Major changes in the NCAA

Today the NCAA passed legislation that will surely have some major ramifications for college sport in the U.S.  Just yesterday I discussed some big potential changes in the NCAA.  The new legislation as reported by the Division One Board of Directors has many important changes for schools.

First, athletic departments will be able to give up to $2,000 in aide to scholarship athletes who are receiving full scholarships for their playing a sport for a university.  This means that schools can choose whether to give the smaller of the full cost of attendance or the $2,000.  This means big schools which can afford this have a new recruiting tool, and that is the ability to give more money than smaller schools might be able to.  Of course this is only for D-I, so it will be curious to see if there is  going to be a major divide with some schools giving the full amount, and others giving less.  Notably, this increase doesn’t help athletes who only get partial scholarships, and thus will mostly affect basketball and football programs most likely (though others will benefit as well).

Second, the NCAA has now changed the rules to allow multiple year grants.  While the minimum still remains one-year, schools can now offer a multi-year grant to a student athlete.  This may be an even more powerful recruiting tool, as currently all student-athletes get only one year grants.  By having multiple years, schools will probably now be in a bidding process of trying to offer more guaranteed years to athletes they are going after.  The question is whether this might help the smaller and less powerful schools in Division-I.  If you have the choice of doing four years guaranteed at Purdue or one year guaranteed at Michigan, the Purdue offer might start to look a lot better.  Of course, big schools can give multi-year deals, so the best athletes will probably get multiple multi-year grant offers, it will probably be the mid-range athletes who really get help from these deals.

Clearly these two things can effect not only the strength of teams, but also the overall competitive balance of NCAA sport.  The final change I wanted to touch on (there are more than three) is that the NCAA will soon be requiring higher Academic Progress Rates (APR) in order to be able to compete in post-season play.  The new numbers would be:

For access to post-season competition in 2012-13 and 2013-14, teams must achieve a 900 multi-year APR or a 930 average over the most recent two years to be eligible.

In 2014-15, teams that don’t achieve the 930 benchmark for their four-year APR or at least a 940 average for the most recent two years will be ineligible for post-season competition.

This would mean several programs may lose the chance at post-season play.  Putting this in perspective, if the numbers for 2009-10 don’t change by 2014-15, there will be a number of teams that could not make post-season play.  Just looking at Conference USA basketball for example, 6 of the 12 men’s basketball programs have had APR’s low enough that they would not be allowed to play in the postseason.

This last change seems to be putting more emphasis in the “student” in student-athlete.

The NCAA wrap-up

So much news on the NCAA front, that I have decided to try and condense all of it into a single post.  Where to start?

Yesterday, it was announced that the Big 12 was on the verge of accepting West Virginia University (WVU) into their conference.  Then we wake up this morning, and Louisville, who is currently in the Big East with WVU, has made a quick play overnight and is now being said to be just as strong a candidate to get the Big 12 invite.  The New York Times’ sources says its a 50-50 thing, either school could be the one to be picked.

In a post earlier this month I discussed Missouri as being the domino which makes everything fall in the conference realignment game (actually the New York Times said that).  Well, Mizzou voted last week to look around and have the option of leaving the Big 12.  They have yet to make any decision or announcement, but many think that it is only a matter of time before they leave.  Most likely they are headed to the SEC, but there is thought that Mizzou might be trying to through their weight around in get some games in Kansas City, such as a premier football or basketball match-up which could mean more revenue for all schools involved.

So the conference realignment dance/soap opera looks to be on the verge of having some dramatic twists.  Stay tuned, as we will try to update regularly as to how it all plays out, and the economic and financial implications of all the moves.  To be honest, it is no surprise everyone is running from the Big East, as that conference seems to be slowly falling apart.

While all of this is going on, the pay-for-play debate for college student-athletes is raging strong.  The NCAA was considering the potential of increasing the stipends that players could receive.  NCAA President Mark Emmert told the Knight Commission that he would like conferences to have the ability to increase stipends by $2,000 per student-athlete.  Of course the big issue here is that only some schools can afford to give the extra stipend, and those are of course the schools who have stronger programs and more revenue.  This of course could lead to the best athletes going to these schools, and cause a situation with the rich getting richer in terms of both talent and revenue, and lead to an increase in competitive imbalance in NCAA sports.

