Army Football in the news

[MombaBomba]

From my point of view, most of the questions are answered and addressed.

Agree or disagree, the generally accepted (maybe not accpeted) reasons for having Div I sports programs at SAs are (not limited)

- assist with leader development
- revenue to support other sports program
- publicity

In return, SAs give some or a lot of consideration to a candidate's athletic ability.

But what if those generally accepted reasons are no longer valid? For years Europeans assumed that the world was flat, and acted accordingly.

To look at the reasons
"assist with leader development".....exactly how does it do that? A small subset of cadets participate in D1 sports. So how does it assist all cadets when it only impacts a small group? What particular aspects of leadership development? I don't disagree that participating in sports can assist in character development. Vague generalization doesn't really help make their case or win over support. Not that they have to care, but its easier to accomplish an end when there is more support and less discourse.

"revenue to support other programs"...has been debunked. NCAA has pointed out that D1 football is not a revenue positive sport for most schools, including the academies. It hasn't been in years. So while its net loss may be smaller than other sports, it still is not a positive net gain used to offset the costs of other sports. All D1 sports are now a cost as opposed to a gain. There is no guaranteed cash cow.

"publicity".....If the goal is to reach into new markets, doing what has always done doesn't cut it. D1 Academy football has been televised for years, yet the majority of Americans are unaware of all or some of the academies. Those D1 sports that are not televised are also limited in terms of publicity. Sure, they also make an impact in their own niche, but they don't reach outside it. The market niche is much larger and mainstream for football, but it isn't going to reach past those who follow football.

As budgets continue to shrink, IC sports will be targeted yet again. There will be more push back and demand for accountability as some sports get cut and others don't. Old talking points will get stale and people will demand more accountability. Being a "sacred cow" because it has always been this way will continue to generate discourse, discontent and resentment. Not just among "the public", but among students as well.

Once an academy cuts an IC sport, it reduces the academy's market and awareness. This has been debated before when I started a thread on the possible cancellation of 4 sports at the USAFA. Some didn't think cutting gymnastics, shooting, boxing and fencing was such a big deal because they are smaller niche sports and are not revenue positive. A prevailing attitude was the USAFA didn't need those sports because those markets really don't matter (by market I mean in terms of widening the net for possible candidates). There was the belief that football, basketball, and other "main stream" sports provided a large enough market.

I realize there will be the proverbial "suck it up, its the military even if an academy." That is true. However, that being said, don't expect folks rushing to support and toot the horn on behalf of said academies and the academy athletics if that is the prevailing "wisdom" and "rational."

As things get tougher, people will need real concrete current day reasons based upon actual facts to rally around and support. Vague generalizations will only go so far.

 

[FlyBoy1993]

My agreement has nothing to do with the football program. Scoutpilot also didn't quantify how much the football program contributed to the expanding the knowledge base

Scoutpilot's comment was

In the context of this thread, it has everything to do with the football program.

i ask again, if folks have to consistently ask you what West Point is, how effective is the football program in driving the awareness in question?

 

[MedB]

I would hazard a guess that the football program is probably an overall money maker – and provides some support the other D1 programs.

Lots of good arguments to be made on both sides of the issue, and it may be that the spend and baggage IS worth it. Who knows? But again in terms of the net revenue... I have not been able to find a single study, report, or detailed accounting that shows the SA athletic programs returning a net profit when the "all in" costs are included.

Further, NCAA's very own accounting does not have any of the SAs on the [very] short list of revenue positive football programs. I've looked at several years of those NCAA reports.

Does anyone have something close to a complete accounting from an SA, or otherwise, that shows their football program as profitable without subsidies? The closest I was able to find was a reference to 5.5million in football revenue not being counted in AFA's spend on athletics.... but then again that same particular document omitted nearly every salary/cost associated with IC athletics.

So once again, good debate to be had on value of D1 sports overall, but until/unless someone can produce some evidence that shows these programs actually generate a true net profit (contrary to everything I've been able to find) then I think the "supports other sports" myth should be avoided.

