I spent 35 years on PSU's faculty before finally retiring in 2004. PSU has NEVER once supported football adequately. The move to the Big Sky Conference was supported by a few vocal alumni who persuaded Dan Bernstine, then new to the University, that this would be a good thing. The Faculty Senate opposed the move for the very reason that the move is a complete failure - not enough money to spread around through an expensive athletic program and some new and very expensive academic programs. We urged the President not to waste the money. He didn't listen and then slowly bled the program to death as the lean years of 2000 - 2004 really hit the University harder than previous lean years. It should be put of its misery. PSU has higher priorities than to fund an underfunded athletic program. Alum dollars won't flow in; alums won't flock to games. Why waste any money trying to fund a sham.

Unlike Portland State, The University of Montana football team is a GIGANTIC point of pride for that community. That program is a huge focus for Missoula and all of Montana, including the many Montana ex-pats who live in Oregon. Go to any PSU/Montana football game at Civic Stadium (eh hem, PGE Park) and you'll notice that Montana fans outnumber the PSU fans at their own home game -- even when it's homecoming.

The grizzly program gets huge support and certainly pays for itself many times over.

But the Grizzlies don't have to compete with two Division 1-A teams just down the road, or a pro basketball team in town, or a pro hockey team, etc., etc.

It's tough to be a small fish in a big pond, but letting the poor guy flounder because you can't commit to feeding it properly so it can flourish is just cruel and irresponsible.

A little marketing would help, as would winning consistently. And this is the perfect time to build a fan base, considering the miserable all-hat-no-cattle program Belotti's got going at Oregon these days.

As a PSU graduate student, I find it ironic that PSU is the largest university in Oregon, but does not have a PAC-10 football team. Must be some history I need to read up on.

As a student and direct contributor to PSU athletics via my tuition and fees, I would say give the football program 3 more years with no change in funding levels and if the football team cannot stay in 1st or 2nd place for 2 out of the 3 years, then kill the wounded sucker. Fact is, college football in Oregon is about the Ducks and Beavers.

Killing the football program would also free up some room and money for prospective students who give a damn about education rather than a bunch of mediocre jocks who couldn't make it into the NFL even if they set records in the I-AA division.

The comments so far are correct.

Don't bother with expensive sports programs at PSU.

I've always liked PSU for its non-pretentious and utilitarian orientation. It does a lot with the resources it has and doesn't pay faculty as well as it should.

I am skeptical about Kari's assertion that "Successful college football programs see their academic programs soar -- with increased funding, boosted admissions, and easier faculty recruiting."

Is there data, cost benefit analysis etc. to support this claim?

PSU will continue to get enrollment as the region grows. It's locational advantage is awesome, and if the university needs money, it should work behind the scenes to ensure support at the legislature. The university can also build capacity to do cutting edge resarch, training and partnerships. That's more in line with the univeristy mission.

Sports, danse, physical ed, health body/mind etc. are important parts of the educational environment. Intramural sports programs, yoga classes, weight rooms, etc. are what is needed to help students maintain healthy bodies for active learning.

Portland State is a commuter campus. Very few students live there, they live off campus, or at home with mom and dad. And besides, the community of Portland is embarassed about Football. Such a violent sport. I mean really, do you know anybody who watches Football? Live? (not Monday Night Football in the background while your Pinot Gris buddies are munching on your Brie)

So Portland State should just admit it. Portland is just not a Football kinda town. Nor is it a University town.

Yup. I doubt most people would notice if PSU just kinda dropped football. The program had its heyday over a decade ago, and it's been downhill ever since. PSU doesn't even have proper frat houses, much less an actual commitment to "the team." As an alum, I can tell you that the University is excellent at many things. Football is not one of them.

Might as well lobby for a more efficient high speed rail connection to Corvallis and Eugene so fans don't have to drive to see the games they really want to see, and use the money saved from cutting football to invest in engineering and planning programs to help crank out the minds needed for that system.

John Dunagan writes:

"Dorms on campus. There are like, what, 20 such rooms right now? I know I've seen one. But if you don't live with Moms, you get an apartment. Are those rent-controlled?"

John: You haven't been around for awhile. PSU has about 15 dorms now with room for about 500 students. They've been building them since the late 1990's when it occurred to administrators that to recruit freshman from outside PDX, it would take more than decent programs. Student housing was essential. There is East Hall, West Hall, the Broadway Building, the Ondine, and a half dozen other smaller buildings. Every building project on campus these days now involves building student housing.