The student-athletes don’t like the idea of $2,000, they think that $3,200 is more along the lines of what an increase should be if schools really are going to cover the true cost of living and going to school.  300 men’s basketball and football student-athletes from five major schools have already signed a petition asking for exactly that.  They want a bigger cut of money, basically asking that the increases in television revenue be passed down to the student-athlete.  This would of course mean a bigger bill for schools, and potentially more schools in the red.  I personally don’t think the petition will do much, but it does send a strong signal to the NCAA that something needs to be done.

Comparing Win Efficiency in North American Professional Sports

NBC Sports’ ProBasketballTalk (PBT) must be quite bored, as they only have news about the lockout and the National Basketball Association (NBA) season potentially being cancelled to really talk about.  That said, they did post an interesting article today about the concept of win efficiency in professional sports.  The question they were asking, was whether NBA franchises had the best win efficiency, as determined by the number of wins generated by a teams payroll.  The calculation which they pull from a Bloomberg Business Week article is calculated by:

After calculating that “cost per win” number for each team across all four major sports over the last five years, Boudway found the standard deviation for each team within their respective sports. Using that standard deviation — dubbed “Efficiency Index” for the purposes of that particular post — Boudway was able to compare across leagues, and determine the spenders who are getting the greatest payoff per dollar spent relative to their competition.

You can click on this link to see the numbers.  One thing I had a question about was the differences in the number of games played.  Win efficiency is an interesting thing, as I have noted in previous posts about the Tampa Bay Rays, Oakland A’s, and the book Moneyball, there are some teams which are able to win games with lower payrolls.  I decided to play around with the Bloomberg numbers, and normalize them for the differing number of games played by each team.  This produced quite different values than the Bloomberg report.  In fact, it went from having a mix of teams from different leagues at the top, to having mainly NFL teams.  In this, when I corrected for the differences in number of games played, it displays that the NFL is clearer the most efficient at the top.  The problem is of course one of sample size.  The NFL has such a small number of games in a season compared to the other leagues, that it is hard to be able to truly compare a single season of NFL teams (who play 16 games) against MLB teams (who play 162).  Additionally, we have to take into account that the leagues have different structures in regards to salary cap rules (MLB has no salary cap, the rest do).  This thus creates the case where some teams are probably forced to be efficient because they don’t spend much, and because of low number of games for NFL teams, means they are able to seem to be very efficient.  I’m not going to say that the teams at the top of this list are better at money management, or have much more effective management, because those kinds of generalizations are hard to make when we are talking about leagues with different structures.

My numbers (sorry for the length).  First column is their rank, second is their rank in the Bloomberg rankings.

