Monday, August 30, 2010
Sports Ben's Sports Take: Like it or not, football at GSU is important
Posted by Ben Bussard on Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:55 PM
As Georgia State University's inaugural football season approaches, many people—CL included—are still questioning the school's desire to start a football program.
With the increase in student fees and the falsely assumed triviality of collegiate athletics in general, it's easy to understand why current GSU students might not be quite as "football-giddy" as the throngs of alumni anxiously awaiting Thursday night's kickoff.
So, do the school's penny-pinching dorm dwellers have an argument? Or should they be submissively eternally grateful for the mere opportunity to attend an institution that boasts a football program?
As a former GSU student—and penny-pinching dorm dweller—myself, I felt compelled to help ease this quandary by offering my honest, albeit biased, opinion: Georgia State football is worth every penny.
First of all, if you think that the addition of a football program is an effort by the Georgia State administration to compete with their North Avenue neighbors (Georgia Tech) or the almighty Bulldogs of UGA, you're kidding yourself.
The engineers and Athenians have more than a 200-year combined head start with this whole football thing, so to even consider an entry-level program such as GSU's as a serious competitor is downright silly.
If you truly want to know with whom Georgia State is competing, take a look at the 250-plus schools across the country that already possess a football program—and how they're taken more seriously as academic institutions.
You see, it's public perception—not lacking athletic prowess—that GSU is trying to overcome.
For the entirety of its 97-year history, Georgia State has been aptly labeled as a commuter school—with roughly 10 percent of the student body actually living on campus, who can really argue the distinction?
But therein lies the very problem that the addition of a football program will attempt to solve.
Sure, the cost of GSU student fees has increased strictly to fund the program, but it isn't nearly as much as last week's CL editorial suggests:
Back in the fall of 2007, student fees amounted to less than $500 per semester. This upcoming semester, fees will total $814.
Sounds excessive, but $200 of that increase has absolutely nothing to do with the GSU football program as the University System of Georgia implemented the system-wide hike in fees in order to "help maintain academic quality in the face of significant reductions to the University System's budget fr the Fiscal Year in 2011."
Upon further examination of the heightened student fees, we find that only $85—less than 10 percent of the total institutional fee—goes towards funding the football program.
If Georgia State wants to shed the "commuter school" label and attract more students to live on campus, the addition and, more importantly, ultimate success of a football program is mandatory.
Not because the Panthers will be vying for airtime on ESPN—aside from their November 18 date with the No. 1 Crimson Tide—or competing for National Championships, but because football is the barometer by which all Universities' popularity—especially in the south—is measured.
And the more "popular" a University, the more attractive it is to prospective students.
Whether you like it or not, football is an important aspect of the college experience. Just ask the students in Athens or up the road at Georgia Tech—they've been paying these fees for decades.
Let me hear your side of the argument: Do you think that Georgia State's increase in fees in a big deal? Or should students embrace the addition of a football team? Leave your comments below, tweet them @SportsLoaf or share your thoughts on Facebook.com/CLSports.
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
Ben,
Well stated. As many who look only on the surface, they view the dollars and cents instead of what actually makes sense. With more than 31,000 students, Georgia State is forging ahead as an elite university. Boosters who donate money to athletics also donate money to acadmic causes.
Did anyone see that William "Pete" Petit gave $1.5 million for the practice facility? If you walk by the Science building on campus you also see that his name bears that building. Athletics, and in this case football, create a sense of pride and creates affinity. With this affinity leads to increased giving from alums and in turn makes degrees worth more.
I challenge anyone who'd like to speak intelligently on why football does not make sense for Georgia State to email me at gstateben@gmail.com. I'd love to hear the arguments.
Great write up Ben and keep up the great work!
like
dislike
There are plenty of non-commuter schools that do just fine without a football program. And, like Georgia State, they are located in a downtown area.
When I was at Georgia State, there was this movement of rather loud students who demanded a football program. If they wanted one that badly, as far as I was concerned, they could have gone to a school that already had a football program.
