RECENT ARTICLES
  • No Social Media, No Problem for Clemson Football

    by Jason Scott August 2015

    The first day of fall camp for the Clemson University football team was Aug. 3, and that also marked the occasion of players hanging up their hashtags until the winter. That means no Facebook, Twitter or Instagram, no pokes, retweets or mentions until the pads are put back into storage.

    The social media shutdown has become an annual activity for Clemson in recent years. During the season, players are not allowed to be active on their social media accounts, although they are not required to delete them and can continue to refer to them as information sources.

    It’s a tactic that college coaches across the country have instituted. The goal is to get players to “focus” more or tune out the “distraction” of social media. Whether or not any of this helps with player performance during the season is, of course, up for debate.

    From AB: Schools Attempt to Control Athletes' Social Media Use

    Despite Clemson’s gaudy three-year record, attributing that success to players not using social media doesn’t make sense. The players from the 1998 team weren’t on social media either, and those guys went 3-8. I would, however, attribute some of the team’s recent success to the fact that they’ve played Wake Forest three times since the ban was instituted.

    Clemson has come under fire from national media for the ban, with talking heads, sportswriters and sports figures from across the country weighing in.

    But Clemson is different from other schools with such bans in that Tiger players had their say — voting each season since 2012 to limit themselves on social media. The ban is self-imposed.

    There’s no question that social media is both a powerful tool and a dangerous toy. I, like many others, found out via Twitter that Osama bin Laden was killed. Social media can also enhance your “personal brand.” Puffed up personalities take to their social media accounts to fire off whatever thought might enter their mind, and their audiences eat it up. 

    However, for every example of social media success, there is an #epicfail, especially for public personalities (including college football players).

    Fire off an unpopular opinion on social media, and you may find yourself making a public apology. Slide into the wrong person’s DMs and get publicly put on blast. Get dragged into a political argument … heaven help you.

    Social media is full of perils and pitfalls. It’s a lesson that even professional social media managers learn the hard way, each and every day.

    From AB: Blog: 9 Social Media Dos and Don'ts for Student-Athletes

    Sometimes, developing a set of personal guidelines for posting on social media is appropriate. Sometimes, it’s best to stay off social media entirely. Maybe football season is one of those occasions.

    If Clemson’s football players have collectively said, “We’re just going to stay off of Facebook for a few months,” I say, let them. The musings of a 20-year old college student can wait a while.

    Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to tweet this link to as many people as possible. Please click like and share. 

  • South Carolina Displays Kindness to Rival Clemson

    by Stuart Goldman August 2015

    When it comes to college rivalries, some of the more prominent include Ohio State-Michigan, Duke-North Carolina, Auburn-Alabama, USC-UCLA and Missouri-Kansas.

    You can certainly add Clemson-South Carolina to that list. The two head football coaches at each school, Dabo Swinney at Clemson and Steve Spurrier at South Carolina, love to throw barbs at one another, as evidenced by this ESPN article.

  • Allegations at Minnesota Shouldn’t Deter Advances of Women in Athletics

    by Stuart Goldman August 2015

    After reading the sexual harassment allegations that forced Norwood Teague to resign as the athletic director at the University of Minnesota and the report of more allegations from a newspaper reporter who covers the Gophers’ men’s basketball team, I told a colleague in passing that Teague likely has acted this way for years. That may have been unfair, but the feeling was this type of behavior didn’t come out of the blue.

  • Blog: Women’s Soccer and Return on Investment

    by Emily Attwood July 2015

    In the days after the U.S. Women’s soccer team’s World Cup win, we’ve heard a lot of back and forth over the issue of how much the players were paid. The women’s team received a record-setting $2 million for their win… record-setting for women, that is. Last year, the German men’s team earned $35 million for its World Cup win.

    “But it’s all about the revenue!” claim those who justify the discrepancy. The women’s tournament brought in a mere $17 million in sponsorship revenue compared to $529 million for last year’s men’s World Cup. Thus, because the men bring in more revenue, it only makes sense that they get paid more.

    Right?

    When I was in college, I interned for an editor at a book publishing company. I recall, among the editor’s many tales of the publishing world, the story of how he signed one particular new author and set her up for success. Her work was good, he said, but she was relatively unknown and still new.

    For those more familiar with coaching contracts than book contracts, book contracts typically pay an advance, anything as low as a couple thousand dollars (J.K. Rowling was given a £1500 advance on the first Harry Potter book) to upwards of $100,000, if you’re an established name. If a new author doesn't go over well with the audience, the publisher hasn't lost much. If they're good, the publisher simply ups the advance on the next book.

    Rather than offering this new author something at the lower end of the spectrum as would befit the situation, the editor swung big. I don’t recall the exact dollar amount, but I think it was at least $20,000 (chump change for a pro athlete, but a big deal for a struggling writer).

    His reasoning? The more the publisher invested in an author, the harder it would work to ensure her success, giving her a preferred launch date, better marketing and visibility. Part of this was about recouping the investment — book advances are paid against royalties, which means a larger advance needs to be offset by greater book sales if the publisher wants to come out ahead.  

    What does this have to do with soccer?

    I’m not in the sports marketing business. I’m not even in the book marketing business. But I do know that a product’s success is as much about the effort that goes into marketing it as the quality of the product itself. 

    Don’t justify lower pay for female athletes by pointing to the lower revenue they generate — they’re not the ones negotiating sponsorship contracts or selling commercial slots. In the case of women’s soccer, FIFA secretary general Jerome Valcke attributes the lower revenues to women’s soccer being a newer sport than men’s.