 

[MemberLG]

. . .

The alcohol violations are one thing but the fact that any female cadet was used to "sell" West Point sickens me. It is so sad that any female cadet would allow herself to be put into this position. What's worse is that officers asked these female cadets to participate. Those officers involved should be forced out.

I find the characterization of alleged activities by female cadets unfair and perhaps bit offensive. We really don't know what those female cadets did or didn't do. We only have bits of information available to us.

 

[-Bull-]

In the context of this thread, it has everything to do with the football program.

i ask again, if folks have to consistently ask you what West Point is, how effective is the football program in driving the awareness in question?

It gets them asking the question in the first place. Seeing WP on TV doesn't mean they're going to become all knowing on the institution, but it gets them asking the question "What is West Point?" and looking for more information. That's when they go googling for websites with more information and becoming more interested.

I've never seen a commercial recruiting high school students to apply for West Point, but I have watched an Army football game. One I've never seen, the other could encourage me to seek more info.

I'm not advocating for either side and I have no direct ties to USMA, but I see where TV exposure does have the ability to generate interest (for any institution).

 

[sean007]

MedB and MombaBomba

MedB and MombaBomba - I think you might be conflating the NCAA's report on Athletic Programs vs. Football Programs. Men's basketball and football are usually considered money makers for a school. This occurs even when the cost of board and tuition is factored into the cost of a football program - which I pointedly did not include as a cost in my previous post (because all cadets get room and board paid for).

The three service academies play in Division I FBS - according to the NCAA - “In the Football Bowl Subdivision (125 schools in 2013), between 50 and 60 percent of football and men's basketball programs generated positive revenues.”

That is why I stated - “I would hazard a guess that the football program is probably an overall money maker – and provides some support the other D1 programs.”

 

[LOVEARMY]

I find the characterization of alleged activities by female cadets unfair and perhaps bit offensive. We really don't know what those female cadets did or didn't do. We only have bits of information available to us.

The bits of information are on Army Times and Stars and Stripes websites. I did not mean to offend in any way or portray the female cadets poorly. At the end of the day the whole thing is offensive. I am more than a parent of a cadet, I am the spouse of a senior army officer who is more disgusted than I am.

 

[MombaBomba]

MedB and MombaBomba - I think you might be conflating the NCAA's report on Athletic Programs vs. Football Programs. Men's basketball and football are usually considered money makers for a school. This occurs even when the cost of board and tuition is factored into the cost of a football program - which I pointedly did not include as a cost in my previous post (because all cadets get room and board paid for).

The three service academies play in Division I FBS - according to the NCAA - “In the Football Bowl Subdivision (125 schools in 2013), between 50 and 60 percent of football and men's basketball programs generated positive revenues.”

That is why I stated - “I would hazard a guess that the football program is probably an overall money maker – and provides some support the other D1 programs.”

I am not confused. Here is a link to a 2008 article by ESPN (first I could pull up with some meat to it). The numbers are provided by the academy. Net revenue: $30,604,249 and net cost: $31,174,640 (the net cost dose not include tuition). I can't find a single source with a documented net positive cash flow for the academy when it comes to sports. I suspect if there was a net gain, they would be trumpeting that to all corners of the USA.

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/revenue/_/type/expenses/page/1

You can switch to the revenue on that same page, there is a button.

 

[scoutpilot]

It's all relative. Within the federal service academy community, West Point isn't looking very saintly. Comparing the schools to non-service academies to justify (or pseudo-excuse) behavior because it's not as bad as other schools.... is a slippery slope.

I'll take some beers at a bowling alley over Air Force's gang rape and drug allegations seven days a week.

 

[sean007]

MombaBomba

MombaBomba -

From your own source:

"Find out how much athletic departments make from ticket sales, playing in away games, donations, media rights and other sources compared to what they spend on recruiting, tuition, travel, coaches' pay and more."

Furthermore, I thought we were talking about West Point - your figures are on the Air Force Academy. According to your source - the 2008 Black Knights made $29,398,220 and spent $24,888,651.