Frankly, I thought that in place of the field that was given to the Vikings to play on should have been used to extend the library and build more classroom space. PSU should be known for its academics, not for its play on the field.

MIT doesn't have a football program so why does PSU? MW

I believe that Portland State is still running quite a deficit as far as athletics go. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons given for its ill-advised move up to Division I-AA was to make more money. With most of its teams in the bottom half of the league, the money is going out, not coming in. The reality is that very few universities' athletic programs pay for themselves. And if few people at the school, or in the city, care about the Viking sports programs, what's the point of their existence?

I am a sports fan and I love almost everything about college football. Every Saturday in the Fall, dozens of football stadiums across the country are filled to near (or in many cases, full) capacity. Yet in Portland, we can get only a few thousand? Why is that? 1) Division 1-AA is not an attractive option when you have two pretty good D1 programs less than two hours away (and one mediocre program three hours away). 2) PGE Park is probably the worst sports venue in the country. I have never enjoyed a sporting event there... fans are too far away from the action and events are rarely well-attended. During football games (at least during my last visit), prime viewing areas are taken up by a kid's play area. Absolutely does not compare to Autzen or Reser, or even Linfield. 3) There is absolutely no school pride for PSU generally. Don't get me wrong... I like the fact that the school is where it is, and I would like to see the school succeed at what it is supposed to succeed at. But nobody is going to spend a Saturday waiting in traffic or on a crowded train to attend a lifeless sporting event and support the ol' Green and Silver. Not when there are better games on TV. 4) Except for rivalry games (which PSU does not have), the college football experience does not compare to the HS football experience... it's cheaper, more exciting, fairly well attended, and a hell of a lot of fun.

So... ditch PSU football. Tear down PGE Park and build some more student housing there. Put a decent minor league baseball park in one of the 'burbs (forget MLB, but that is another post) and a USL-level soccer stadium in another. But keep Basketball.

I love college football and I love PSU too. But I also agree with the comments on the level of resources that football eats up from a school's budget. No question, there are advantages if you can operate in the rarified air of a USC or even an Oregon, but that kind of program doesn't just happen, even with all the money in the world.

One poster asked about PSU and the Pac-10. Well, there is a lot of history in the Pac-10 and (sorry) but PSU just isn't in that league --literally. They don't have the alumni base, or the endowments, or the traditions, or the facilities...

The biggest story in college football this past year was Boise State, who shocked the national establishment. And they've been at it for a long time, and they play in a respectable Division 1 conference and have huge support from their community. PSU is just never going to play in that game and it would be a huge mistake to throw the kind of money it would require into the effort.

Perhaps to John Canzano that means settling for being mediocre. I don't think it has to, though. It's been mentioned that, for instance, they could spend their money on academics. In the realm of sports, you can buy 20 great basketball programs for the cost of one terrible football team --it's only 12 guys, plus a few coaches, compared to 100+ players on a football roster and dozens of coaches and support staff.

I'm as big a Duck football fan as you'll find, and I would also love to see a real investment in making PSU a great University that serves this state and this community well. There are a thousand things PSU could do really well if it had a tenth the money a football team costs.

There's almost nothing that will eat up hundreds of millions of dollars quicker than a football team. Ask Phil Knight. And ask him where his national championship is too.

John

Fifth, I have a good idea who Pat is, if he is who I think he is then he harrasses PSU fans on the Oregonian Forums. He's hardly one to call himself a PSU fan. In fact he's said some pretty ugly things about PSU's program.

Hello david,

I don't know if you are referring to me here, but I can guarantee you that I have never visited an Oregonian Forum, or any sports forum for that matter, and certainly never harassed PSU fans online. I'm a sports fan, but I don't take it that seriously to harass other fans. I will however, glagly give the Ducks (not their fans) and Bellotti a hard time for their all-flash-no-bang football program.

Maybe I'm mistaken and you were referring to someone else in your posts.

The entire notion of "college athletics" does not even exist in most of the world. I once spent a year at a university in the UK and knew students from all over Europe (for example). Without exception, they said there is no such thing as university sports teams. Not that students don't participate in sports...they just do it on "club" teams. And the de facto professional athletes play on...guess what? Professional teams. They don't get paid to run or throw while pretending to be students.

