w w W, w w qw lr w - 46 V~eneda, Sptmbr 4, 01 Te Satmet 5B hen University President Mark Schlissel ran into Michigan Stadium minutes before the football team's season opener, he entered a world beyond the sport. He entered a world of tradition, history and more than a few numbers. With the usual crowd of well over 100,000 fans cheering in the largest sta- dium in college football, the atmosphere was.over- whelming - and it should be. After all, students paid about $40 per game for their seats - a fee that ranked as the second high- est in college football last year, just .behind the Uni- versity of Oregon. And for the rest of the crowd, the expense was larger, start- ing at $70 for less notable home games, like the con- test with the University of Maryland. Working with numbers is a familiar task for Schlis- sel. Before becoming the University's 14th president, he served as Brown Uni- versity's provost - a role focused on the academic and budgetary planning for the University. His previous experience with athletics, however, does not compare to the role that athletics currently plays at the University. Though Brown Univer- sity has 37 Division I var- sity sports teams within its department, it is in the Ivy League - which is no Big 10. Football tickets are a mere $15 per game for non-students, and fund- ing for the program comes as its own budget offered from the Office of Student Life at Brown which works under a centralized fund- ing model. For Schlissel, the num- bers at the University of Michigan are just bigger. Though his transition comes with many hurdles, taking hold of the Athletic Department is a signifi- cant one. To those outside of academia and the alum- ni pool, the University is perhaps best known for its Athletic Department. Instead of building the athletics brand to follow its exponential upward trend, Schlissel has said he wants a balance between athletics and aca- demics in University life - a value the Univer- sity has held since its inception. "What I want tobe sure of is that athletics exist in an appropriate balance with every- thing else the University does," Schlissel said in a July press conference. "Athletics isn't part of the mission statement of the University. We're an academic institution, so I want to work on the appropriate balance between ath- letics and academics." For Schlissel, however, the Athletic Depart- ment influence is not slowing down anytime soon - the numbers will only keep growing. Big House bucks It's easy to assess the University's athletic reputation based on its successful programs. The University's football team has the most wins in college football - though a 2-2 win- loss ratio for the first four games of the 2014 season weakens thatstatus in the modern con- text. But even as the winning percentage falls, the Athletic Department's revenue and expenditures are on the rise. During Univer- sity Athletic Director Dave Brandon's tenure, the department's operating revenues have increased from $105 million in 2011 to $151 million in 2015 - which excludes the approxi- mate $350 million budgeted for infrastruc- ture and renovations at the Stephen M. Ross Athletic Campus. At Brown University, the school's athletics programworked with abud- get of $11 million in 2013. In comparison with a 43.8 percent increase over the past four years, the Athletic Depart- ment's revenue is now more than half of what the state of Michigan appropriated to the Uni- versity last year - $295 million. Former University President Mary Sue Coleman recommended Brandon's hiring and highlighted athletes as a way to celebrate the University's achievements as a whole. When Schlissel was appointed last January, Brandon said he admired Coleman's work, and antici- pated Schlissel to share the same spirit. "President Coleman has been engaged and helpful and been a pattern of Michigan Ath- letics - loves and respects the role it plays on campus," Brandon said. "And I'm sure the new president will have the same point of view." Athletics remain an integral part of the University of Michigan experience. With the recent 2013 Final Four appearance by the Michigan men's basketball team and Nov. 2013 football win against Michigan State in the Big House, the celebration of sport and camarade- rie is a defining moment in a University alum's remembrance of college. "I think every individual here is an expert in athletics, which is incredible," Schlissel said in an interview with The Michigan Daily. "It's something that people pay great attention to; it's a part of the culture. I couldn't change that even if I wanted to." And Schlissel's not the only one to think that athletics are a huge part of the campus culture. University Lecturer John Bacon, a prominent sports journalist and author, said the Michigan athletics experience should be an organic one which transcends the bound- aries usually presented between students who may be