 

[tankercaptain]

Having a D1 winning football team at West Point is about money. A winning team brings in millions of dollars of alumni donations. That's what it's about. West Point wanted to build the Combating Terrorism Center, they did it through private donations. They wanted donations, so they put Army football on TV and try and create a winning team. West Point football is a revenue generator. You don't have to take me word for it, but I know from the mouths of 2 previous superintendents that football generates alumni dollars in a big way.

 

[scoutpilot]

Feelings, experiences and opinions are not the same.
A feeling is an emotion.
An experience is an interaction with the world around you.
An opinion is a personal assessment/point of view based upon feelings and experiences

1) My EXPERIENCE as a parent living in the North East of a USAFA cadet is that despite D1 football, most people do NOT know the USAFA exists. I have actively and consistently interacted with people from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts since my son started the application process last year. Nine out of ten people had no clue. Nada. Nothing. Many of them are huge football fans. Still nada, nothing. This is an experience not a feeling. The people who tended to know about the USAFA were those who were previously enlisted or currently serving.

Anecdotes do not a data set make.

2) My EXPERIENCE is that cadet parents living on the east coast were unable to watch the Navy-Air Force game because it was not shown on any of the major stations. If you wanted to see it, you had to purchase special on-line access or cable channel access. This includes parents from Maine down through Florida. We would not have bothered networking with parents who were actually out in Colorado Springs at the game if we could easily view the game for ourselves.

It was shown on CBS Sports and online, both of which were available to anyone with a cable package beyond the most basic, bare-bones service.

3) College football only reaches out to those who watch college football.

Once again...#2 most-watched sport in the nation. More people watched college football this weekend than watched the World Series. Print advertising only reaches people who read. TV ads only reach people with TVs. If your metric for worth is a venue that provides 100% exposure, you've summarily decided that all advertising is devoid of value. That's like saying we shouldn't bother having airlines because none of them fly to the moon.

College games, just like professional games, are only shown in areas where people will be interested enough to tune in.

Not true. CBSSHD shows the games nationally. That's why I can watch Navy beat SJSU from Kansas.

Meaning, the teams need to be popular already. Advertisers target a given demographic. They are not going to spend money if they don't get that viewership. Thus, the television stations are only going to broadcast games that generate the required viewership. This in itself limits the publicity exposure of and impact of D1 football games. If the population doesn't demand it, the station isn't going to broadcast it. The rules of marketing and economics applies to all, even academy football teams.

Wrong again, but thanks for the spurious lesson in how you think college football broadcasting worked 15 years ago.

4) Citing the popularity of other college football teams is a fallacious argument. Just because most people have heard about Notre Dame, does not mean that most people have heard about the USAFA, USNA, USMA, USMMA, USCGA. Since most of the people in my neighborhood know me, does this mean I can conclude that most of my town knows me? Of course not. It is a false argument.

Again, your failure to understand a point does not invalidate it. If you can't understand how the Notre Dame (the single most-watched team in the country) game plastering US Naval Academy faces, names, and commercials all over NBC for 3-hour block, or how playing Ohio State and plastering the same all over ABC for a 3-hour block creates exposure, I don't know what to tell you. You are aware that when people watch Notre Dame play, they have to watch their opponent by default, yes?

5) You pointed out that there is a set market for D1 football. I quote "When Army plays Stanford, it's huge. Coverage all over the Pac-12 network area, which stretches the width and breadth of the Western US and huge pockets of the Midwest, South, and East." Do you see the areas of the country you are missing? "Only pockets" are your words. You pointed out the limited market they consistently advertise to. Your statements supports my point that it is a limited area.

I suppose you're technically right, I should've been more specific. The Pac-12 network is only available on cable providers in 50 out of 50 states, but may be not be available in areas where cable television does not offer service. In that case, it would depend on the satellite provider.

