A: That's a compliment and I appreciate it. I have a little different background than a couple of my predecessors. I've been in university administration a long time. That's given me a perspective on administration and being a change agent that may not have been appreciated by those who have been athletic directors.
I can see what kind of organization this is, in the context of higher education.
Q: Where are you on Thursday when the tournament starts?
A: Usually here, but I have to look at my calendar.
Q: Are you like us, in front of your TV trying to watch as much as possible?
A: No wait, Thursday I'm headed out to Utah to watch a regional. I try to take in a couple of games before we get down to the Final Four.
Q: I thought your State of the Association was provocative and in some ways, brilliant. I don't think there would be a lot of people that would utter those words: You can make money and still have an educational mission at the same time.
What was the reaction?
A: It was an interesting set of reactions. Those who are careful students of college sports -- for example, the athletic directors and commissioners -- their responses were: 'Absolutely right, of course. You nailed it, you understand it and articulated it.'
I wouldn't say everyone, including some in the media, have understood the message. They're looking for a simple response to a rather complex set of issues.
That's the problem, No. 1. And No. 2, what really surprises me ... is how poor an understanding people have of how universities are financed. Actually, college sports works in exact parallel and is a piece of the way universities are financed.
Until you can understand the university's financial situation ... I don't think you can understand athletics. I think we have a disconnect with the general public and some of the media. Not those on campus, they understand it.
Q: Part of that is the so-called arms race. I'm reading now where some schools may pay $750,000 to bring in a non-conference football opponent this fall.
How do you slow down an arms race when all this is going on?
A: I've stopped using the words 'arms race.' It tends to focus (on), there's one issue, one problem. Again, the difficulty of the issues is the complexity and the understanding needed to resolve them.
The case I want to make is that we don't need to contain costs, cut back, we don't even need to stop growth. We need to moderate growth to a sustainable level.
What is a sustainable level? The clear business answer is that your revenues balance with your expenditures. While athletics has been growing moderately higher than the general university budget, I'm not sure that will continue in the long run because the media contracts won't be able to keep up. Many of the stadiums are already filled so you can't sell any more tickets.
But, if you can moderate expenditure rates so that it approximates that of the general university, we have a sustainable business model. We don't now because we are overspending. Not in every case but in too many cases.
Our research shows that the rate of increase in expenditures is one-half, 50 percent, due to facilities. I think the facility expenditure rate really frightens -- and appropriately so -- some presidents and chancellors because what you're doing is taking on serious bonded indebtedness for 20 or 30 years.
If the media markets aren't sustainable or if your team isn't winning as much as it did in the past, then what do you do? The athletic department can't afford to pay those bonds. The rest of the university has to take it on.
This means you transfer money from the academic side to the athletic side or you raise tuition more. Neither of those options is very attractive.
