November 13, 2008

UNC-Charlotte Board Votes Yes on Football

College football is coming to Charlotte, N.C.

The Board of Trustees of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte voted unanimously today in favor of bringing a Division I-AA football program to the university in 2013, The Charlotte Observer reported.

This morning’s 8-to-0 vote comes two months after the university’s chancellor, Philip L. Dubois, announced he would support a Division I-AA football program at the university.

Now the hard work begins. The university must raise $45.3-million to get the program up and running, and Mr. Dubois has charged the athletics department with raising most of the sum. “Those who say they want football are going to have to help pay for football,” Mr. Dubois said in September.

Despite an outpouring of support from alumni and others in the Charlotte region who are eager for football, the climb will be steep for university fund raisers: The recent failure of the Charlotte-based Wachovia Corporation represents not just a blow to the regional economy but also the loss of one of the university’s major corporate donors. —Libby Sander

Comments

1. Good luck with that fund raising. Football programs are much more expensive to run than most folks realize and few programs make money off of Football, and then, only at the D1 level.

   — Kyle David    Nov 13, 04:44 PM    #

2. Wow! That is a bold decision with only a promise of $5million and $40million more to raise in this climate. Good luck. I look forward to how football will improve the core mission of the Univeristy of North Carolina Charlotte!

   — Jeff Senese    Nov 13, 05:15 PM    #

3. I sincerely hope their ‘title IX house’ is in order. I love collegiate football, but also many other collegiate sports.

   — G. Davis    Nov 13, 05:24 PM    #

4. I wonder how many improvements could be made in academic programs, capital improvements, and student services with $45.3 million?

   — Carl    Nov 13, 05:41 PM    #

5. Where they gonna play? They better have an on-campus stadium fully financed and funded….preferably built, by time they start playing.

   — Waiting in Boca    Nov 13, 05:53 PM    #

6. At the univ. where my son attends the athletics dept. us funded by the XYZ Athletics Corporation and it is entirely self-supporting. The football and men’s basketball programs are monstrous revenue-generators. That money cannot be allocated for academics or deferred maintenance, etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand budgeting.

   — deborah    Nov 13, 05:54 PM    #

7. It’s a lot of money, but a stadium is not a deal breaker – there have to be a number of stadia in the area which could be used with the right arrangements. And adding a football program is likely to have a very positive influence on alumni contributions.

   — ap    Nov 13, 06:30 PM    #

8. I do Title IX research and UNC-Charlotte has a small imbalance all but one year of the last 10 years; however, the addition of a football team should increase their imbalances significantly. Someone should try to stop this program addition – I’ll send a letter to the University President and the Governor. Hope it helps!

   — C. Sullivan    Nov 13, 08:34 PM    #

9. Very bad decision at this particular point in time. Is there no national news available to those who inhabit Charlotte? Once again, a big black eye for the intelligence levels odf college/university trustees.

   — Bill    Nov 13, 08:38 PM    #

10. This article starts out all wrong! Davidson College has played Division I-AA football in the Charlotte area for several decades.

    — a scorned fan    Nov 13, 08:42 PM    #

11. To C. Sullivan: I hope you’re not serious. Proportionality is only one test of compliance as title IX mavens continually point out when trying to throw the ball back into the court of a college or university that cuts small, men’s olympic sports in order to ‘save money.’ No one is fooled, they’re doing it to get the title IX numbers right.

    Title IX is a good law but the way it has been implemented is an embarrassment.

    — Bill Price    Nov 14, 06:34 AM    #

12. Deborah, your husband must be one of these $2 million a year coaches.
    The truth is no university in America makes money on athletics. A half dozen, such as Notre Dame, appear to but most charge heavy athletic fees to students, allow athletic department to have first dibs on potential donors and actively channell money under the table to athletics.
    One side effect of the coming economic melt down will be the restructuring of college athletics. Make no mistake about it athletics do not make money for any institution and most institutions face very hard times in the coming economic depression.
    Fess up Deborah you are a cheerleader.