That sentiment aside, whenever the subject was brought up, Carl Patton's answer was that the few new football programs that have started in the past fifty years each cost a fortune. The result: each of those schools fell to the brink of bankruptcy and the school president got fired. I saw it as no coincidence that Dr. Patton announced his retirement at around the same time the new football program was announced.
I'm open to the idea that the program will be worth the additional cost to the students (what with the athletic fees being doubled) -- that Georgia State's academic program will not suffer, and that support for the academic program will continue to increase. But I did make a conscious decision to withhold my support as an alum of the school in the meantime.
Another poor story. Not picking on you dude but ESPN just released a story that over half of the established DI schools LOSE money on football! (http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/1…). About 5 years ago the Chronicle of Higher Education reported that multiple studies show that the performance of college sports teams have no correlation to school choice.
Do you ever check any facts before you write? I wish that I had a job where I can just say whatever I wanted, factual or not, and get paid for it. You are a lucky man.
Oh and not to pile on but now the AJC also disagrees with your assessment of sports attendance in Atlanta: http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/201…
clincher: Where in this post do I imply that the GSU football program is going to make any money?
Clincher, so do we know how they computed "profit" for football teams? Is there any way to tie that to increases in giving, or is that already done (and if so, how?)?
JHOW: "In point of fact, the
results of studies examining the relationship between athletic programs and higher
education fund raising over a 70 year span of time suggest that there is either no
relationship or a very weak relationship at best between the two."
Source: http://www2.cs.uidaho.edu/~oman/Athletics_…. I have a degree in this field BTW and if you want further reading on the subject read Beer and Circus by Murray Sperber.
Ben: You said this: " football is the barometer by which all Universities' popularity—especially in the south—is measured. And the more "popular" a University, the more attractive it is to prospective students." This statement implies that football makes you more "popular" which implies that more students will want to come to GSU, which equals more revenues, more recognition and more giving.
The type of student that chooses GA State because they have a second-rate football program is not going to raise the academic profile of State and, frankly, is a moron. Morons don't make money which means nothing to give back to State U.
Furthermore if what you assert in your quote is true then how is Emory getting by? Reminder you said "all" in your article. Last time that I checked they were the most respected and best endowed university GA. How is it that they make it without a football program?
I'm looking forward to an article from you that is actually based in fact so that I can take a break from doing your job for you.
I know at GT the Athletic Department has it's own budget so even if they lose money, it is not coming out of the school's general fund. This is also true for UGA, since their AD is profitable, it has in the past contributed money to the school's academic side. The former Athletic Director at Georgia was able to get Victoria's Secret to sponsor more than a few scholarships for non-athletes.
Having GSU field a football team will not likely make alums contribute more nor will it influence students to attend (which it doesn't have a problem) but it might help it transition into a more residential school.
Call me crazy, but I would think that turning Ga State into a more residential school would involve having more students live on campus.
Whether the athletic program has its own independent budget is really a red herring. If ticket sales, sponsorships and contributions to the athletic program don't meet the expenses of the program, they can raise the mandatory athletic fee that the students have to pay.
Interesting point linking Patton's retirement to the birth of the football program. Along the same lines, can it be coincidence that the president who preceded Patton - Noah Langdale - was dead within months of the announcement that GSU would have a football team? Seems fishy.
Latest in Fresh Loaf
-
Beatys, Task Force is out of Peachtree-Pine in 10 days — UPDATE 11
Task Force for Homeless has less than two weeks to clear out
-
Familiar story, new headline: Local woman gets what she deserves 3
I feel the opposite of bad for the people who get robbed buying "iPads" in parking lots
-
AJC seemingly out to derail Atlanta Streetcar 22
AJC seems to have it in for the Atlanta Streetcar
- More »
Author Archives
-
Ben's Sports Take: 14 days until Opening Day 2
Here are the next seven things that must go right for the Braves in 2011.
-
Disappointment of the Week: Paul Hewitt's contract 4
Have you seen this thing?
-
Ben's Sports Take: Chewing Tobacco Saves the Day for Derek Lowe 3
Was Derek Lowe's DUI acquittal justified?
- More »