College football, like it or not, is the most visible publicity and most prominent outreach program that a university has. Successful college football programs see their academic programs soar -- with increased funding, boosted admissions, and easier faculty recruiting. When a university's brand name jumps in public awareness, good things happen across the institution.

Uh, right. I've really noticed that OSU's funding from the State of Oregon has soared after fielding decent football teams for a few years. Yep, OSU's "brand name" has definitely "jump[ed] in public awareness." I'll be sure to mention this to my friends on the OSU faculty next time they wonder about why their facilities are falling apart.

Allow me to anticipate the argument that poor and minorities benefit from college athletics owing to scholarship opportunities. This is bogus. The State (or private individuals, for that matter) can choose to provide financial aid. An athletic scholarship is more reasonably interpreted as an insulting quid pro quo: we'll help pay your way through college if you'll entertain us.

Remember that bumper sticker about how it will be a great day when schools have all they need and the military has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber? Is there any reason not to substitute "football teams" for "the military" and "uniforms" for "bomber"?

Well lin qio you got it. Oregon isn't interested in building a great, or even good higher education system. The mucky mucks here about would rather build something that provides for entertainment. Of course it does educate the children of the well to do somewhat and that is done by taxing the poor for the most part. MW

lin quao sagely notes:

"Yep, OSU's "brand name" has definitely "jump[ed] in public awareness." I'll be sure to mention this to my friends on the OSU faculty next time they wonder about why their facilities are falling apart."

Or perhaps when they wonder why their salaries continue to languish in the bottom quartile of AAUP I universities, or to the students who've watched tuition and FEES rise into the highest decile of public universities in the country. Yep, woowee. Football has really helpful faculty and students and the physical plant of OSU, UO, and PSU. Were it not for Phil Knight at the UO or the Reser family at OSU, what would football really be like?

Cmon Kari, if Oregon cared squat about higher education, they'd make the necessary investments in great public schools and great public higher education to draw in quality students and heavy R&D funds. As a graduate of UCLA and of the University of Oregon and a faculty member at PSU, I've had a chance to see how state support of higher education can truly make a difference or produce mediocrity. In California, higher education is one of the major growth engines, as it is in Washington. Football, while lucrative, is really an afterthought. All those schools invested heavily in make their educational programs fabulous and highly desireable long before they started investing in making their football programs pay the bills for all of athletics. Don't tell me that students go to UW for athletics or that donors donate because of the football team. UW's endowment is made up on contributions that are about 90% from wealthy patrons who support academic programs and buildings and scholarships; only 10% of their endowment money comes to/for athletics. Sure, football may raise the public's awareness of a school, but trust me, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has done more for UW's fundraising and its academic prowess and public identity than the Huskies football team can do in a lifetime.

I'm convinced that if the State of Oregon simply eliminated anything but club athletics, few people would notice and the school's useful endowments would continue to grow. I just don't see the link between investment in athletics and support for the University's mission. And if Oregon doesn't start getting serious about funding higher education and keeping its best students in state, the faculty will start leaving in droves. I've seen the reports to the legislature on faculty recruiting and retention. It has to be one of the most dispiriting pieces of research presented thus far on the state of Oregon higher education. We're on the tip of the iceberg, about to fall off into the freezing ocean and drift into neverland.

One more thing. For proof that a school doesn't need athletics of any significant sort, look at the best public example I can think of - UC San Diego. I spent a year there as a visiting faculty member. They have virtually no "public sports" (OK - lacrosse, fencing, soccer), yet they are one of the hardest UC schools to be admitted to, they admit the cream of the crop and have some of the finest facilities in the world. Interested in Medicine, computational biology, genetic engineering, oceanography, just to name a few, that's the place to consider. Of course, they have a few big name patrons - Theodore Geisel and Jonas Salk, just to name two that pop into mind. Imagine the joy of walking into the Geisel library and being greeted by a life size model of the "The Cat in the Hat" or being able to go into the Geisel room to look at all the original Dr. Suess manuscripts. Or to study at the Salk Institute, or Scripps institute of Oceanography. Let's see, they played in the Rose Bowl when?

Developing and maintaining even a reasonably competitive football program at any university is an expensive endeavor, and one that usually doesn't pay off - at least in direct receipts. Even most Division 1 schools run a deficit program, but many make up for it with booster support that generally has a longstanding, historical base. Given the investment required, the lack of historical support, and the obvious risks, it may be time for PSU to cut its losses.

