National Media -- ESPN's Gene Woj

[jknezek]

What is it with the national sports media? I understand DIII is pretty much off the radar except for the occassional fun fodder stat or ridiculous play, but do these people understand the NCAA so little that they think teams can just jump divisions the way players can?

In today's BMOC Gene Woj suggests Grambling can no longer afford FCS football and that, "As painful as it might be for the Grambling football purists, perhaps the administration should consider dropping the program to, say, Division III, or dropping the program altogether."

This implies that DIII football has teams with filthy, rotten, uncared for equipment and training rooms, lack of resources, and doesn't involve long bus rides. It also supposes that Grambling could just up and move the football program, ignoring that all other sports have to be in the same division.

It just continues to amaze me that these guys don't understand the things they cover. Maybe he doesn't need to know about DIII, but Gene Woj should certainly understand the rules about how the NCAA is structured.

[AO]

It is a pretty dumb rule as long as you don't let scholarship basketball players also play football.  That conference is terrible in the FCS and it would make fiscal sense for them to move all sports to D3.  Would be fun to see.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Halfway agree with you.  Actually, about 80% agree with you.

I do think most of the national sports media is pretty ignorant about Division III athletics, unless they had a relative play D3 sports.  Not all - some have given shout-outs to smaller colleges over the years - but most.

I don't think that the suggestion Grambling should drop to Division III implies that D3 football teams have filthy, rotten, uncared for equipment or that D3 athletics is some wasteland.  I think it implies that Grambling is at this point not capable of affording an FCS football program, and that they might be able to better manage the program if they left FCS, and that dropping to D3 might possibly allow them to run the program on a smaller budget.  Note that he didn't give any specifics, he just said they should "consider" dropping the program to Division III. 

Now, with that said: I recognize the other problems with this suggestion, specifically the notion that football teams can change divisions and conferences like they're an NFL free agent and it's just a matter of simply signing up to play in a different league.  There are plenty of other reasons why Grambling moving down doesn't make sense, but it's not totally asinine to suggest the Grambling administration consider such a move.  He didn't say they'd do it this season, or next season.  He said they should consider it.  It would obviously be part of a longer-term reclassification of all their sports programs, which, if the financial situation is as dire as it seems, might be necessary.  I expect that, given time, they would find a home in one of the Southern conferences down yonder, but I'm a Yankee from the North and don't know anything about Louisiana geography

Don't get me wrong - the comment is still plenty dumb.  But I don't think it makes the insinuation that most D3 schools have the problems found by Grambling.  I really think all he "meant" (poorly thought, but still) is that they cannot afford to sustain an FCS football program and should explore other options.

[jknezek]

I agree Ex. The problem is he is a national sports columnist. He is PAID to have well thought out, well reasoned, attractive arguments about national sports, especially collegiate sports. His whole column, and most of his job, revolves around NCAA sports, primarily football. The way this column was written demonstrates that he lacks significant knowledge about part of his primary focus. Very disturbing. Even more disturbing than the lack of knowledge is the poorly written and reasoned arguments.

If journalists can be hard on players and teams for bad games, we can be hard on columnists for putting out poorly thought out and worded junk...

[ExTartanPlayer]

I agree Ex. The problem is he is a national sports columnist. He is PAID to have well thought out, well reasoned, attractive arguments about national sports, especially collegiate sports. His whole column, and most of his job, revolves around NCAA sports, primarily football. The way this column was written demonstrates that he lacks significant knowledge about part of his primary focus. Very disturbing. Even more disturbing than the lack of knowledge is the poorly written and reasoned arguments.

If journalists can be hard on players and teams for bad games, we can be hard on columnists for putting out poorly thought out and worded junk...

Oh, I full-heartedly agree that we can be hard on columnists for putting out crap, and with the sentiments in your first paragraph - the apparent lack of understanding of the issues in play with dropping to D3.  I say "apparent" because there are two other factors to consider here - his audience and how much any of THEM will care.  The guys & gals who frequent this site are probably, on average, far more educated and thoughtful than the "average" D1 football fan; plenty of D1 fans are "fans" just by the mere happenstance that people who live in State X root for State U and thus consider themselves big-time college football experts (read the comments section of any article on ESPN for evidence of the brain-surgeons at work there).  Most of the ESPN column readers are likely not aware of the intricacies of D3 football and, more importantly, don't really care - so Woj can either spend 1,000 words trying to explain why Grambling dropping to D3 is really complicated, or he can say "Maybe it's time for Grambling to consider dropping the program to a lower division" and be done with it.