1. 4    New England Patriots    -0.3375
2. 7    Indianapolis Colts    -0.3
3. 12    San Diego Chargers    -0.27
4. 20    Baltimore Ravens    -0.215
5. 27    Pittsburgh Steelers    -0.1925
6. 28    Green Bay Packers    -0.19
7. 30    Atlanta Falcons    -0.185
8. 1    Nashville Predators    -0.184420649
9. 33    Philadelphia Eagles    -0.175
10. 37    New York Giants    -0.1575
11. 41    Chicago Bears    -0.1425
12. 42    Tennessee Titans    -0.1425
13. 5    San Antonio Spurs    -0.136935092
14. 6    San Jose Sharks    -0.135830777
15. 44    New Orleans Saints    -0.135
16. 10    New York Islanders    -0.126996255
17. 2    Florida Marlins     -0.126493546
18. 11    Atlanta Thrashers    -0.120370363
19. 3    Tampa Bay Rays    -0.115494108
20. 13    Phoenix Coyotes    -0.111535841
21. 14    Utah Jazz    -0.110431526
22. 15    Los Angeles Lakers    -0.108222896
23. 16    Pittsburgh Penguins    -0.10711858
24. 49    Tampa Bay Buccaneers    -0.105
25. 17    Orlando Magic    -0.100492689
26. 19    St. Louis Blues    -0.099388373
27. 21    Denver Nuggets    -0.093866797
28. 8    Pittsburgh Pirates     -0.09349523
29. 9    San Diego Padres     -0.092709556
30. 52    Dallas Cowboys    -0.0925
31. 53    New York Jets    -0.0925
32. 22    Chicago Bulls    -0.091658167
33. 23    New Orleans Hornets    -0.091658167
34. 54    Jacksonville Jaguars    -0.0875
35. 24    Detroit Red Wings    -0.08613659
36. 26    Boston Celtics    -0.085032275
37. 32    Phoenix Suns    -0.080615014
38. 18    Arizona Diamondbacks    -0.071496352
39. 35    Dallas Mavericks    -0.070676177
40. 36    Portland Trail Blazers    -0.070676177
41. 38    Carolina Hurricanes    -0.069571861
42. 39    Atlanta Hawks    -0.069571861
43. 43    Houston Rockets    -0.061841655
44. 25    Oakland Athletics     -0.061282588
45. 29    Washington Nationals     -0.058925565
46. 31    Texas Rangers    -0.057354217
47. 46    Anaheim Ducks    -0.053007133
48. 34    Cleveland Indians    -0.051854497
49. 47    Buffalo Sabres    -0.050798502
50. 63    Denver Broncos     -0.0475
51. 40    Kansas City Royals     -0.046354778
52. 45    Colorado Rockies    -0.040855058
53. 55    Minnesota Wild    -0.036442404
54. 48    Cincinnati Reds    -0.035355339
55. 50    Milwaukee Brewers    -0.032998316
56. 51    Toronto Blue Jays     -0.032212642
57. 68    Minnesota Vikings    -0.03
58. 57    Dallas Stars    -0.028712197
59. 58    Washington Capitals    -0.027607882
60. 59    New Jersey Devils    -0.027607882
61. 60    Vancouver Canucks    -0.02319062
62. 61    Cleveland Cavaliers    -0.022086305
63. 56    Minnesota Twins    -0.021998878
64. 62    Detroit Pistons    -0.02098199
65. 64    Oklahoma City Thunder    -0.017669044
66. 65    Chicago Blackhawks    -0.016564729
67. 66    Charlotte Bobcats    -0.015460414
68. 67    Miami Heat    -0.014356098
69. 69    Philadelphia 76ers    -0.011043153
70. 70    Florida Panthers     -0.011043153
71. 71    Arizona Cardinals    -0.01
72. 72    Carolina Panthers    -0.01
73. 73    Atlanta Braves    0
74. 74    St. Louis Cardinals    0.005499719
75. 79    San Francisco Giants    0.012570787
76. 77    Los Angeles Kings    0.014356098
77. 81    Baltimore Orioles     0.020427529
78. 75    Houston Texans     0.0275
79. 76    Kansas City Chiefs    0.0275
80. 86    Houston Astros     0.029069945
81. 91    Los Angeles Dodgers    0.036141013
82. 78    Seattle Seahawks    0.0375
83. 82    Boston Bruins    0.037546719
84. 83    Golden State Warriors    0.037546719
85. 84    Los Angeles Clippers     0.038651034
86. 85    Colorado Avalanche    0.040859665
87. 87    Indiana Pacers    0.043068295
88. 88    Toronto Raptors    0.043068295
89. 89    Montreal Canadiens    0.043068295
90. 95    Los Angeles Angels    0.043997755
91. 98    Philadelphia Phillies    0.0487118
92. 80    Cincinnati Bengals    0.0525
93. 93    Columbus Blue Jackets    0.053007133
94. 94    Tampa Bay Lightning    0.058528709
95. 99    Detroit Tigers    0.061282588
96. 96    Milwaukee Bucks    0.06294597
97. 100    Seattle Mariners     0.06363961
98. 101    Chicago White Sox    0.064425285
99. 102    Washington Wizards    0.091658167
100. 103    Memphis Grizzlies    0.097179743
101. 109    Chicago Cubs    0.097423601
102. 104    Sacramento Kings     0.103805635
103. 111    Boston Red Sox    0.104494669
104. 90    San Francisco 49ers     0.11
105. 105    Ottawa Senators    0.110431526
106. 92    Buffalo Bills     0.115
107. 113    New York Mets     0.120993827
108. 108    New Jersey Nets    0.129204886
109. 110    Calgary Flames    0.143560984
110. 97    Miami Dolphins    0.1475
111. 112    Toronto Maple Leafs    0.152395506
112. 114    New York Rangers    0.200985377
113. 116    Philadelphia Flyers    0.228593259
114. 121    New York Yankees    0.228631193
115. 117    Edmonton Oilers     0.234114835
116. 106    Cleveland Browns     0.255
117. 107    Washington Redskins    0.2675
118. 119    Minnesota Timberwolves     0.312521219
119. 120    New York Knicks    0.314729849
120. 115    Oakland Raiders     0.4825
121. 118    St. Louis Rams     0.585
122. 122    Detroit Lions    0.805

You will notice that in both rankings the Detroit Lions are dead last.  When you lose most of your games, you just can’t be considered to be very efficient unless you are paying your players close to nothing.  While adjusting for the number of games changes things a bit, there is still a 0.95 correlation between Bloomberg’s rankings and my adjusted ones.