That being said, I'm not buying the "NO SPORTS" argument that some folks are posting. PSU, cut loose from the obligations of supporting football, could focus on that other big-time sport, basketball, and unencumbered resources could provide support to the athletic programs that may never be money-makers, but afford excellent opportunities for bonafide STUDENT athletes.

Successful basketball programs florish at small institutions as well as at the behemoths, and can do so at a fraction of football costs. Basketball programs often provide a symbiotic relationship between athletics and academia, and an emerging basketball program can help get a school's name bounced around the country. Duke and U-Conn are small schools that have long-standing traditions of basketball excellence (in both Men's and Women's programs), have athletic programs that operate in the black, and are regarded as excellent academic instutions.

George Mason and Nevada are emerging top flight basketball programs that have caught national attention after recent successes in the NCAA tourney. Just last year Nevada was listed as the best athletic department in the nation in providing opportunities for women in sports. Further, enrollment at Nevada is growing significantly, and while I'm not trying to stamp a cause and effect label on the Wolfpack, its pretty clear that the success of the Nevada athletic program is a plus for the University as a whole.

Yet, essentially, PSU will have to define itself in its own mold. It's neither Nebraska nor MIT, Nevada nor U of San Diego. University leaders must evaluate the whole package: student demographics, enrollment growth potential, academic focus and expansion, the urban location, the economic environment of Portland, and determine what sports package, if any, truly fits the complete university plan.

It's time to do the hardcore evaluation, make the tough decision, and activily follow through.

To KC:

A couple of points. PSU has done the very "hardcore" analyses you've raised. I know because I served on one of the committees charged with evaluating priorities. Virtually every committee charged with this responsibility concluded that PSU had no business going into a higher athletic conference in football, basketball, or other sports. It was not financially feasible, academic programs were starving to death while athletics continued to run a huge deficit, and it was never part of the school's mission. That said, the University administration made these decisions more or less unilaterally and disregarded faculty (and some alumni and student) input. So, unless there is a wholesale replacement of the senior administration - something I doubt will happen anytime soon - PSU will continue to muddle along without making any really significant decision. It is easy to preach about what PSU should do, but as a 35 year insider, I can tell you that we've been there and done that but nobody "up above" wants to hear the answer.

Your comments about Nevada would be relevant were it not for the fact that Nevada has only two state institutions to support, while Oregon has 8. We've always argued that Oregon is stretched too thin to be supporting as many colleges and Universities as its population warrants. And, worse still, the colleges and universities it has are not really ideally situated to capture enrollment from other than the Willamette Valley. If the OUS were to close WOU, SOU, and possibly OIT, relocate a real campus to Central Oregon, then they might be in a financial position to invest in both infrastructure and programs at the 3 big schools as well as the smaller school. OHSU is already mostly liberated from the control of the OUS and so while a small amount of its funds come from OUS, it could be completely cut loose without any significant harm to OHSU, while its money could be redeployed to PSU for some major expansion.

re: Duke and UConn. I'd hardly call either of these "small schools". My wife is a UConn grad and I'd say a school with 35,000 students is pretty well up there in size and support with any of the big midwestern schools. It is just that that part of the country comes from a tradition where football just isn't a big part of the scene. They've focused on basketball and have developed some superb programs doing so. But I know that UConn's enrollment and endowment hasn't been as strongly influenced by their success in basketball - women's and men's - as their success in academics. The quarterly alum magazines make that pretty obvious.

I don't know enough about Duke to comment on anything other than the fact that with the Duke family tobacco money, Duke started out in the "big leagues". Its academic programs were strong long before it cared about big time basketball.

My point is that academics still brings in the big bucks if the state or alums or endowment seeks to make it a priority. Once you've established your reputation as a strong academic product and have recruited your strong faculty, you can worry about expanding your reach into higher level athletics.

PSU is the wrong kind of school where intercollegiate athletics makes a significant difference. More than 75% of its students don't live on campus, and almost 50% of its students work part or full-time. While it is increasing the number of traditional students each year, it will be 25 years before the number of traditional students outnumber the non-traditional students if the present rate of growth continues. Once you've got a permanent base of students who live ON campus, you've got a nucleus of people who can start to support intercollegiate activities.

Again, I'm not blowing smoke here. I spent 35 years on the PSU faculty and mid-level administration. I'm merely reciting you facts that anyone could get from reading PSU's annual statistical portrait. One good read of that document would convince you that the athletic budget would be better directed at other pursuits.

