A Different Look at Football Funding

Yesterday, the H-L ran an Op-Ed by Ballard Cassady, a member of the UK Athletic Association Board of Directors. The illustrious Tyler Thompson posted it on this site as well. For those of you that didn’t read it, the premise is that UK’s football problems should be attributed to the Board of Trustees. In writing the column, his purpose was to tell fans the truth that he “learned behind closed doors”; the truth “the Kentucky faithful need to know.” Unfortunately, the opinion did very little to accomplish that goal. On nearly every point, I disagree with Mr. Cassady’s argument.

– In full disclosure, I was a trustee from 2008-09. I’ve even posted at length about Athletics funding before. I say full disclosure because I am readily admitting my inherent bias. However, Mr. Cassady did not disclose that the Board of Trustees voted just last month to proceed with a plan to create a trustee committee to oversee athletics. Such a plan, according to the H-L would effectively cripple the board on which Mr. Cassady serves. Mr. Cassady is inherently, although naturally, biased because the consequence of the Trustees’ decision dissolves his role in Athletics. While the bias may not have affected the timing or spirit of Mr. Cassady’s critique, it was naturally present. To not admit that to readers was fundamentally unfair.

– Mr. Cassady stated that the program’s problem is “not in the AD’s office” but “three blocks away where the bonding decisions are made.” The BOT meets in the same room on the 18th floor of Patterson Office Tower as the UKAA Board. I can only assume then that Mr. Cassady directed his ire at the office of Angie Martin, the Treasurer in the Peterson Office Building. The claim that Angie Martin is responsible for football losses is wrong.

Mr. Cassady correctly pointed out that UK’s athletic program must submit requests to the BOT for capital projects requiring debt. What Mr. Cassady did not say is that the university does so according to state law-specifically KRS 42.400, KRS 45A.840 and KRS 164A. This is not some conspiracy to thwart the football program; the University of Kentucky does not have authority to write bonds for capital projects over a specified amount by design of state law. The Board of Trustees must approve each project so that it may proceed to the final stage of the selection process in Frankfort. After each school presents its final capital construction requests, many are left on the cutting room floor. While I agree that this puts our program at a disadvantage, UK does too; every public university works each session to convince Frankfort to change the law.

Mr. Cassady did acknowledge “competing needs” on campus, but only after characterizing the process of approving capital debt projects as “picking winners and losers.” The University of Kentucky Debt Policy [PDF], revised May 3rd of 2011 states:

“The University has substantial but limited external debt capacity. Additionally, the University must compete with all other state agencies for capital projects bonding authority as the Commonwealth of Kentucky has imposed limits on the aggregate amount of outstanding debt attributable to the State. Therefore it is essential that the University appropriately prioritize capital projects requiring debt.”

The reports provides four quadrants for prioritizing submitted capital projects, with the highest priority being “Critical/ Self- Supporting” projects and the second lowest being “Not Critical/ Self- Supporting projects.” The report indicates that a “Critical Project” is critical to the core missions of research, service or instruction. A Self- Supporting project has its own funding source (i.e., non-general fund supported). Critical projects are dormitories, classroom buildings, dining halls and research labs.

While Athletics received just $7 million out of the $860 million awarded to the university for capital construction projects in the past decade, it did so despite proving it could secure $100 million in private financing. The general budget for the University is $2.5 billion, of which Athletics accounts for 3.5%. Applying a cost- benefit analysis, capital projects designed to boost research, which brought in $299 million in FY 2011, and capital projects directed at housing and educating students are more compelling uses of state funds. This is hardly a game of favorites.

I do agree with Mr. Cassady on the point that we may be starving the “golden goose” football program, but for different reasons. I agree that there is a problem. If the SEC moves to a nine game schedule to open up an extra week of broadcast rights to monetize, the football program must be in a position to compete. Being that UKAA’s financial projections for FY 2012 are built upon “aggressive” projections for football ticket revenue (read: banking on you to buy tickets at the 2010 rate), and that the balanced athletic budget is predicated upon football making $29 million next season, you don’t need a calculator to see the pressure on the program.

My point: If Athletics needs more funding to build the football program, we need to address that head on. It sends mixed messages when we tout a self-sustainable program then turn right around and grumble about being under funded. If Athletics needs new facilities, the General Assembly needs to allow the university to write its own capital projects. Leaders in Athletics and on both Boards need to call the problems what they are, and offer a realistic solution. That is the truth the Kentucky faithful deserve to know.