https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/for-college-athletic-depa...
The people in charge of Clemson University's athletic department have not settled on a design for the miniature golf course they are building for their football team, but they know it will have just nine holes, not 18.
That will leave room for the sand volleyball courts, laser tag, movie theater, bowling lanes, barber shop and other amenities planned in the $55 million complex that South Carolina's second-largest public university is building exclusively for its football players
This is just getting out of hand. There is no reason for this.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
There is a reason, recruiting.
However, people aren't happy about this. Clemson needs serious upgrades and renovations to its on campus housing. Almost nobody lives on campus after their freshman (or sophomore, if you are greek and live on the Quad) year if they can avoid it. They already have a giant indoor practice facility and recently made very expensive and unnecessary additions to their stadium.
To be fair, no one lives on campus after their freshman year at VT either. Granted, VT has made significant strides towards improving the housing conditions, particularly for honors students, in recent years.
Yeah it's moreso that they have other needs and are choosing to build unnecessary things instead. I personally would always choose to live off campus, I lived essentially across the street, in a great place, for my last three years.
Lived on campus all 4 years (Thomas then 3 years in East AJ, pre-renovations). For a socially inept engineer like myself, I shudder to think what 4 years of being able to hole away in an apartment would have been like.
I beg to differ. I lived on campus for 4 years, as both an RA and a resident. West AJ, Slusher Wing, Miles...I thought it was the best time ever. Campus life was at my fingertips, the gym in my backyard, all you can eat Dietrick, Chik-Fil-A....what more could you ask for?
Getting laid. Much easier to do off campus.
As a corollary, watching porn is easier to do off campus as well.
And there I was spending my off campus years playing my drums all the time.
My freshman year I had to ask my next door neighbor more than once to please turn volume on the porn down.
The Corps of Cadets lives on campus all 4 years. That being said, VT managed to build both an indoor practice facility and new dorms for the Corps.
They better be careful. Making this exclusive to football players is a perfect way to get slapped with a Title IX violation.
I guess you didn't read the fine print of the plan. The woman's vollyball and soccer teams are allowed to serve drinks at the fully operational hooters that they have attached to this complex.
To have something on campus like this that is restricted to football players is ridiculous
Oh good, they're going to have copy of the hill. That way the players can experience a boring entrance every day.
I hope they add an alternate route to the ground floor, like a fireman's pole or a curly slide.
I heard there will be a banner in here with the quote "I don't know what my punter was thinking, I didn't tell him to do that!"
I still waiting for the day that one of the players or coaches, in the front, trips and falls and causes a huge pile up at the bottom of the hill.
Nailed the gif to match the picture. Absolutely nailed it...
This is a great idea until a player tears his ACL running down the practice hill.....
I'm not in the pay the players camp (at least not in the sense that some are, I support affordable stipends). But, throwing money away like this is hard to swallow. My argument has always been that the revenue sports are needed to fund the rest of the athletic department. But, having 55M basically used as a recruiting tool for football proves that at least some programs have excess money. The source of the money also becomes interesting.
Edit: after reading more thoroughly, I see that the recreational amenities are only a small portion of the whole facility. I have less problem with it now, but still feel like the recreational perks should at least be available to all the collegiate athletes.
Just curious, what if (hypothetical) it came out that this one-time $55M investment resulted in better recruits, thus better results, that brought in estimated an extra $10M/year for 10 years? By logic that better players are more attracted, thus the team does better, thus fans get more excited and give more, etc.
So, if it was proven that this was not 'just' a way to use excess money, but an investment that projected a nearly 100% ROI over 10 years, would it be easier to swallow?
What if instead, it turned out that a lot of football programs were also throwing their money into similar activities, and it turned out that all the P5 programs were just spending more in order to maintain parity?
Oh, and that while we complain that graduates are saddled with debt, a good bit of it is being spent on things that have nothing to do with education?
Rationalization is a powerful thing, but in an arms race, one entity adds something, then everyone else gets it, so it's just raising the bar for everyone (or lowering it, depending on your perspective).
Yes it would. However there is no way to prove it now or even in hindsight, there are just too many variables. Plus you have to look at relatively. They are already competing for a national title. How much more of a gap could they create that would produce enough relative difference in income to erase a 55M dollar expense, or whatever portion is for the shiny toys?