separatedby age, socioeconomic class, race or ethnicity. "It's the one time of the year when none of that matters, where the second you walk past the turnstile, all of it breaks down," Bacon said. "If you know when to jam your fist into the air and sing 'Hail,' then you're one of us. And we're all connected and we all belong." Sure, the atmosphere is invigorating. As soon as that cowbell rings, thousands of stu- dents clap and cheer with chants of "Go Blue" without any external instruction. And, of course, there's the student-led wave that cap- tures every person sitting in the Big House. But the recent dwindling attendance paints a different picture of the game-day experience. This year, with what Bacon called the "worst home schedule in Michigan football history," the Athletic Department sold 8,000 fewer student ticket packages for Michigan football --a 40 percent decrease from last sea- son. The prices for each home game remained about $40 per game, but something caused this large drop. - AfterscrappingtheGeneralAdmissiontick- eting policy last year, Brandon worked with the Central Student Government to create a better ticketing option for students. Together, the Athletic Department and CSG created a new loyalty-based ticketing program, which bases ticket group placement by its previous attendance record, thus prioritizing the most loyal fans. Though students have voiced positive reviews of the new program after several home games, the process of resolving the issues between the Athletic Department and the studentbody is still underway. In a meeting with CSG in April, Brandon expressed little concern for the prices of stu- dent tickets. When asked how students who can't afford the $40-per-game fee can still attend games, he suggested the common prac- tice of buying a season ticket holder's ticket off of them for the game. Despite consistent questioning at the meet- ing, Brandon told CSG he was thankful for their collaboration. "We're not perfect, but our intentions are good," Brandon said in April. For the football game against Miami Uni- versity Sept. 13, 102,824 fans attended the game. Though it upheld the University's long- standing streak of holding over 100,000 fans, the crowd fell well below a typical football game day. The next weekend's game versus Utah drew 103,890. Bacon said the biggest issue is not the short- age of fans - since the decreased attendance was expected due to what was expected to be an underwhelming game - but of what the implications of Athletic Department policies will have in the future. As ticket prices rise and home schedules become less desirable, the outcome for the future may not be as promis- ing. "(The Athletic Department) needs to finally realize that we can't charge steakhouse prices for fast food schedules," Bacon said. "The big- ger issue is not just this season or next season, but what happens in 20 years when your stu- dent tickets have basically cut in half - the number of student holders. If you're not a happy 20 year old with the department, you're not going to be a happy 40 year old who's going to want to buy a very expensive sky box. So, that's what the real problem is: they're killing the future with the present." { From Brown to Blue As Schlissel takes the reins of the Universi- ty and its Athletic Department, his experience with athletics comes from a much smaller venue. Before Schlissel became Brown's provost, a project aimed to cut funding from their ath- letics program began. Under former Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons, who visited the University Sept. S for Schlissel's inauguration, Brown administrators created an Athletics Review Committee to assess the role athletics played on campus, along with what areas of the program to cut due to dwin- dling funding. Athletics was the focus of one of 12 groups formed to assess how to increase Brown's revenues and cut its expenditures. With the overall goal of saving $60 million after the 2008, the athletics committee contributed $1 million worth of savings toward that sum. Th subcommittee cut this goal to $300,000 after experiencing difficulty in decreasing the pro- gram's expenditures by that much. Instead, the athletics subcommittee creat- ed a plan to over time provide a larger budget to some athletic unitsby cutting several teams and programs offered within the department. Though creating plan came with many hurdles, the subcommittee reiterated Brown's goal for athletics on campus, the report read. Margaret Klawunn, Brown's vice president for campus life and student services, works closely with Brown's athletic department. In a statement, Klawunn said the Ivy Leagued' overall goal is to find that balance between academics and athletics. "A lot of the IvytLeague regulation is intend- See ATHLETICS, Page 88 ATHLETIC VS. ACADEMIC ANNUAL REVENUE Z7 Q Cf't 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015