    — Doug1978    Nov 14, 07:39 AM    #

13. Doug1978 – I guess you got cut in Junior High. To say that “athletics do not make money for any institution” is incorrect. Review the books for the Univ of Florida football program and then report back with the facts.

    — GT    Nov 14, 08:12 AM    #

14. The City-State of Charlotte is having a difficult enough time supporting its professional football program in these lean times. Does it make sound enconomic sense for a taxpayer-supported institution of higher learning to enter into the same market to compete for those scarce dollars?

    — ab    Nov 14, 08:12 AM    #

15. There is a huge difference between “making money” and making a PROFIT. Very few college athletic teams make a profit; I’ve seen some statistics for SEC teams, but don’t remember specifics about Florida. Even a rinky-dink football team costs a lot to operate; ETSU dropped it a few years ago, when they were no longer able to use public money to support athletics, because it was estimated to cost $8 million a year to support and the President thought if they weren’t competitive (hadn’t been for several years) why waste the money?

    — Ginger    Nov 14, 08:35 AM    #

16. Big-time college revenue sports are total whorehou…uh, make that plantations:

    1. Football and basketball players spend more hours per week (about 44) on their sports than they do on academics (classes + study, about 40).

    2. Revenue-sports players are directed to easy, bogus majors. My favorite, from the University of Miami a couple of years ago: “Leisure Studies.” That’s even better than the common “Recreation Administration.” Most do not receive a “college education” in return for their labors in sport.

    3. The Athletics Department is a sovereign fiefdom within a university and only nominally attached to its direct organization. In short, it does what it wants, including “keeping players eligible” in ways beyond the control of the university.

    4. The football and basketball coaches make salaries in the millions, and are only nominally subordinate to a university president who makes a few hundred thou.

    7. In basetball, especially, the star players are often de facto pros. The NBA’s new rule that its players can’t come right out of high school has created a new breed of “one-and-done” players (e.g., O.J. Mayo, Greg Oden, Michael Beasley) who use the college team as a showcase for one season to get an NBA contract. So much for “student-athlete.”

    7. The police blotter in big-time college sports towns is filled with the misdeeds of football and basketball players. Same for the sexual harrassment (and worse) logs of the university. Too many for the “a few bad apples” excuse to apply, about enough for “an entire culture of…” in the Athletics Department to apply.

    8. All of this is more typical of D-1A (a k a “Bowl Subdivision”), but it’s rapidly taking over D-1-AA (“Championship Subdivision”), too.

    The Drake Group (http://www.thedrakegroup.org/) has proposals to “defend academic integrity in the face of commercialized college sport,” and they’re worth looking at. Long shots, but after reading them you’ll at least know how corrupt the big-time college sports plantation really is, and have to think about it when you’re knocking back a few tailgate brewskis prior to the big game.

    — LuckyJim    Nov 14, 08:55 AM    #

17. Someone should send this university administration a compass because they’ve clearly strayed 180 degrees from where they (and most other colleges and unviersities) need to be going—intramural only sports rather than pro sports.

    — A Prof    Nov 14, 12:18 PM    #

18. Many D-1 programs make subatantial profit..always some who don’t see the bigger picture…

    — Dr. Howard M. Pardue    Nov 14, 01:03 PM    #

19. Oh God, GT is waiting for Bobby Dodd to come back and teh heavens will open up. The truth is if you take away the student fees, state subsidies of women’s athletics and first dibs on donors not one SECschool would break even.
    Further, they recruit non students to play football and men’s basketball that is why other than Vanderbilt the SEC does not have a top 25 academic school.
    UNC-Chapel Hill does as does Virginia in The ACC and perhaps GT but anyone says the Florida is making money should read Bo Schemblecher…“the cost of athletiics is 10% than what you have.” Bo said this after leaving coaching to become athletic director at Michigan for four years.
    In the SEC football is a substitute for quality education…all baloney called PR.