Well, according to USA Today, in 2014, Alabama generated just over $150M in revenue, and had roughly $120M in expense. Clemson generated just under $75M and spent just under $73.5M to support their athletic department. So I would say that there is a large gap for them to close.
Now, I can't be sure that this is a strategically sound decision, but I highly doubt an athletic dept would spend 2/3 of their annual revenue to just "keep up with the Jones'" and not analyze the financials with intense scrutiny.
There's no denying that college football is in full arms race mode.
The question is whether it's really a good idea to let it go unchecked.
The argument about spending money to make money wears a bit thin when most universities still have to supplement their revenues with donations and student fees.
Thinking that this would transform Clemson into Alabama is crazy. Those Bama fans would sell their house and live on the street if they thought it helped their football team. Better players and more championships isn't going to automatically make the Clemson fanbase a bunch of crazy people. It could definitely improve their revenue though, the question is how much. Is it a good ROI without pencil whipping the numbers with a bunch of unsubstantiated predictions on returns?
The Clemson fanbase is instead full of very arrogant, delusional people. If you talked to them you would think they've had at least 10 wins every year for 25 years (they haven't even been close to doing that)
"We don't have the money to match this. Just clear out the classrooms and install the bumper boats and skee-ball lanes for the players instead. They weren't using that space anyway"
- UNC
College football players need to be example setters, not spoiled kids with preferential treatment! I hope we continue to run our program the way we do, upgrading facilities is one thing, making a big play ground for grown college men is another. Not everyone will go on to play professional football so I hope they work equally as hard in the class room toward getting a degree that will allow them to be a productive member of society. Nothing is wrong with having fun with friends but having a play ground exclusively for college football players sends the wrong message.
Yes, note to Whit: Please don't do this.
There are other ways to get great academic athletes with the qualities we want as Hokies.
No need to worry, Whit knows what he is doing.
Winning national championships > having a team full of studious, well behaved, model citizens. Sorry guys, I know it's not the ethical and moral opinion to have but I'm not paying to watch kids get A's on their accounting tests and pick guys up when the play is over. I'm paying for W's. Quite frankly, whatever puts up W's is fine with me.
About that...... No thanks. I am pretty sure that if the good guys join the arms race and put a product out there that I can't be proud of; that is the time I walk away. This is collegiate sports, not the NFL. 99% of these players are just simply students doing an extracurricular activity, nothing more.
Yep, right there with you.
You are entitled to your opinion. Personally, I'm a fan of Virginia Tech as a school because I chose to go there. I don't just pull for the VT football team, I am proud of everything they accomplish, whether it is Engineering, Football, or Women's Soccer. The more the school accomplishes, the more it reinforces my decision to get a degree from that school. Spending that type of money on a select individual group that does not impact what they do at the school is embarrassing and I would stop donating to the school immediately.
Wasn't West End originally a "football only" dining hall, that has since been converted to the awesomeness that it is today?
If VT didn't keep a dining hall for select individual group, I don't see them doing something like this in the future.
West End was the cafeteria for the athlete only dorm ("NUF" - New Undergraduate Facility). When athlete only dorms were banned by NCAA, it became available for all students. Eventually it was turned into what you see today.
I lived in Cochrane as a non-athlete...
The only nice thing was having west end so close, which contributed to my freshman 40.
I lived in Cochrane as a non-athlete.
It was also nice to ride the elevator with the volleyball team members who lived in the suite down the hall from mine.
Like you fellow gents I lived there as well. Living across the hall from the basketball team and seeing Cedarian Raines daily, it made me realize how truly tiny I was (I'm 6'1). Also, living attached to West End was one of the best perks I could have asked for. When everyone else was in their snow gear I walked down to grab dinner in shorts, t-shirt, and flip flops.
Please don't take this as an insult because it's not intended to be, but you sound like a stereotypical movie bad guy who is willing to do anything or bend any rule in an effort to win.
really? okay. Well you should go be an NFL fan then. College football doesn't sound like the right fit for you
This seems to be getting out of hand.
If this is the direction college sports is going to go, maybe we need to separate them from our university system.
Also up for analysis is University of Maryland's proposed $150 million dollar athletics complex.
