. You can go an entire season of baseball with someone in the dugout holding a grudge against you, hoping you strike out, etc. In football, even people who started out your enemy at the beginning of the season will have a grudging respect for you by team banquet night because you fought alongside him in the trenches, depending on each other to execute your job. People look back many years later and miss their years playing football and the comraderie that came out of that... Few probably look back and miss their years playing soccer, or even remember who was on their team.

There was a recent study (done at UGA of all places?) that showed 5 sports with a higher concussion rate than football, and the number one on the list -- surprisingly -- was cheerleading! I guess cheerleaders get dropped a lot. Ice hockey came in higher than football, and even soccer. Wrestling might have been on that list. All the 'heading' people do with the soccer ball causes enough cumulative low-level brain damage equal to having genuine concussions. Plus some of those guys get messed up pretty bad in collisions at the higher level.

Pop Warner football is reasonably safe; by high school, the guys can get really big. My last organized football came in the pre-season as a 120-lb tenth grader... after a vicious hit on a punt return I got a stinger that numbed my entire right side. Wasn't permanently damaging, but it was at that moment l knew that playing football as an adult was a whole different animal from playing Pop Warner. Just the pure physics of it. Playing in the NFL is insanity. Those guys are getting paid literally to have their bodies broken for people's entertainment. Joe Montana thought he got out of the game early enough, and for ten years he was okay. Now he can't even play a game of pickup basketball with his nephews. Most NFLers likely won't have concussion issues... But there's a whole host of other health issues like bad joints and arthritis these guys get after playing the game a total of 15-20 years.

 

[Old South Stands]

GT is one of the last holdout D1 schools that actually try to field a competitive team while maintaining academic integrity. I'd love to see a longitudinal study of former football players and how they end up in life after college. My guess is our guys fair way better than the norm.

The real question is does that even matter to most of the best prospects coming out of high school?

There was an expose a few years back that included some of Chan's players, how they ended up on the street after failing out or washing out of the program. This type of thing happens a lot more at the big factory programs, even to some of those who graduate (albeit with a worthless degree). It's my understanding that CPJ's players are treated better, as were Bobby Ross's. Most go on to get their degree. About 15 years ago, I saw a video of **** Vitale speaking to a large group of American high school basketball players who'd been invited to the McDonald's tournament. Virtually every one of those kids was going to a major college program; **** Vitale explained the hard truth to them that only a tiny fraction of these very talented athletes would ever get a shot at the NBA, that they should focus primarily on their education. It was amazing such visible personage as Mr. Vitale was there to stress the importance of a good college education to these kids... Wonder if anything like that happens in football...

I was talking with a recent Tech grad a few weeks ago, discussing the idea of doing what the Ivy League did a while back: Quitting the NCAA championship business altogether and fielding teams consisting of players exclusively from the regular student body, e.g. no recruiting, no althetic scholarships... Kids who were accepted to the school purely on academic merit would go and try out for the team, much like trying out for their high school team. We could form a league with schools like Vanderbilt and Duke, and maybe play the Ivy League in inter-conference play. It would give many Tech students the opportunity to play and not just sit in the stands cheering. The obvious downside to such a move would be to the scholarship athletes themselves. How many players at Tech alone have gotten to go college and get a great education all because of an athletic scholarship? It's a wonderful thing to see, and there's a part of me that would hate to see that all go away.

Because of demographics, the scholarship model may be here to stay. Many college players today tend to come from less affluent backgrounds, and with more upper-income parents opting for their kids to play soccer, this may continue to be the case. It wasn't always like that in the past. Our Pop Warner program was in a moderately affluent neighborhood. Hundreds and hundreds of these kids played football over a fifteen or twenty year period, and many went on to play at the next level for Chamblee, Peachtree, Dunwoody and Marist. A few of those guys from my general age group went on to play QB for Duke, play on the 1990 NC team at Tech, become an all-American at UGA and spend 13 seasons in the NFL, etc.

Oddly enough, it was the sons of the very wealthy who first played collegiate football, back when the Ivy League was all there was. These young men were slated to become the captains of industry or commanding officers in the military. How does a young kid going into a management position get the respect of the foreman of a steel mill, a 30-year veteran of the company? It was through football that these 'soft' scions of the wealthy gained respect and notoriety for being tough so that they would be able to occupy these great positions of responsibility upon graduation. This is one of the reasons why college football was first promoted. Not personally a big fan of these 'elite' dynastic families per se, but just an illustration of how different collegiate football was back then and what role it played in society. Teddy Roosevelt, who did much to make college football much safer (eliminating the so-called 'flying wedge' which regularly killed and seriously injured a number of players), was a proponent of tough physical sports like football, saying that it was necessary in toughening up a nation's young leaders.

 

[YlJacket]

Hate to argue your logic but Ivy League athletes are not from the general population in Ivy League Schools. The Ivy Leagues have their own admission process for athletes that are selected by the coaches in their respective sports. My daughter had 4 offers from Ivy League schools to play VB and my best friend's kids played FB and BB at Ivy Schools. The admissions process for athletes is totally separate from the general admissions process.