Fox wins rights to broadcast the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup

As I flipped between ESPN and FX (a Fox channel) tonight, I saw them broadcasting news that Fox had won the bid for the broadcast rights for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cup in the United States.  The big news was made more so by the large numbers in relation to the bid.  Fox, Telemundo (an NBC held Spanish language channel) and Spanish language radio paid a combined $1.2 billion for the rights to the two tournaments.  Fox by themselves are going to pay around $425 million.  To put that into perspective the current right holders of ESPN and Univision paid a combined $425 million for the U.S. rights for the 2010 and 2014 World Cup.  They are saying that FIFA has really cashed in with this new mega bid, with the new rights holders (as of 2015) paying close to double the price than their previous competitors.  While the World Cup has become more popular in the U.S. in recent years, I am not sure that this deal is really worth it for Fox.

As I write this, I am having a bar scroll on the bottom of my TV saying that DirectTV (my television provider in the U.S.) is about to drop FX, Fox Sports, Fox Soccer Channel, and Fox Soccer Plus.  These would be all of the main channels through which the games would be broadcast in the U.S.  Naturally, I am not pleased, as Fox Soccer Channel is one of my main gateways to European soccer while living in the U.S.  While there is a lot of time till Fox wins the deals, I think the availability of the ESPN channels is much better, and makes me worry about whether I’ll be able to watch the games I want in the United States, once Fox takes over the rights.

City of Memphis contemplating suing the NBA over the lockout

The Memphis Grizzlies, the cities National Basketball Association (NBA) franchise, currently play at the FedEx Forum.  However, with the NBA currently locked out, and looking more and more likely that there is going to be a big cutback in the length of the season (or possible no season at all), the city of Memphis has started to worry.  The reason?  The FedEx Forum is actually paid for through revenues produced by the team.  However, if there is no team playing there, then that means the city will have to make the bond payments.  Fox Memphis say the City Council is estimating that these will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $18 million.  Those who will have to bare the burden?  Most likely the local taxpayers.  Things are getting urgent, city councilwoman Julie Fullilove notes:

“Should this lockout stay until December, then there’s a very big bill there that the city of Memphis will be responsible for, and whether or not we file a lawsuit, which may set precedent among other cities in this nation, is something we’ll have to wait and see. But it’s only being proactive that’s he’s offering this resolution.”

So with less than a month and a half away from the deadline when Memphis will start having to cough up some cash to make bond payments, the city has started to look at the potential for a lawsuit against the NBA.  Curiously, when Fox Memphis talked to the individual in charge of the bond, he noted that there is currently a surplus in the account to pay the bond through 2028.  He  even notes that he is confused where the city got the idea that they needed to pay up $18 million soon, and that it would be the taxpayers who would have to pay it.

So there we have it, the City is thinking of suing the NBA for being locked out, claiming it will cost them part of the bond payment.  The guy in charge of bond payments says there is more than enough money for the next decade and a half.  The $18 million doesn’t seem to add up that the city would have to pay because of basketball not playing, as they only receive about $3.5 million a year currently from ticket sales and revenue.  I think this may just be a political powerplay to help the politicians in the city council to look good.  I don’t think it really will do much, and I doubt that they have much of a case against the NBA.  Case in point to this being about politics, the City Council Chairman noted:

“I want the citizens of Memphis to know that we are not sitting by idly, waiting for this to hit us and for us to say we’re sorry.”

Still, it would be curious to see if cities can take action over lost revenue because leagues do not play because of a lockout.  I wonder, would the city sue the players if the players were on strike?

Promotion & Relegation out in the EPL? In for NCAA Football?

The influx of foreign investment into the EPL has been widely discussed on this blog by several authors.  I am also currently teaching a class that is a comparison of domestic (North America in my case) and international sport environments.  One of the biggest structural differences which we have between North American and European leagues is the concept of “promotion and relegation” used in Europe.  That is, European leagues tend to demote a few of the bottom teams to a lower league, and replace them with the top teams from the that lower league.  In this, the European leagues can be considered “Open” leagues where the composition of franchises changes from year to the next, while the North American leagues are “Closed” (or static) leagues where the teams do not change, except in the rare case of expansion or contraction.