All of this is happening at the same time our elected officials are talking about how expensive a college education is. Do you think that maybe the money isn't being well-spent? Oh, I forgot. It brings in donations. Yet somehow tuition is going up faster than it ever has in the past. Someone isn't doing the math.
The universities are doing lots of math. Enrollment management is a very complicated system of maximizing profits for the universities. They operate primarily as for profit institutions with the way they make sure they are getting the most money they can possibly get from those enrolling. It's very calculated.
It's calculated, alright, but they're not for profit.They spend all the money they get.
The problem is that more and more, it's not on education, but on facilities.
technically they aren't for profit, but they have clever ways of spending it, and I agree, the focus is shifting off education and at some point something is going to break.
For a public university to drop this kind of $$ for amenities exclusively for a very small portion of their student body is not a good look IMO.
I understand recruiting, but I would have a real problem if VT was doing this.
Is public money actually going into this? Lots of these ludicrous amenities are privately funded. Big money boosters enjoy buying shiny play things for their football team a lot more than paying for a new lab for the college of engineering.
This ^^^^^^^. Typically facilities like this are paid for with athletic funds and private donations. Your tuition is not being spent on fancy locker rooms.
Not anymore, to keep up schools are increasing the money they get from "student fees" and from "loans" from the academic side.
It's an arms race
Are public funds being used? Building these things with state funds is not allowed in Va but wondering about South Carolina.
Edit- donations and athletic bonds... wow. Dabo brings the energy for sure for these things.
We're approaching the national tipping point for collegiate athletics arms race, and there's a good chance this will be remembered as crossing that line.
And believe me, when the backlash hits, it is going to get nasty
Giving players cars, lodging, no-shows jobs, tutors and ghost writers for college classes. That is all well and good. But erecting a Boys Club on campus for football players shows how few fucks Clemson gives.
I was a little surprised. I would have thought that the Florida schools, or Texas schools or anyone in the SEC or maybe Oregon would have beat them to this point.
That's the thing. Those sham classes, those cars and lodging, they're definitely bad, but for the most part that didn't really impact the average student too much. But to build a $55M facility as essentially a young adult playground with exclusive membership to a select few who don't pay for their education while the average student is stuck with aging facilities and being saddled with enormous amounts of student debt, knowing the funds that are going towards this kind of facility is coming from the pool of money you're going to be peer pressured to give into after graduation on top of paying off your student debt is going to make this ugly fast.
If this kind of thing starts spreading to other schools, the backlash is going to get ugly, and its going to come from within.
Very quietly there has been a movement growing to try and cut back on the expenditures that is making student debt so massively bad for graduates, and things like this, even if they are being paid privately, are going to be the rallying cry for real change. This is excess. While your average student is saddled with 5 figure debt after graduation likely needing decades to pay it off, schools are more focused on the athletic and academic arms race, with costs being passed along to the students. The status quo isn't going to last.
Did you miss this part about Oregon?
That part actually seems kind of pedantic to me. So you imported some goods for a remodel. Is that problematic? And that electronic track, I want that at VT yesterday.
Oregon built a really nice locker room and a track that will reap benefits for the S&C program. In my mind, what Clemson is doing here is categorically different.
I will say this, though... once you start getting to the point where the training aids you have in college are more state of the art than what you get in the NFL, and you're seeing a downgrade in training quality once you turn pro, maybe the arms race has gone a little too far.
But I agree with that, a track used to help you peak your 40 yard dash and to aid in your training to becoming a quicker and faster player isn't something the average student would benefit from, and makes sense to use for the football team (then again, I would hope all their athletes get to use it). A 'Players Village' where football players get exclusive access to things like a movie theater, laser tag, bowling lanes, a barber shop, etc is a categorical 'fuck you' to the rest of the student body.
The exclusivity of the this facility to the football players is what will burn this to the ground. There is no way in hell this flies. It will at the very least get opened up to all student-athletes. Hopefully Clemson is smart enough not to contest things legally when the hammer starts to drop, because you're exactly right, this could be the tipping point in groundbreaking reform.
I don't see a huge problem with this as long as they open up the recreational things to all student athletes and their guests.
I completely agree. But the fact that they're even trying to make this exclusive to the football players makes me wonder 1.) who the hell is calling the shots in the athletics department, and 2) where the hell are the lawyers, who should already advised them that they can't make it football-only?