Most of the non FB sports have a minimum of a 3.5 GPA and 1200-1300 SAT to get in which while high is significantly lower than the general population. FB has a sliding scale of GPA and SAT that essentially gives the coach a few more exceptions below the non-FB level for real playmaker types. Most of the Ivy League schools have 10 percent or more of their student body that came in through the athletic door.

I have told a lot of kids that the best way into the Ivy Leagues is through the athletic door. Since all of the Ivys essentially charge you 10% of your parents income per year it essentially equates to a scholarship for most any student outside of the NY investment banker types.

The biggest issue for schools like GT if they went to an Ivy type of approach to athletics is that they have so much invested in facilities that they would go bankrupt trying to pay the debt on the facilities without the ACC level funding. While it was certainly possible before we joined the ACC, I don't see it as a realistic option now - at least until we get our debt paid off.

 

[Old South Stands]

Hate to argue your logic but Ivy League athletes are not from the general population in Ivy League Schools. The Ivy Leagues have their own admission process for athletes that are selected by the coaches in their respective sports. My daughter had 4 offers from Ivy League schools to play VB and my best friend's kids played FB and BB at Ivy Schools. The admissions process for athletes is totally separate from the general admissions process.

Most of the non FB sports have a minimum of a 3.5 GPA and 1200-1300 SAT to get in which while high is significantly lower than the general population. FB has a sliding scale of GPA and SAT that essentially gives the coach a few more exceptions below the non-FB level for real playmaker types. Most of the Ivy League schools have 10 percent or more of their student body that came in through the athletic door.

I have told a lot of kids that the best way into the Ivy Leagues is through the athletic door. Since all of the Ivys essentially charge you 10% of your parents income per year it essentially equates to a scholarship for most any student outside of the NY investment banker types.

The biggest issue for schools like GT if they went to an Ivy type of approach to athletics is that they have so much invested in facilities that they would go bankrupt trying to pay the debt on the facilities without the ACC level funding. While it was certainly possible before we joined the ACC, I don't see it as a realistic option now - at least until we get our debt paid off.

That's pretty interesting, and from a first-hand account... I watched a special on Ivy League football on YouTube, and it made it sound like these kids were all purely drawn from the student body. Guess it made for a good documentary, at least...

Re: leaving power conference football... Was thinking the same thing with regard to maintaining facilities. I remember visiting Tech's facilities in the 70's... The locker room, weight room and cafeteria weren't worse than some of the pro teams' facilities at that time. But as an independent school, things at Grant Field were being left to rust and stagnate at a time when colleges were really beginning to upgrade. Joining the ACC forced the AD's hand in that matter.

 

[Vespidae]

Tech would rot away its alumni base if it did that! How many MIT or CalTech alumni return each year or stay involved?

Sports keeps codgers like me in constant contact with the school.

I would hate to see Tech become Ivy League or worse, MIT South.

 

[4shotB]

Tech would rot away its alumni base if it did that! How many MIT or CalTech alumni return each year or stay involved?

Sports keeps codgers like me in constant contact with the school.

I would hate to see Tech become Ivy League or worse, MIT South.

I agree that emotionally it would be a bitter pill to swallow. It also would be a poor business decision as has been discussed throughout this thread.

Btw, have any of you worked with or known any grads from MIT or Caltech? I spent my career in manufacturing and have encountered engineers from all the other usual places (GT, Purdue, Auburn, RPI, VT, Rose Hulman, etc) but never one from those schools. Probably too smart to pursue an industrial career. sorry for the thread hijack.

 

[YlJacket]

That's pretty interesting, and from a first-hand account... I watched a special on Ivy League football on YouTube, and it made it sound like these kids were all purely drawn from the student body. Guess it made for a good documentary, at least...

Re: leaving power conference football... Was thinking the same thing with regard to maintaining facilities. I remember visiting Tech's facilities in the 70's... The locker room, weight room and cafeteria weren't worse than some of the pro teams' facilities at that time. But as an independent school, things at Grant Field were being left to rust and stagnate at a time when colleges were really beginning to upgrade. Joining the ACC forced the AD's hand in that matter.

If we hadn't been asked to join the ACC, we most likely would have gone Ivy League level in athletics. The facilities in the 70's were beyond non-competitive. The outdoor weight room under the north stands being the most egregious. When you see a Duke fan today give them a beer and say thank you for taking us in Without them and UNC making an investment in GT athletics we would have been trying to join the Ivys.

One interesting dynamic that goes to Vespid's comment is that every Ivy school plus MIT and even Cal Tech have bigger endowments than GT. That is at least one level of alumni involvement. I won't claim that doing away with D1 athletics would increase the endowment but it does show that in some situations they are not linked. Certainly the older culture of GT was linked to Bobby Dodd's FB team. It came and went over the years with the success or not success of the team. And I sure enjoy having the FB team. But a legit question would be whether the students coming in over the last 10 years through today really care. Are they more like Cal Tech and MIT than they are Alabama? I don't know and won't claim to know the answer. But I do think as the SAT and academic focus of the students goes way up - and more students come from outside GA and leave GA - it becomes a relevant question.

In the interim I just want us to beat Duke today