    “We played the [20th] men’s World Cup in 2014, when we are now playing the seventh women’s World Cup,” Valcke said in December press conference. “We have still another [13] World Cups before potentially women should receive the same amount as men. The men waited until 2014 to receive as much money as they received.”

    Or, how about this: Pay the players what they’re worth, and then put in the effort to back that investment up.

  • Blog: Diddy, with a Kettlebell, in the UCLA Weight Room

    by Stuart Goldman June 2015

    The Diddy attack at the UCLA training complex on Monday has taken on a life of its own. What have we learned? We’ve learned that a kettlebell can be used as a deadly weapon.

  • Blog: No Need to Rename Bruce Jenner Sports Complex

    by Stuart Goldman June 2015

    Before Caitlyn Jenner’s introduction as a transgender woman, she was, of course, Bruce Jenner, who shot to superstardom by winning the gold medal in the decathlon at the 1976 Summer Olympics.

  • A Response to Critics of Soaring College Rec Spending

    by Emily Attwood June 2015

    “LSU Faces Dramatic Budget Cuts While It Builds An Expensive Lounging Pool” This was the headline of an article that appeared in The Huffington Post this past May criticizing Louisiana State University’s spending of $84.75 million on an overhaul of its recreation facilities despite a threatened $55.5 million funding cut from the state.

    Last week New Jersey governor Chris Christie admonished what he considers wasteful spending in the higher education system, denouncing “extras” such as lazy rivers and climbing walls.

    "Some colleges are drunk on cash and embarking on crazy spending binges,” he said.

    If you work in college recreation, the incidents made you cringe.

    The cost of higher education is going to get a lot of attention leading up to the 2016 election, and unfortunately, that’s going to come with a lot of misguided scrutiny of campus recreation programs.

    What both incidents overlook — as anyone working in college recreation will immediately recognize — is that a university’s education budget and recreation budget are two entirely different things. Campus recreation centers are not built at the expense of science labs or classrooms. For most universities, such projects are funded (and maintained) from students fees.

    "The funds for the project come directly from the student fee and can only be used for the project," LSU spokesman Ernie Ballard told The Huffington Post. "Similar to donations to the university or funds from the state for capital projects, these types of funds can't be shifted to fill in budget holes or be used in another way. They can only be used for what they were originally designated for."

    The impact of such facilities on the price of a college education is actually minimal, according to David Feldman, economics professor at College of William & Mary.

    “Lazy rivers are only a tiny piece of the costs,” he told Inside Higher Ed. “These lazy rivers are not the reason why student debt is soaring seemingly out of control. The big problem that higher education faces today, at the public side, is cuts in state spending.”

    Some argue that cuts in spending are actually driving the construction of bigger and better recreation amenities, as universities look draw in more out of state students. According to research from the University of Michigan, “wealthier students [are] much more willing to pay for consumption amenities.”

    Despite its negative headline, The Huffington Post article went on to admit as much, quoting a 2013 article in which former Miami University president James Garland explains, “We took advantage of low interest rates for municipal bonds and invested in rehabilitating our residence halls and eating facilities and putting in more recreation -- workout rooms and lounges, and the kinds of accouterments that really dressed up a campus and made it a much more comfortable and familiar place for upper-middle class students. So those students started applying to us in droves. Application numbers went up, we became more selective, and the SAT scores of the entering class became higher."

    So, in the face of a $55.5 million budget cut (avoided, thankfully) LSU would need to rely more heavily on the appeal of its non-academic offerings to bring in more students and more revenue. As Jane Wellman, a finance expert with College Futures Foundation, told Inside Higher Ed, the issue is not of how colleges spend money, but the priorities of schools.

    “The sense is that college costs are going up too rapidly, and institutions aren’t doing enough to control them,” she says. “The critique underneath that is the critique of the decision-making culture in higher education.”

    Rather than ask why LSU would spend $85 million on a recreation center, maybe politicians should be asking why the state of Louisiana was mulling a $55 million cut to education.

    We won’t get into the other complexities of campus recreation facilities, such as the positive economic impact of construction (According to NIRSA, $1.7B was spent on 157 recreation construction projects in 2012), the employment opportunities afforded to students, the educational programming opportunities, the importance of recreation to students' quality of life (and GPA), the role in building a schools’ reputation, or any number of issues.

    Unfortunately, neither will the politicians pinning the climbing costs of higher education on climbing walls.

     

  • Head Injuries Impacting All Football Levels

    by May 2015

    My 11-year-old godson is a tough kid. He plays big for his size (by comparison, my just-turned nine-year-old daughter is taller) and has shown enough ability to have his family — and me — believing he has a real future in sports. But that sport won't be football. After sustaining two concussions, his parents made the decision to pull him out of football despite his love of the game, and his relative success at an early age.

  • Blog: Keep Athletics About Student Development, Not Revenue

    by Andrew Barnard May 2015

    I recently attended a conference regarding the future of college athletics sponsored by the Big XII and featuring four young, bright and successful student-athletes. The focus was primarily on issues affecting the Power Five Conferences: student-athlete stipends, image and likeness rights, the role (and cumbersome overreach) of the NCAA, etc. Esteemed members of a second panel discussion featured media personalities (all of whom played collegiate sports), a highly successful coach, a university president and the conference commissioner.

  • Blog: Winning Fuels Seahawks in Frank Clark Case

    by Stuart Goldman May 2015

    The Frank Clark story just won’t go away. That’s because The Seattle Times won’t let it go away.