I do... Even if they open it up to all athletes, its still a giant 'fuck you' to the rest of the student body. Student-Athletes (for the most part) already get away with free tuition, free training, free mentoring and tutoring, free room and board (in dorms that have to include members of the regular student body to comply with Title IX) etc. If they block this kind of facility off from the rest of the student body, the ones who end up actually paying for these kind of expansions through athletic fees and eventual donations after graduation, things are going to get ugly.
No matter how you slice it, if this isn't opened up to the student body, it will be the primary arrow in the quiver for collegiate reform. It will signal the excessive spending has gotten out of control, to the neglect of the regular student body.
I get what you're saying, but I feel like there are certain things at every campus that are off-limits to non student athletes. I don't think a non-athlete is allowed to walk into the sports nutrition cafe thing they have and grab some food.
There's a difference between spending for the specific needs of the athlete (nutrition bar, training upgrades, etc) and spending on exclusive luxuries (laser tag, bowling alley, barber, movie theater, mini golf, etc).
I believe it will fly as long as it's open to all student-athletes, under a "therapeutic/stress reduction" type claim. We can argue that's a bullshit justification (and it is), but they could at least put together an argument that the increased stresses of being a student athlete requires some place where they can blow off steam. But there is absolutely no way in hell this stands up if they honestly try to say only football players can use it.
Even if they do that, it won't fly to the general public, and will be used as a primary reason when we see the groundswell support for collegiate spending reform. Right now, the athletic spending is out of control, at a time when student debt is skyrocketing. Pissed off poor graduates and students are looking for any reason to get support on their side, and things like this is just setting it up on a silver platter for them.
Pretty sure that the VT football program has a bunch of stuff (XBox's, PS4's, etc) in their locker room that are available only to football players.
Those xbox's and PS4's are stress reducing machines actually.
In all seriousness, a few video game consol's along with whatever else VT does for athletes that doesn't contribute to their performance on the field or in the classroom does not get remotely close to a $55 million complex. The luxuries being provided in this complex are services that anyone, not just students, would have to pay for in a normal scenario. If you are a Clemson donor, not only have you helped pay for football players to play laser tag whenever they want for free, but now you and your Clemson student children (assuming they are not good at football) still have to pay for every game of laser tag that you want to play. Clemson is basically building a $55 million complex for a fraction of their school population that in no way contributes to them being a student athlete besides keeping their hair out of their eyes.
Plus, Phil Knight bankrolled most (all?) of it.
I remember when Oregon built their's, I remember it has imported teak floors in the weighrooms and stuff like that. I didn't realize it was football only, I thought it was for all campus athletics.
Dumbest thing I've heard all morning and I've been at work since 8.
What a joke.
Hey, thanks for sharing!
This is actually the fourth part of our series, in case you hadn't seen the others.
Part One: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/sports/wp/2015/11/23/running-up-the-bills/
Part Two: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/why-students-foot-the-bill-for-col...
Part Three: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/college-sports-fastest-ri...
I think their big beef, and it's somewhat justified, is that students are paying "athletic fees", even as athletic departments have huge budgets and seem to be throwing away money.
While we complain about student debt after college.
Well done VTuba! Excellent reporting!
Can anyone confirm or deny that West End used to be an athletes only dining hall, hence the adjacency to Cochran?
I'd heard that originally it was that way but they had to open it up to all students to avoid Title IX implications or some other negative consequence.
Yes, West End used to be an athletes only dining hall called Cochran Dining hall (Possibly football only but I'm not too sure). But in 1999, they changed it to West End dining hall and made it available to all students.
Unfortunately, I can't find anything online to confirm this but, as a former Hokie Ambassador, I use to mention this tidbit while giving campus tours.
I lived in West AJ and used to eat at Cochrane all the time. They served the same food as Dietrick but it was cooked in smaller quantities so it seemed to be "better". I believe after 6 or 630 it was Cochrane residents only so anyone could eat there until that time. It was also a lot smaller, it was really expanded when they built West End.
What is now West End was only football and staff when Cochrane was called NUF. NUF wasn't athletes only though at the time. My parents were there at the time. My dad could eat there as he was on the football, but my mom was not able to.
