Below is the exchange of a debate on college football....
=====
Dear Fran,

Firstly, I’m glad that you will do “some research” into this subject. It is a serious subject that deserves knowledgeable logical and reasonable debate. I believe the argument, given you write an Op-Ed piece for the State’s newspaper, deserves as much. Notwithstanding my prerogatively use of a $100bln hyperbole, college football IS a big business that is part of college sports HUGE business. The business is larger than just ticket sales and scholarships. For example, the software company EA Sports, who employs 8,000 people, made $80mln just from its videogame “NCAA Football 06” [1].
Last August, the Big East and ABC/ESPN signed long-term deals for both football and men’s and women’s basketball. The football deal is worth a reported $36 million annually. The Big East $36 million per year / 8 teams = $4.5 million
Confirming an observation made by the BCF (Business of College Football) the salvation and money for this league is in Rutgers and the New York market.

“The school that’s driven the ratings surge is Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey that’s always been a marked underachiever in football. Last year, the Scarlet Knights captured the fascination of the country’s largest TV market for the first time ever.” –BCF

The 15 home football games of University of Michigan and Michigan State University are worth $177 million to the state in direct and indirect economic impact, or more than triple the value of Super Bowl XL at Ford Field in 2006. That’s according to a new study by Anderson Economic Group L.L.C., a Lansing-based economic and business consultant.
That’s just a few facts that I researched before I wrote to you Fran. I don’t think it’s really a question as to college football being a “big business” or not. The point is its not just about painting one’s face red on six Saturdays.
I also think that the argument as framed – and it’s not just you, that the choice is between more classes/teachers, niche sports OR football is a false one. The State wastes lots of money in so many ways –Paul Mulshine has for years spotlighted this, that it could be argued preventing wasteful spending would provide enough funding for BOTH new classes/teachers, niche sports AND RU Football.

Finally, I think it is naive to think that in 2007 attending post high-school education is only “higher education”. If not for the athletics offered, how many student-athletes would chose not to attend college? As a society anyway (legal of course) that we can get more and more high school graduates to attend college should be a goal. Consider, in the 1940s 20% of the jobs [2] in the USA were skilled and required some advanced training, while 80% were unskilled As of 1990, that has reversed.
A famous study [3] showed how college football in and of itself, provided the means for so many economically & socially disadvantaged youths to attain higher social mobility-clearly a good thing. Colleges are more than just higher education –by definition the liberal arts colleges offer so much to so many, like music and the arts. How many students who studied the arts have been belittled for ‘wasting their time’ and to ‘get a job’.
In short, American universities & colleges are much, much more than just higher education.

Regards,

Kevin


[1] From Electronics Arts 2006 annual report
[2] “The Black Student’s Guide To College Success”, by Rudy Higgins.
[3] College Football and Social Mobility: A Case Study of Notre Dame Football Players ,Allen L. Sack, Robert Thiel, Sociology of Education



HERE’S THE OP-ED THAT FRAN WOOD WROTE:

Fumbling away tax dollars on Rutgers football
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Dear Gov. Corzine:
I was stunned and dismayed to read that you in tend to help fund the expansion of Rutgers University's stadium -- by some estimates, to the tune of $30 million.