That won't appease you, I know, but he's not trying to appease you.  He's trying to keep getting ESPN page views.

[jknezek]

All that is true, but dropping to a lower division, any division, doesn't actually solve the problem. Again, this is my point. That argument implies that simply dropping down would make the sport less expensive and therefore they could do a better job of maintaining it. Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect.

In a lower division, Grambling would still have the fixed expense of an outsized stadium and would be unlikely to fill it. That would drop ticket and concession revenue. Scholarship costs might dissipate from the athletic department, but they'd probably be increased in the general student fund, unless you assume that the student athletes you recruit would pay full freight, unlikely at an HBCU. Sadly for Grambling, you still need clean pads, clean facilities and, as far as I've ever seen, Gatorade, even at the DIII level. I guess you could can some coaches, but it seems like they've already done that. La Col, the only DIII football school in LA I'm aware of, takes some pretty long bus trips every year, so you aren't going to get away from that either.

In other words, dropping down isn't just a matter of doing it and the money situation will improve. Again, a fallacy in his argument. You think I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. I'm arguing he is simply wrong. Dropping down doesn't solve the problem and, as a national sports columnist, he should have been able to understand that. And he does impugn DIII simply by associating it with a failing FCS program. Especially to the knuckle draggers and mouth breathing morons that post on those comment boards...

[ExTartanPlayer]

All that is true, but dropping to a lower division, any division, doesn't actually solve the problem. Again, this is my point. That argument implies that simply dropping down would make the sport less expensive and therefore they could do a better job of maintaining it. Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect.

In a lower division, Grambling would still have the fixed expense of an outsized stadium and would be unlikely to fill it. That would drop ticket and concession revenue. Scholarship costs might dissipate from the athletic department, but they'd probably be increased in the general student fund, unless you assume that the student athletes you recruit would pay full freight, unlikely at an HBCU. Sadly for Grambling, you still need clean pads, clean facilities and, as far as I've ever seen, Gatorade, even at the DIII level. I guess you could can some coaches, but it seems like they've already done that. La Col, the only DIII football school in LA I'm aware of, takes some pretty long bus trips every year, so you aren't going to get away from that either.

In other words, dropping down isn't just a matter of doing it and the money situation will improve. Again, a fallacy in his argument. You think I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. I'm arguing he is simply wrong. Dropping down doesn't solve the problem and, as a national sports columnist, he should have been able to understand that. And he does impugn DIII simply by associating it with a failing FCS program. Especially to the knuckle draggers and mouth breathing morons that post on those comment boards...

These are all true - I'm not arguing any of those semantics, we're on the same side here, and I agree with literally every point you make about clean pads and Gatorade (yes, we got Gatorade at CMU; no Muscle Milk, though, we had to buy that ourselves if we wanted it) and why just not having to pay for scholarships doesn't fix the entire financial situation.  I'm simply saying that his job isn't a civic duty to report the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as much as you'd like it to be.  It's to get ESPN readers to keep reading ESPN columns.  The vast majority of ESPN readers, as we note here, don't know anything about D3 football and don't care.  They'd much rather read a two-sentence suggestion that Grambling can't afford big-time football and thus should drop down than a detailed description of why dropping to a smaller level will probably not really solve the problem anyway.

[jknezek]

As someone with a degree in journalism, and a brief career as a journalist, I get your argument. But even a columnist, who has more latitude in his/her ability to entertain as opposed to report the facts, is still expected to make a logical and well reasoned argument. In the eyes of anyone who would understand the basic finances of "dropping down", Woj failed at that. He could have had the same "wow" impact by simply saying Grambling needed to drop football, and he would have had an argument that actually worked. In the eyes of his common audience, they probably don't care, but I've never been a big proponent of playing to the lowest common denominator, even when I was a member of the fifth estate.

For all intents and purposes though, we'll have to agree to agree on this one!

[AO]

All that is true, but dropping to a lower division, any division, doesn't actually solve the problem. Again, this is my point. That argument implies that simply dropping down would make the sport less expensive and therefore they could do a better job of maintaining it. Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect.