My feelings are that I don't like (notice the word like, that denotes an emotion) the controversy surrounding D1 sports. It concerns me (another word denoting emotional state of mind) that many questions go unanswered or are not addressed. I disapprove of (personal feeling here) "the sit down and shut up and just accept it because it has always been this way and we said so attitude." I feel (again, another word denoting an emotional state) that if things were openly discussed and information shared, there would be more support and acceptance. I am uneasy (again, emotional indication) about the future of not only D1 sports but all IC sports in military academies due to budgetary issues (sequestration still continues). I am puzzled (emotional state of mind) over why there is no ready source outlining the benefits and purpose of D1 sports for a military academy other than "we are on TV, and its advertising, and it builds character." What characteristics are built? There are different types of sports, individual vs. team, which emphasize and develop different characteristics. As only a subset of an academy participates in the D1 sports, what benefit does it bring to all the cadets, not just the small group which participates? What is even more worrisome (again, feeling state of mind) is that there seems to be an over emphasis on D1 football, and the other D1 sports are looked over. In fact (note fact isn't an emotional word here, its not a feeling), other D1 sports are cut or proposed to be cut when budgetary times are tough, but no one wants to touch football. The USAFA originally proposed cutting 4 D1 sports without touching D1 football. The USAFA actually cut assistant coaching positions while adding another assistant coach to football (again a fact, not a feeling). I think many parents and tax payers would love (word connotative of a strong emotion) why D1 football is such a holy cow? Overall, why are D1 sports so important to character development?

I won't entertain the notion that this petty, sarcastic diatribe constitutes an argument. When you want to speak like a reasonable adult, we can continue this. No personal insult intended, just keeping things civil. Thanks.

My actual feelings on football and D1 sports is I have no problem with sports, D1, football or otherwise. I have a problem with the culture that can grow up around the sport. Those are my feelings.

That culture being what, exactly? You eagerly defined other terms. Define that one, please.

If your stance is that you'd prefer to see some numerical metrics, that's fine. But a stance that ignores reality because it doesn't accord with your feelings is not worthy of discussion.

 

[MombaBomba]

MombaBomba -

From your own source:

"Find out how much athletic departments make from ticket sales, playing in away games, donations, media rights and other sources compared to what they spend on recruiting, tuition, travel, coaches' pay and more."

Furthermore, I thought we were talking about West Point - your figures are on the Air Force Academy. According to your source - the 2008 Black Knights made $29,398,220 and spent $24,888,651.

You are correct, we are looking at 2 different things. I was thinking SAs in general, and was discussing it in general. My main focus wasn't on USMA at that point. It was a general observation, and I cited the USAFA as I am most familiar with it. My bad. My communication should have been better.

The USAFA, USNA and USMA are not virginal brides when it comes to athletic scandals. They each have had to deal with their own set of incidents. With the revisiting of the "cadet spy" scandal and the USAFA football team (recently announced), my mind increased the scope of my answer without realizing it.

 

[MombaBomba]

I won't entertain the notion that this petty, sarcastic diatribe constitutes an argument. When you want to speak like a reasonable adult, we can continue this. No personal insult intended, just keeping things civil. Thanks.

That culture being what, exactly? You eagerly defined other terms. Define that one, please.

If your stance is that you'd prefer to see some numerical metrics, that's fine. But a stance that ignores reality because it doesn't accord with your feelings is not worthy of discussion.

Did you fail to see this from the moderator after my initial post? If you didn't, here it is again, just in case you missed it.

The discussion is good and lots of good comments. Lets try not to take this argument personally though folks. I guarantee that that there is no gospel truth on the subject of the merits of D1 athletics at the service academies.

 

[MemberLG]

To look at the reasons
"assist with leader development".....exactly how does it do that? A small subset of cadets participate in D1 sports. So how does it assist all cadets when it only impacts a small group? What particular aspects of leadership development? I don't disagree that participating in sports can assist in character development. Vague generalization doesn't really help make their case or win over support. Not that they have to care, but its easier to accomplish an end when there is more support and less discourse.

You just answered your own question. Did I say having Div I sports assist with leader development of all cadets? No. According to a West Point briefing, 26% the Corps participate in NCAA sports, not Club. 26% is not small.