One reason that figure caught my eye is because, if memory serves, that was precisely the amount by which the state de creased the budget for higher education for 2007.
The upshot of that budget cut, you may remember, was that Rutgers was forced to cancel 451 classes, lay off 185 employees and impose a tuition increase on its 50,000 students.
In addition to those cuts, you'll also recall, the university eliminated a number of "non-revenue sports." Today, any Rutgers stu dent who wishes to participate in heavyweight or lightweight crew, men's or women's fencing, swimming and diving or tennis can do so only at the club level.
Club-level sports, however, don't draw students who have spent years immersed in a sport. So they'll now choose schools where they'll find coaches and budgets and a higher level of competition, where they'll have a shot at being Olympics contenders, All- Americans, NCAA medalists and team and individual champions -- all of which those Rutgers teams produced in the past.
If $30 million is lying around for an upfront payment on football stadium luxury boxes, why was it impossible to find even a small fraction of that amount to save six sports that have served thousands of students over the years?
Well, okay, I know the answer: The football stadium project, we're told, may "pay for itself." Except these things almost never pay for themselves, especially if you start adding up the ancillary costs of going "big time" in football. All those extra cars already tie up New Brunswick for hours on game days and require hundreds of officers for traffic control -- and the only apparent solution for this problem is to spend tens of millions more on parking facilities.
We're also told that a stadium expansion is a necessary part of the larger football upgrade that will increase general interest in Rutgers -- and it does seem that last year's football success has helped draw greater interest among college- bound students around the coun try.
I just wonde Granted, some -- or even many -- applicants may be interested in Rutgers because it has a winning football team. But does a student really select a college on the basis of knowing that on six Saturdays a year he can go to a football game and paint his face red?
And if such a student exists, what university that cares about its academic ranking is scheming to get him?
I do understand, by the way, that a school's sports program and budget are separate entities from its education program. But it's hard to mentally separate them when one of those programs is contemplating a $100 million expenditure, with perhaps 30 million taxpayer dollars up front, while the other is under enormous financial stress. And if $30 million is lying around to ensure football stadium luxury boxes, why wasn't a fraction of that amount available when Rutgers was cutting those 451 classes or yanking those six sports out from under students who went to Rutgers partly to participate in them?
Let me note here that I'm as happy for Rutgers' success on the gridiron as the next person. In a perfect world, we could just cut a check for $100 million and give the stadium more seats, luxury boxes, high-end restaurants, a television- friendly lighting system, a new scoreboard and state-of-the-art sound system.
But New Jersey 2007 is far from a perfect world. In a state whose taxpayers are begging for relief, where the clock is ticking down on dangerous infrastructure problems and close to 9,000 disabled people sit on the waiting list for group homes, even to think about this boys-and-their-toys expense isn't just wrong. It's obscene.
I'm sure there are many taxpayers who would be all too willing to have their tax dollars go to Rutgers' stadium expansion. Please be advised I am not one of them.
Moreover, I urge you and the Legislature to suppress your inner little boy and inform Rutgers football fans that if they have their hearts set on expansion, they can break out the sugar and the flour, hold bake sales and raise the money themselves.
Sincerely, Fran Wood, taxpayer
cc. Sen. President Richard J. Codey
Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts Jr.
Fran Wood may be reached at fwood@starledger.com. To comment on her column, go to NJVoices.com. r if these potential applicants have been told that they'd be coming to a school with fewer classes, fewer professors and fewer sports


HERE’S MY RESPONSE TO HER:

Dear Fran Wood,

In your column or the Star Ledger today you ask the tendentious rhetorical question: “does a student really select college on the basis of knowing that on six Saturdays a year he can go to a football game and paint his face red”. Not to mention the condescending approach to a reasonable question, have you ever asked a college student if they chose in all r part their college section due to the university’s football team? Well, I did and the answer is yes. I asked two hundred college students in four different colleges – USC, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Boston College. Albeit not scientific, my informal survey found 15% of the students say they do select the university due to its football success. That doesn’t include the 100 student-athletes that are on the football team itself..
College football generates $100 billion a year in revenue and its attractiveness for high school seniors is unparallel. None of the other niche sports you mentioned can offer as much. When was the last time crew was on CBS Sports? Recall that Penn State’s football team pays for all of the other sports programs combined. Rutgers should be so lucky to attain such a level. No actually luck has nothing to do with it but responsible planning, execution and investment. All of which this taxpayer is glad to see the university and the State of NJ are committed to.

Regards,

Kevin taxpayer

cc. Sen. President Richard J Cody
Assembly Speaker Joseph J. Roberts. Jr.


===============================
HERE’S HER RESPONSE TO ME:

Ordinarily, a columnist tends to hear mostly from people who disagree with his/her position, some taking delight in name calling. Compliments definitely constitute the minority of emails to journalists. But today I’ve had a considerable surprise. First, I’ve never had so many emails on a single column – easily four or five times the number my column usually draws. Second, every single one of them – until yours – has supported the points I made. I would have to do some research to knowledgeably argue with your contention that “college football generates $100 billion a year,” but I’m very sure that’s not the case across the board.

Bear in mind I have NOTHING against any expenditures RU wants to make in behalf of football. I just don’t think the state should have any part in funding it. To cut funding to higher education in this state by $30 million, causing the elimination of hundreds – HUNDREDS – of classes, many professors and six traditional sports, then later in that same year finding a spare $30 million to throw at a stadium expansion is appalling.

I don’t begrudge any kid the fun of attending a school with a football team and enjoying all the ancillary social events that accompany it – God knows I enjoyed many such weekends at Cornell when I was in college. But my parents weren’t paying for my enjoyment of football games and parties, but for my education -- and the same applied to my kids when they were in college. It’s called higher education for a reason, Kevin. When they start calling it higher sports, I’ll shut up.

Notwithstanding, I appreciate your taking time to email me.

Fran