    — Doug1978    Nov 14, 01:57 PM    #

20. This is the equivalent of perfecting a hernia transplant!

    — Bill    Nov 14, 02:37 PM    #

21. Can anyone provide evidence that the quality of any academic program was ever improved by a major college sports program?

    — perplexed    Nov 14, 04:12 PM    #

22. OK guys and gals. I’m no big fan of collegiate sports, but I do understand numbers. A lot of the comments here I would put into the “knows the cost but not the value” category. For example, here in Pennsylvania, it can rather easily be figured out how much the football and basketball programs “cost” and “earn” at Penn State. But how much are JoePa, the Blue and White, and all that WORTH to Penn State? How many millions flow into Penn State non-athletic programs because alumni’s (and legislators’) fond feelings toward Penn State are at least in part influenced by football and basketball? If what I say is true, some may maintain that it is still not “right,” and I might concede the point (and there are certainly abuses that must be corrected). All I’m trying to say is that the “worth” or “Value” of an athletic program may go beyond the tallying up of direct costs and revenues.

    — PA Man    Nov 14, 04:18 PM    #

23. Penn State is one of the exceptions and JoPa has given a lot back to the university. He has never been greedy and has always run a honest program.
    Pa Stateis certainly an exception like Notre Dame, Michigan, BY, Stanford and a few others.

    — Doug1978    Nov 14, 06:25 PM    #

24. Growing up in Central PA, I have admired Joe Paterno for more than 30 years, but PA Man (#22) and others, I am asking an honest question about evidence. You ask “How many millions flow into Penn State non-athletic programs because alumni’s (and legislators’) fond feelings toward Penn State are at least in part influenced by football and basketball?” Many assume that the answer to this question supports claims in favor of major college sports. But what is the evidence? Maybe the wealth of the Ivy’s accrues because they do not participate in Div. 1A sports. I have no evidence either, but why assume that this latter proposition is preposterous while the former is common sense?

    If, over the next decade, UNC Charlotte’s budget for academic programs grows at a rate larger than expected, and this growth coincides with the growth of a football program, well, that would be evidence. Has a trend of this kind been observed elsewhere?

    I would also add that I recognize the value, to students, of college sports; but I suggest that much of this benefit is obtained already in small Division 2 and 3 programs.

    — perplexed    Nov 14, 06:58 PM    #

25. Listen guys and gals the nation is heading into a deep recession of 3-5 years. States are going to be desperate for money and they are cutting colleges and universities.
    Colleges and Universities have been spending wildly on recreation centers, flashy dorms and athletic programs. At the same time there has been a huge movement toward not having so many full time professors and more part time, cheap adjunct professors. The educational process is being seriously damaged in the process.
    Many institutions have avoided the bond rating process during the past ten years by going with public private partnership deals. That is they lease land to private developers who then borrow in a loose market to build a flashy building. Then the institution rents it back. The institutions could never have borrowed the money them selves.
    Those debts are bundled and become securities.
    Now these are only a few of the monetary challenges facing colleges and universities. There are many others.
    But during this developing financial crisis the UNC Charlotte heads out to build an unneeded athletic program to compete with Western Carolina or Southern Georgia. And they are going to invest $45 million in the effort up front!
    Wow Debroah did you ever play halfback? It must have been in the single wing formation if you did.

    — Doug1978    Nov 14, 07:34 PM    #

26. Actually, spending an insane amount of money on a football program makes this alum LESS likely to donate. This is money that could be used to lower tuition, improve libraries, enhance technology, etc. Instead it is money spent on a tiny elite group of students who constitute <1% of the enrollment. I’m curious if some muckracking journalist will ever have the chutzpah to expose how many of these alleged student athletes actually graduate, or who graduate with degrees of any academic rigor.

    — Mark Smith    Nov 15, 01:26 AM    #

Previous: Vennard College, in Iowa, Announces It Will Close
Next: New Publication Highlights Lessons Learned in Setting Up Academic Programs Abroad