In a lower division, Grambling would still have the fixed expense of an outsized stadium and would be unlikely to fill it. That would drop ticket and concession revenue. Scholarship costs might dissipate from the athletic department, but they'd probably be increased in the general student fund, unless you assume that the student athletes you recruit would pay full freight, unlikely at an HBCU. Sadly for Grambling, you still need clean pads, clean facilities and, as far as I've ever seen, Gatorade, even at the DIII level. I guess you could can some coaches, but it seems like they've already done that. La Col, the only DIII football school in LA I'm aware of, takes some pretty long bus trips every year, so you aren't going to get away from that either.

In other words, dropping down isn't just a matter of doing it and the money situation will improve. Again, a fallacy in his argument. You think I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. I'm arguing he is simply wrong. Dropping down doesn't solve the problem and, as a national sports columnist, he should have been able to understand that. And he does impugn DIII simply by associating it with a failing FCS program. Especially to the knuckle draggers and mouth breathing morons that post on those comment boards...

I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

[jknezek]

I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Even if you are not paying for the stadium, you have to pay to maintain it. Much more expensive to maintain that facility than a DIII facility. As for the "less expensive", yes and no. If they spent 7M and earned 5M, then they were 2M in the red as opposed to LC's 1.6M in the red. So, 400K is the big difference, correct? How much of that is "fixed" costs? Coaches under contract? Facilities maintenance, etc? You can't just drop those costs. They either have to be weeded out over time, or they have to be paid for upfront. Very expensive. Further, what is the effect on alumni donations going to DIII? How about concessions, or school paraphenalia?

Regardless of whether they switch to a lower division or not, you can't have moldy pads and unclean facilities, so the cost to clean up the program exists whether you move or not. That is also fixed. If you are going to demolish and rebuild DIII appropriate facilties, that is another expense. How about your other sports? Many students are on partial athletic scholarships. That means they pay part of the way. If you drop the partial, what is the effect on your student population? Can you make it up simply by not offering scholarships at all? If so, what about financial aid to all those new students, no longer part of the athletic department but part of the general fund.

You are dramatically oversimplifying the costs simply by pointing to a single budget. That's not how schools work and it doesn't even come close to encompassing how much it would cost Grambling to "drop down". In the long run, you are correct. DIII schools pay less. But a decision like this could spell the end of a university by its spillover effect, especially a university in as precarious a position as Grambling right now.

University of New Orleans did a reasonable case study on this in the years following Hurricane Katrina and, as precarious as their position was, the school decided in the end it was better to remain Division I. How many D1 schools have we seen make a division change down? We've seen lots go up, but not many go down (a few DII schools, St. Michael's and Mississippi College come to mind). Centenary in LA and Birmingham Southern are the ones that comes to mind from DI, but they didn't have football at the D1 level when making the decision. There is a very good reason for this. See the following story for some good examples of colleges desperate to stay in DI and why.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

An interesting article on how it paid off for B-SC
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2008/12/08/focus3.html?page=all

[AO]

I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Even if you are not paying for the stadium, you have to pay to maintain it. Much more expensive to maintain that facility than a DIII facility. As for the "less expensive", yes and no. If they spent 7M and earned 5M, then they were 2M in the red as opposed to LC's 1.6M in the red. So, 400K is the big difference, correct? How much of that is "fixed" costs? Coaches under contract? Facilities maintenance, etc? You can't just drop those costs. They either have to be weeded out over time, or they have to be paid for upfront. Very expensive. Further, what is the effect on alumni donations going to DIII? How about concessions, or school paraphenalia?

Regardless of whether they switch to a lower division or not, you can't have moldy pads and unclean facilities, so the cost to clean up the program exists whether you move or not. That is also fixed. If you are going to demolish and rebuild DIII appropriate facilties, that is another expense. How about your other sports? Many students are on partial athletic scholarships. That means they pay part of the way. If you drop the partial, what is the effect on your student population? Can you make it up simply by not offering scholarships at all? If so, what about financial aid to all those new students, no longer part of the athletic department but part of the general fund.

You are dramatically oversimplifying the costs simply by pointing to a single budget. That's not how schools work and it doesn't even come close to encompassing how much it would cost Grambling to "drop down". In the long run, you are correct. DIII schools pay less. But a decision like this could spell the end of a university by its spillover effect, especially a university in as precarious a position as Grambling right now.