"revenue to support other programs"...has been debunked. NCAA has pointed out that D1 football is not a revenue positive sport for most schools, including the academies. It hasn't been in years. So while its net loss may be smaller than other sports, it still is not a positive net gain used to offset the costs of other sports. All D1 sports are now a cost as opposed to a gain. There is no guaranteed cash cow.

There is on going debate if the football program is revenue positive. If you are taking a simplistic approach, even if the Football program doesn't make money, as long is it generates some revenue it lessens the burden on the whole sports program.

"publicity".....If the goal is to reach into new markets, doing what has always done doesn't cut it. D1 Academy football has been televised for years, yet the majority of Americans are unaware of all or some of the academies. Those D1 sports that are not televised are also limited in terms of publicity. Sure, they also make an impact in their own niche, but they don't reach outside it. The market niche is much larger and mainstream for football, but it isn't going to reach past those who follow football.

When did I say the goal is to reach into new markets? I am not Scoutpilot.

As things get tougher, people will need real concrete current day reasons based upon actual facts to rally around and support. Vague generalizations will only go so far.

Lastly, the Army Div I sports program is working with or without support from certain folks. I have donated money to the Army Atheltic Association, not specific to football program. I donate because I care about cadets, not based on Army's football team's performance.

 

[USMCGrunt]

My head hurts!

Not sure if this discussion is around the merits of D1 athletic programs at service academies, inconsistent application of punishment for athletes, the merits of cable TV sports packages or an academic treatise on advertising.

There are certainly some strongly held positions in each of those areas.

I was just glad to see Notre Dame mentioned a few times - most of them neutral or positive. ND can normally generate a lot of debate because people have such strongly positive or negative feelings on the program/ school.

 

[MombaBomba]

You just answered your own question. Did I say having Div I sports assist with leader development of all cadets? No. According to a West Point briefing, 26% the Corps participate in NCAA sports, not Club. 26% is not small.



There is on going debate if the football program is revenue positive. If you are taking a simplistic approach, even if the Football program doesn't make money, as long is it generates some revenue it lessens the burden on the whole sports program.





When did I say the goal is to reach into new markets? I am not Scoutpilot.



Lastly, the Army Div I sports program is working with or without support from certain folks. I have donated money to the Army Atheltic Association, not specific to football program. I donate because I care about cadets, not based on Army's football team's performance.

I think this is another case of my bad in terms of communication. I had read your post which I quoted as "these are the general reasons given for keeping football." I was attempting to address it in "a general way" as opposed to specific only to the USMA.

I don't see any sport which dose not generate enough revenue to cover its own expenses as lessening the burden for the other sports. Wouldn't the revenue have to generate a net positive for it to lessen the burden of other sports programs?

Many decisions regarding cutting sports is based upon the bottom line. Costs are going to be closely examined in the upcoming future.

Again, I don't have an issue with IC sports programs per say. But if any university (public, private or service) is going to promote and spend dollars on a particular sport, it should at least have a sound, well defined, thought out and detailed basis for it.

It's great that you continue to support your academy. I share your attitude that it should be about the cadets and not about the sports teams. Sometimes I think people forget about the individual cadets and focus on just the teams.

 

[NorwichDad]

So... How is the WP Curling team doing this year?

 

[BigBear]

So... How is the WP Curling team doing this year?

The Paintball Team just went 2-0 with wins over Cornell and Temple

 

[MemberLG]

I don't see any sport which dose not generate enough revenue to cover its own expenses as lessening the burden for the other sports. Wouldn't the revenue have to generate a net positive for it to lessen the burden of other sports programs?

Any shortfall has to be made up, either by additional fund raisng, some sort of subsidy, or cutting sports program.

So if a school has $1 million shortfall it will be a lot easier to manage to include not cutting a sport than if it has $2 million shortfall. The difference of the $1 million can be from a sports that generate not enough revenue to cover its expanse but generate enough revenue to close the gap.