From perusing the VT website, I don't see any mention of Cochrane/West End being athletes-only at any point in history. However, the history of other buildings definitely implies it.
In 1971, Hillcrest Hall (which has an attached dining room) was converted from female-only to male athlete-only and remained that way until 1982-83, which just so happens to be when Cochrane Hall/Dining Hall opened. In 1999, as you said, that dining hall became West End.
So it is definitely plausible that from at least 1971 to 1999 the football team had housing and food provided to them separate from the rest of the student population.
When I was at Tech from 1975-79, Hillcrest was definitely known as an athlete's-only dorm, with its own dining hall. I seem to remember it being football-only, but I could be wrong. It was known that the Hillcrest dining hall served different and better food than what was offered in Owens and other regular dining halls. The athletes got served steak once/week, while it was offered once/quarter to the rest of us (yes, we were on the quarter system back then). And, "steak night" was not all-you-can-eat; to ensure we received only one leathery, overcooked Ponderosa-quality ration of beef, our student ID's were checked off by dining hall staff when you went through the line. But oh, how we looked forward to "steak night".
Back then, the dining halls actually sucked, cycling through food over a period of days (e.g., hamburgers one day became Salisbury steak the next day, which became chili or spaghetti the next day, etc.).
Cochrane was open to anyone. I knew non-athletes that went there frequently back in the early to mid-90s. I believe most people didn't go because they assumed it was athletes-only.
Yes, but realize it wasn't the same then as it is now, just like Dietrick is not the same now as it was then.
Got it. Thanks.
This doesn't bother me. Not really sure why. If you've got the money, and as long as it's not public money, go for it. College football is a business now whether you like it or not.
I would argue public money or student fees.
Unpopular Opinion: I think it's absolutely ridiculous that schools are able to charge students hundreds of dollars in athletics fees when the majority of students do not regularly (if at all) attend sporting events. If I didn't attend any sporting events but still had to pay athletic fees down at Clemson, this would light a fire under my ass.
Clemson doesn't charge student atheltic fees yet.
I just skimmed the article, but I'd imagine the majority of the funding is coming from donations, no?
Clemson actually has a really cool student donor club called IPTAY (I Pay Ten A Year). It's was originally a $10 fee (now it's more I think), and students get 'donor' perks (Source: 4 of my good friends are Clemson grads). I don't think Clemson has mandatory athletic fees.It just the way things work, whether it be taxes or athletic fees - everyone is force to pay so we can improve quality of life for the majority. If you don't want to pay athletic fees, than select a university where athletics are less of a focus, or a fee isn't charged.
Student IPTAY was only worth it when you were a freshman to help get better tickets. Although that might have changed now, this season they changed to an online dispersion of tickets where you used to have to stand in a long ass line or camp out to get tickets from the ticket office.
Ahh I have edited accordingly
College football wants to treat itself and act like a business in every respect except one major, major, major one
Well in their eyes they're good in that regard.
To me, this is the underlying issue. Athletic Dept/football scrutinizes the risk/reward and ROI of every spending decision. The top most valuable 20 football teams all profit at least $28 million/year (with preposterously impressive margins no less). I get that football has to fund the entire athletic department, but still - the hypocrisy here in unreal.
Are the cuts free at the barbershop?
Is this stupid? Yes. But who are we kidding ourselves? The FBS is a full time job interview for the most profitable industry in the USA: NFL. That means vetting out top talent, developing and producing that talent. Just like any internship, except you have millions of eyeballs on you every Saturday. That's why these kids play their hearts out every fall, why we feel for them in bad years, and cheer for them in good years. Its what makes us as fans love college football over the NFL any given Saturday. These kids have a lot on their shoulders, some may be the first in the family to go to college, hopefully to capture an NFL dream. So as stupid as this facility is, I don't have a problem with it.
How does this facility effect their ability to showcase their talents one way or the other? Kids from D-II schools with no facilities make it to the NFL all the time
Point being, it's a recruiting tool, maybe add a camaraderie aspect when they aren't practicing. These kids have a ton of pressure on them, and sometimes we forget, they are just kids, 18-22yr olds. Maybe a little minigolf in between class, practice, film study ain't that big a deal.
I read the article several times and kept looking for the part about the dedicated library and quiet study spaces for the players, but couldn't seem to find it.
In their defense, they're not there to play school.