University of New Orleans did a reasonable case study on this in the years following Hurricane Katrina and, as precarious as their position was, the school decided in the end it was better to remain Division I. How many D1 schools have we seen make a division change down? We've seen lots go up, but not many go down (a few DII schools, St. Michael's and Mississippi College come to mind). There is a very good reason for this. See the following story for some good examples of colleges desperate to stay in DI and why.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

Grambling has a laughable $5 Million endowment.  Alumni donations couldn't get lower.  I have no doubt that Grambling could recruit kids willing to come pay full tuition with the chance to play football.  If I was the AD or President of Grambling, I'd want to stay D1, but if I was a Louisiana taxpayer I'd send them to D3.

[D3MAFAN]

I agree Ex. The problem is he is a national sports columnist. He is PAID to have well thought out, well reasoned, attractive arguments about national sports, especially collegiate sports. His whole column, and most of his job, revolves around NCAA sports, SEC , primarily football. The way this column was written demonstrates that he lacks significant knowledge about part of his primary focus. Very disturbing. Even more disturbing than the lack of knowledge is the poorly written and reasoned arguments.

If journalists can be hard on players and teams for bad games, we can be hard on columnists for putting out poorly thought out and worded junk...

[wabndy]

Among the many thing that Gene Woj ignores is the "like minded institutions" criteria that schools at nearly every level consider when figuring out where to align their programs academically.  Grambling is a HBCU with a storied history, and, sadly, like many other HBCUs, has struggled of late.  Grambling can't (and shouldn't) stop being an HBCU.  The SWAC is a storied HBCU conference that has chosen to compete at the DI-FCS level.  Why should Grambling abandon its conference and scheduling of "like minded institutions?"  I certainly hope Grambling, with its storied history, gets its house back in order and gets back on the field.

All too often these poorly written big sports media references to Division III almost read like too many people in Bristol pay too much attention to european soccer league organization.  Division I-FBS is not a "premier league" equivalent any more than FCS, DII, or DIII are equivalent to lower football divisions.  I'm sure that deep down, ESPN's ultimate dream would be to organize an elaborate promotion-relegation system that limited the highest echelon of college football to 15-20 teams that played each other every week (think of the ratings!!). 

[AO]

Among the many thing that Gene Woj ignores is the "like minded institutions" criteria that schools at nearly every level consider when figuring out where to align their programs academically.  Grambling is a HBCU with a storied history, and, sadly, like many other HBCUs, has struggled of late.  Grambling can't (and shouldn't) stop being an HBCU.  The SWAC is a storied HBCU conference that has chosen to compete at the DI-FCS level.  Why should Grambling abandon its conference and scheduling of "like minded institutions?"  I certainly hope Grambling, with its storied history, gets its house back in order and gets back on the field.

All too often these poorly written big sports media references to Division III almost read like too many people in Bristol pay too much attention to european soccer league organization.  Division I-FBS is not a "premier league" equivalent any more than FCS, DII, or DIII are equivalent to lower football divisions.  I'm sure that deep down, ESPN's ultimate dream would be to organize an elaborate promotion-relegation system for football that limited the highest echelon of college football to 15-20 teams that played each other every week (think of the ratings!!).

The whole SWAC could move down, and your promotion-relegation idea would be AWESOME.

[jknezek]

I love promotion relegation in European sports. It keeps interest at both ends of the table and increases interest in lower levels. However, if I was a franchise owner, I would never, ever agree to go to that system and I'm sad MLS never took that route, as it would have been a way to dramatically differentiate soccer in America from other pro sports. At one time, almost all the teams were owned by Lamar Hunt (I think at one point MLS had 10 teams and 8 were owned by Hunt), and he could have instituted that change. It didn't happen, but it would have been awesome. Of course, MLS is doing pretty well these days without it, so maybe it would have been the wrong choice.

That being said, if we do go to a "super-conference" system in football, I wouldn't mind seeing a promotion/relegation system from "old" DI to a new superconference. That would be awesome. Sadly I think the structure of the superconference system will lock in teams, and it will be near impossible for an up and coming school to break in going forward. We're going to institutionalize the advantages that the historically big schools have...