Michigan Athletic Department Discretionary Spending Not Fiscally Responsible

The board of regents at the University of Michigan’s athletic department just unanimously approved the construction of a $2.8 million electronic billboard for the purpose of advertising non-revenue athletic programs. They plan to complete this monstrosity by fall of 2013. Let the public outcry commence.

It seems that any time Michigan’s athletic department announces a new construction project, people throw their arms up in disgust as if it were part of a stimulus package that would create yet another unnecessary burden on the American taxpayer, plunging us further into insurmountable national debt and, through our fractional reserve banking system, would deplete the value of our currency, thus forcing our economy into a state of hyperinflation. Apparently people easily forget that U of M’s athletic department isn’t the federal government. It is projected to post a $5.8M surplus in 2013 despite its numerous expenses. I want to discuss the arguments for and against the athletic department’s spending practices as well as explain my own opinions on the matter.

There are many people who see this marquee as a mere ego boost for the U of M regents. They believe it’s the flashy sports car to the stereotypical 40-year-old working class father of four. This might be true, but I think it’s more than that. I choose to believe that the intent to support the student athletes for whom the athletic department is supposed to be working for is still intact. Kellie Woodhouse wrote in her Annarbor.com article, “The marquee is part of a strategy to increase interest in attendance in U-M athletics, especially those that don't generate revenue.” Considering that Dave Brandon and the board of regents have given no indication that this project was meant to impress people and every indication that it’s meant to help student athletes in Michigan’s less-funded athletic programs, I don’t see any reason to suspect otherwise.

Another popular, far more ignorant, opinion is that this money would be better suited to lower tuition costs and send the Michigan Marching Band (MMB) to Arlington Texas for the “Cowboy Classic”. Considering that the MMB is not a member of the athletic department and the trip has already been fully funded, I’m just going to go ahead and dismiss this argument entirely, as should everyone reading this.

Every once in a while you can come across a well thought out argument that you previously didn’t consider yourself. Of course, those arguments are not only few and far between, but often spoiled by arbitrary insanity injected at the end such as, “Remember what happened at Penn State when all powerful athletic coach played by his own rules. [sic] I hope we are not headed for everyone pays homage to the athletic department.” If only I had figured it out earlier! Sandusky raped innocent children because of irresponsible spending practices by the Penn State athletic department. It all makes sense now! Nope… that’s just really offensive.

Then again, in every room of angry, dissociated, skeptics there will always be a few that are of the opinion that the University of Michigan is a flawless institution of higher education that makes every decision in accords to divine intervention. These people scare me so I’m just going to leave them alone.

An interesting point that I appreciate but am not highly concerned about is the possible distraction it could cause drivers. Since the board would be located so close to the road, and that area is very overcrowded with traffic, it may slow things down even further. It’s a valid point that I suspect the board of regents either didn’t think about or simply didn’t care to address.

As for my opinion, I don’t agree with the construction of this billboard. I do believe that the athletic department’s intent is to create a better experience for student athletes, the amount being spent is not at all above the means of the department, and the money would not be better suited for lowering ticket prices.

Sales are the best indicator for determining whether your price point is too high or too low. Currently, hundreds of thousands of people show up for every game on the schedule regardless of the opponent. There is a massive weighting list for season tickets and all signs indicate that every year people will scramble to get their hands on a “prime time” ticket valued over three times its retail price. This is not a description of a good or service that is priced too expensively. The truth is, the stadium isn't big enough and the ticket prices could, and probably should, be more expensive to compensate for the insane level of demand.

I don't question the motives to build this monstrosity. I question whether it will result in the desired outcome, i.e. to increase attendance at non-revenue generating sporting events. I don't think it serves anyone to build a giant billboard to advertise stuff that nobody wants or needs. There is no demand to watch college women’s tennis and there never will be. That’s just life and I think Dave Brandon needs to accept it.

I fail to see where the need for these billboards is coming from. Dave Brandon is supposed to be a business mogul. He should realize from economic theory that profit is the truest indicator of what people want and need. Non-revenue sports are non-revenue for a reason. People don’t like watching them. Why would Dave Brandon be interested in advertising things that very few people actually enjoy? Those sports will never earn a profit, but football does!

Why not build additional seating above each end zone to accommodate even more fans? Also, they could construct a large parking structure to make the football games more accessible to those who commute. This seems like a no-brainer to me and I find it very difficult to defend the construction of a waterfall outside Chrysler, a ridiculous billboard outside the Big House, and a $6M paint job when the demand for seats is so large.

I want to end this article by apologizing for my extremely long hiatus. My excuse: there was literally nothing that interested me enough to write about. I thought about writing a piece regarding Devin Gardner’s apparent switch to wide receiver. However, after contemplating it for a moment, I realized I didn’t really have anything of value to contribute to the story. He’s a wide-out…. and… he catches things? I could have discussed some early predictions for 2012, the stellar recruiting class, the upcoming Alabama game, the award watch-list nominations, but I thought the fluff, my-opinion-matters-because-I-have-a-voice-on-the-internet, articles are better left to Bleacher Report. I promise that my articles will be much more frequent as September 1st approaches. Go Blue!