Point/Counter-Point: Football at UIS - YES

February 03, 2010
By Michael Omenazu
Assistant Editor for Sports

Like any investment, adding football initially may seem risky. However, it can be justified by high rewards that potentially include increased revenue, fundraising and exposure for the university. An increase in the input of funds for athletics, specifically the addition of football, could result in an increased output for the university as a whole.

Benefits

Great Lakes Valley Conference Commissioner Jim Naumovich highlighted his excitement in adding football as he said, “[It] will be a positive development for our league and will be well-received. He also said, “The athletic directors from our football-playing institutions have all expressed their desire to compete in the GLVC.”

Although UIS declined to add football, Athletic Director Rodger Jehlicka noted the benefits of the GLVC sponsoring the sport as he said, “It makes your conference a more viable conference throughout the country when you add football.”

Case Study

The question of whether a university should pour money into a football program was recently explored at Rutgers University, a school considered small in comparison to the schools the university regularly competes against. The debate was documented on ESPN’s Outside the Lines.  After spending $102 million dollars to create a new stadium, controversy swirled over the university’s spending habits.

Former Athletic Director Robert Mulcahy believed that all students benefited and argued, “If the state university could project itself as successful the right way in its athletic program, it would enhance the name of the university, would enhance the pride of the state.” He also pointed out that a big football program would bring big rewards and initial investment tough to stomach.

He was met with opposition as some questioned when and where the spending would stop.  George Zoffinger who sits on Rutgers’ Board of Governors countered, “The state doesn’t have the money anymore. Tuition is at a point where a lot of the people we are trying to educate are finding it unaffordable and you have to make balance.”

President of the Rutgers Faculty Union and professor of labor studies Adrienne Eaton also asked how the university could invest money into sports when it also claimed it did not have the money to cover contractual pay increases.

However, the program’s success did about the benefits it promised. Since 2002 the university’s student applications are up and school-wide fundraising increased 39% to 128.6 million dollars annually. While current Athletic Director Tim Pernetti does not believe athletics is exclusive responsible he does believe it is “partially responsible because of the visibility that the success in football over the past several years has created for the university.”

Counter Argument

Reasoning against bringing football could include low student involvement and attendance at sporting activities and a lack of money. However, every empty seat at current athletic events can be seen as an illustration of the university’s failure to adequately address students’ interests and football as the appropriate solution. Overall, the prospective bonuses of adding football not only match but exceed its risks.