Contact: Phil Hearn
STARKVILLE, Miss.--College athletic directors are walking a tightrope between fan pressure and financial solvency more and more these days--and just how well they perform the balancing act may determine their program's overall success.
Weeknight games? TV games? Guarantee games? Improving mid-major conference opponents? Politics? Strength of schedule? Contract buyouts? Bowl eligibility?
"Scheduling a college football game has more twists and turns than the average fan imagines," says Robert Zullo, a Mississippi State University sport administration expert who has thoroughly researched the subject.
"Joe Fan would love for Southern Cal to play non-conference games against Miami, Virginia Tech and Georgia in the same season, but doesn't understand why that's not possible," the assistant professor adds. "That same type of fan is irate when West Virginia plays Division I-AA Wofford."
Zullo's study, "The Right Moves," might aptly be subtitled "College Football Scheduling 101: The Art of Scheduling in I-A Football." The report recently appeared in Athletic Management, a publication read by athletic directors around the country.
A former employee of athletic departments at Georgia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, and Virginia Military Institute, Zullo has focused his research on intercollegiate athletics. The kinesiology department's sport administration program in which he teaches is a part of MSU's College of Education.
Among other things, Zullo's research examines the current fair-market value for guarantee games--whereby a host school assures its opponent a certain sum of money for being the visitor, instead of offering a home-and-home series. Because amounts in today's market range from $150,000 to nearly $700,000 for a single game, neutral game-site locations are more frequently explored, he discovered.
"Guarantees fluctuate based on sound negotiations," says Zullo, noting that "visitors"--usually from mid-major conference or smaller schools--tend to benefit from guaranteed paychecks, potential television exposure and the chance to get national attention by pulling off a big upset.
Athletic directors pursuing post-season bowl bids and national rankings must weigh the pros and cons of scheduling strong non-conference opponents. On one had, a win can bolster prestige, but there's the risk of a loss. On the other, "scheduling down" to weaker I-A or I-AA opponents usually provides a win, but also may turn off fans and diminish credibility.
"Countless factors must be examined when deciding on whether or not to agree to a football series," observes Frank Crumley, senior associate athletic director for the University of Georgia. "Even then, a deal may fall through at the 12th hour."
To complicate matters, decisions must be made several years in advance of play; and backing out of a game later may be expensive, since most contracts contain six-figure escalating "buyout" clauses.
As Zullo points out, there is only one certainty: "You can't please everyone.
"Those in charge of the budget are looking at games that best generate revenue," he continues. "The public relations folks want a schedule that gets the team on national television. Alumni relations is asking for games at locations with large alumni bases. Faculty call for a schedule that does not negatively impact the focus on academics.
"And your coach is saying, 'Wait a minute, don't I control the schedule?'"
On top of all those factors, Zullo notes how the scheduling climate currently is undergoing a whirlwind of changes that athletic administrators need to consider.
"Television's influence continues to grow," he says. "Playing non-Saturday games may result in negative feedback from the local community, and fans that have to work the next day.
"New factors to consider include the NCAA's (National Collegiate Athletic Association) recent approval of a 12th game starting with the 2006 season," he adds. "And, in some areas, state politicians have gotten involved in a school's football schedule."
Zullo maintains that, at the heart of all these choices and "calculated strategies," athletic administrators must focus on the central question: What are our goals and how will we reach those objectives?
"This will be very different for Michigan than for Baylor, for example, but the factors are the same for everyone," he says.
To sort through the "whirlwind of changes" in today's scheduling climate, Zullo is urging collegiate athletic directors to form advisory committees, seek information from other schools, welcome controlled input from fans and alumni, maintain good relations with public officials and the media, and explain decisions made in the "best interest" of the school.
"The old days of football scheduling have passed and athletic directors and senior administrators must evolve with the times," Zullo contends. "Don't worry about pleasing everyone, but do worry about creating the balance that leads to overall success for the athletic department and the school collectively."
To access a complete copy of Zullo's report, visit http://www.momentummedia.com/articles/am/am1705/rightmoves.htm.
NEWS EDITORS/DIRECTORS: For additional information, contact Dr. Zullo at
(662) 325-9281 or zullo@colled.msstate.edu.