It seems a lot of the foreign investors in the Premier League are not happy with this current structure, and want to get rid of promotion and relegation.  This is quite understandable, as buying a Premier League club is not cheap, and these investors are buying these clubs because of their association with the Premier League.  If they were to get rid of promotion and relegation, this would mean that they would have a lot more safety and certainty in protecting their investment.  Who close are we to this becoming a big issue?  I think pretty close, as League Manager’s Association leader has said:

“There are a number of overseas-owned clubs already talking about bringing about the avoidance of promotion and relegation in the Premier League. If we have four or five more new owners, that could happen.”

That’s right, a few more people and they may be invested in changing the system to mimic the closed systems of North America.  I am against this, as a closed league would take a lot of interest out of the bottom of the table battles for relegation, which hold fan interest in even some of the poorer teams in a league.  There are lots of implications here, this would change the competitive balance in the league, potentially across several leagues, and it could mean that teams at the bottom of the Premier League could field weak teams with low payroll, and continue to collect the big revenue from Premier League media contracts.  In this, I am against a change in the system.

In other news, Mark Titus, writer for Grantland, has said they should realign college football in a big superconference that uses the promotion and relegation system.  Simply, he wants college football teams put into divisions which are tiered levels, and then have them able to move up and down between divisions using promotion and relegation.  Personally, I don’t think college football fans or North American audiences are too receptive to this type of system, and that it would have a hard time being implemented and succeeding.  Possibly one of the biggest issues would be scheduling and traveling, as a superconference could have Alabama playing Boise St. one week, and then Wisconsin the next.  That would be a tough travel schedule.  That said, I do like that the promotion and relegation systems are entering the mind of the North American sport fans and media.  It is a system that is not perfect (neither is the static/closed leagues), but it does have some advantages that are worth meriting a look.

H/T to IJSF blogger Brian Soebbing for sending me the Grantland link.

Bud Selig wants the person who leaked MLB financial documents.

Last year in this post, Major League Baseball (MLB) revenue sharing was discussed, and provided mention and links to MLB financial documents which had been leaked and published on various websites.  We knew that the MLB would not be happy with the actual financials of teams being released.  Owners have always been very private and secretive with their finances, and those handling the financial documents are made to keep the inner workings secret.  This is important, as it allows owners to make the argument that they are losing money, but not have to provide the accounting sheets which would be evidence towards this argument.

So when several teams had their documents leaked last year, MLB had to be cringing that people could dig deep into how teams were spending money, as well as examine and better understand if teams were making profits or not.

Bud Selig is taking this serious.  MLB has now filed a lawsuit in order to find the source of the leaks.  This means that the sport website Deadspin as well as the Associated Press may be forced to say who leaked the documents.  The linked article notes:

MLB attorneys said in the filing that it intends to “move quickly” to seek injunctive relief against the person who leaked team financial records to the media outlets. Under New York law, a plaintiff may seek prelitigation discovery.

Because the information in the AP and Deadspin reports was released without MLB’s authorization, baseball officials initiated an extensive investigation to determine who leaked the financial documents to the media outlets. MLB officials concluded that the information was not leaked by its own employees.

That’s right, whoever leaked this info is now facing the wrath of the legal system and Bud Selig.  I’ll be curious to see if this prevents further leaks of documents as we have seen from other leagues.

Liverpools threat of breaking away from the Premier League Broadcasting deal.

A few days ago I talked about the landmark case in regards to Premier League broadcasts in Europe, and how there may be important changes coming in regards to how the rights are sold across Europe.

Now the threat is not from decoder cards and external forces, but internal ones.  Liverpool has started to make threats about breaking away from the Premier League’s current overseas broadcasting deal.  Liverpool’s challenge is that the TV rights for Premier League clubs should be sold overseas on a club-by-club basis.  In other words, Liverpool believes they and other clubs should have the right to sell their own broadcasts overseas.  Liverpool’s managing director even came out publicly and stated that this is:

“a debate that has to happen”

The Guardian notes that the current Premier League deal is set up as follows:

Since the Premier League’s foundation in 1992 its success has been largely based on the principle of collective selling, where each club no matter how lowly can expect a fixed share of TV deals with “merit” awards for finishing positions as an add‑on. Changing this model would risk revolt from the smaller clubs who stand to lose most, and thus threatens the league’s very structure.

Liverpool thinks that the super powers of the Premier League, Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal (the clubs who are usually at the top of the table) should be getting a bigger share, as they are the ones who are bringing in the large audiences.  Again, these are deals which are worth billions of dollars to the Premier League, but if the money was not split evenly, and were sold on an individual club basis, it would mean an even greater imbalance in club revenues.  And of course, club revenues are a big part of buying talent, and hence being able to perform on the field.  Such a deal would be problematic in my mind, as it would destroy any sense of competitive balance in a league that already has balance issues, especially at the top.  Furthermore, it could mean that the mid-level and low-level clubs would be even poorer, and would not be able to field as attractive a product.