I'm not an athletic luddite either. I enjoy intercollegiate sports and come from a tradition of schools with athletic history - UCLA as an undergrad and UO as a grad. PSU is simply the wrong demography and at the wrong phase of its evolution to be wasting money on expensive intercollegiate athletics. I'm not opposed to developing basketball programs, or baseball, or women's sports, but I am vigorously opposed to seeing the school waste money on a football program doomed to lose and doomed to bleed money from other sports and academics.

Football is a gigantic waste of money for a school like PSU. If they want to boost themselves they should build a decent gym to play hoops in, drop out of the Big West and join the WCC. Just play D-1 basketball. They have proven that they can field a decent team with little funding or support. I think they just missed the NCAA tournament last year. If they get good enough they could just play in the Coliseum if they don't want to build a new gym. It's that easy...PSU will never be able to compete w/ OSU or U of O on the football field and its probably not worth it to waste money on that program. Its easy to get a huge fan base like Montana when you're the only show in town. Just go down to OIT for a basketball game sometime. The entire town of Klamath Falls packs into that gym and they are insane. I'm not saying that this is the right way to build a college because I've seen a college try to do it this way first hand and it was mildly unsuccessful but I wouldn't go about it by trying to build a football program that has absolutely no tradition.

Let me see now, U of O faculty bitching about losing ground to football, OSU spending wads on the stadium and plenty of poor looking academic buildings still look bad.

I'd say it's a darn important part of Oregon's higher education to play minor league for the NFL, or NBA, or... it certainly needn't involve itself in world class education. Why is it that a university is supposed to have a professional grade team, I thought the idea of student athletics was to root for your fellow academics, not pampered ignorant thugs lining up for the pros.

Yep, I went to a world class university with a pretty good small team (#2 nationally) and we rooted for kids that had the same academic requirements we did in an open stadium composed of riser bleachers in blizzards. Yes there were athletic scholarships, but you also had better have been in the top 10% of your class in college prep to get in - not PE. Why is it supposed to be about anybody else paying attention? Let the NFL build a minor league of its own - they've got money.

KC comments:

"Your experience on a committee that was ignored must have been beyond frustrating, and it's sad to hear that your prognosis is that PSU will simply muddle forward in the existing, ineffective status-quo."

Usually committees that tell the emperors what they don't want to hear are ignored. My experience at PSU was hardly unique. Towards the very end of my career, I shied away from participating in these committees because I knew that the results would be ignored. While I was a part of the group that actively supported unionization of PSU faculty, I feel quite strongly that the union mentality hasn't been helpful anytime in the last 10 years. The current administration distrusts the union, or worse, just ignores it, the faculty are always amazed by how the administration has no money for faculty recruiting and rentention, but somehow finds money for every possible administrative and atletic position that opens or is created. It is an extremely frustrating environment to work in. My point is that unless the administration commits to an open and honest process of reviewing the relationship between athletics and academics and takes the review seriously, there is no hope for or expectation of anything significant to change.

As an alum, I can give you my 2 cents.

Athletics do raise your image and your applications. No one here in North Carolina knows anything about the research programs at ANY oregon school, but they DO remember OSU thumping ND in the fietsa bowl, what, 5 years ago? Don't kid yourself in to thinking they don't matter, and 'it's only the academics that are important'. That may be true on paper and in your utopian world, but in real life, when it comes to recruiting students, they want a t-shirt with a nice logo, and a school people know about. Florida International University, ever heard of it? 10 years ago it was the 6th (as I recall) largest university in the country, and stil lis as far as I know, but noone know about it outside of Fl. It has added athletics for just that reason, and football specifically.

Duke small???? Clearly you have not been there, that place makes UO seem like a dwarf. Don't confuse admissions with size of the institute.

Will killing athletics stop alumni donations? NO, at least not right away, but as time goes on it will hurt them. Sports keep the university on peoples mind and that makes them more likely to donate. Like it or not, it is the sports teams that MOST normal people identify with after the leave the school... out of sight out of mind.

And please stop pretending that the Oregon system of Higher ed cares at all about high level research or academics. It's never funded them properly either. They would rather offer a new Ph.D. in "Sociology and Social Inequality". yea, that sounds like a good use of money when the Bio dept is prob still reusing disposable test tubes.

AND BTW, PSU football finished in the top 10 nationally last year! They ARE GOOD!!! You just havent opened your eyes to it yet.