I point to La Liga, where two teams (Barcelona and Real Madrid) dominate the league in regards to revenue, and pretty much dominate on the field as well.  I think the Premier League, for the sake of having a better product, should continue to share revenue, and have the TV rights package deal sold in a single group.

Did ESPN and the ACC collude to steal teams from the Big East?

The conference realignment drama continues.  A few weeks ago, Syracuse and Pittsburgh both left the Big East Conference to join the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).  Some had believed that ESPN had some hand in this, as the Big East had turned down a billion dollar television contract from ESPN in May.  Thought is that ESPN was mad, and decided to tell the ACC to go after the Big East, of course this was just a rumor.  Then Boston College AD Gene DeFilippo opened his mouth:

“We always keep our television partners close to us,” he said. “You don’t get extra money for basketball. It’s 85 percent football money. TV – ESPN – is the one who told us what to do.”

Wait one second, ESPN told you (the ACC) what to do?  I understand the power of media and media contracts in college sport, but is ESPN really pulling the strings?  Are they colluding with the ACC to try and kill the Big East, one of their competitors for viewership and television dollars on the East coast?

An ACC spokesperson was quick to comment this was not truly the case.

“We’ve got a great partnership and a great working relationship with ESPN,” an A.C.C. spokesperson said. “But they have never and will never dictate to us, especially in regards to expansion.”

So we have an AD who says ESPN told them what to do, and they listened.  Then you have a conference spokesperson who says the opposite.  I think something fishy is going on.  The question is, can they do anything about it?  Is this a potential antitrust violation?  I really do not know, and I’d like to hear what others have to say.  The Boston Globe has reported that Boston College made a big play in blocking local rival UCONN from joining the ACC as well.  Again DeFilippo:

“We didn’t want them in,” Boston College’s athletic director, Gene DeFilippo, told The Globe. “It was a matter of turf. We wanted to be the New England team.”

There is going to be some bad blood when the dust settles, and all is said and done in the conference realignment.  Interestingly, The New York Times is hinting that the University of Missouri is the big piece of the puzzle.  If they move, it could cause a landslide in many different directions.

 

If Mizzou leaves the Big 12, will there be a financial/economic impact on Kansas City?

Today the Kansas City Sport Commission and Convention and Visitor’s Bureau published an open letter to Chancellor Deaton of the University of Missouri to not move away from the Big 12.  The letter basically notes a number of impacts that Mizzou moving away would have on the Kansas City area, including potential financial and economic ramifications.  A link to the full letter can be found: here.

Some snippets from the letter (published on NBC Sports College Football Talk):

“We know that many factors must be considered, including the academic, financial, and alumni relations implications of your decision. And, of course, the history and future of your University’s athletic program.

“That program, as you know, has Midwestern roots more than a century old… We cannot imagine the University of Missouri’s athletics tilting away from this region and the athletic history to which they have contributed so mightily.”

Again, the often visited debate of whether sport has an economic impact on a region.  In this case, it is a curious question.  What economic impact does Mizzou athletics have on Kansas City, a metropolitan area about 2 hours drive from the main campus in Columbia, MO.  In reality, Missouri plays only a few games a year in Kansas City, the big one being the annual rivalry game against Kansas at Arrowhead University.  There is also the Big 12 basketball championships which is about 2-3 days long.  In other words, the Kansas City Sport Commission and CVB believe that Mizzou being in town for least than one week of the year has such a large impact on the city that they shouldn’t leave.  I can buy the arguments about tradition and history to some extent, but I can’t say that Mizzou really has that big of an economic impact on Kansas City to be honest.  Really, the KC Sports Commission should be trying to find a tenant to play sports in the Sprint Center in downtown, which sits pretty much unused except for Arena Football, concerts, and some of the conference championships games for the Big 12.

Another thought is, even if Mizzou leaves the Big 12 for another conference, it doesn’t mean they have to stop the rivalry game between Missouri and Kansas.  In fact, Mizzou has played long time rivalry series with Illinois for many years (though they didn’t play in football this year for the first time in a decade), so it isn’t like leaving the conference means that the rivalry just has to die.

I understand Kansas City’s worries, but I don’t buy the economic/financial argument.