COLLEGE ATHLETICS

Third in an occasional series.

Texas State spent decades beneath college football’s upper echelon before it decided to strive for something greater.

So in 2007, the university in San Marcos started raising money and mapping out a jump from the Football Championship Subdivision to the Football Bowl Subdivision, the NCAA’s top level. Roughly 54 miles southwest, UT-San Antonio was on the verge of something even more ambitious.

In 2012, UTSA went from having no football team to joining Texas State as the Lone Star State’s newest FBS universities in the span of two years. Both schools, fueled by desire and donations, joined the growing list of in-state athletic departments ramping up their football programs.

However, those moves come at a steep cost. Between 2013 and 2017, the schools’ football programs have operated at a combined deficit of nearly $38.3 million, according to NCAA reports obtained through open records requests.

Factoring in the cost of scholarships, coaching salaries and facility upgrades, football is by far the most expensive NCAA sport. For Texas State and UTSA, the lofty price tag is worth the prestige and opportunity that comes with having a football program.

“In Texas, you need football,” said Texas State athletic director Larry Teis when asked why that money isn’t spent on another high-profile sport like men’s basketball. “I hate to say it for those who don’t have it, but you need football.”

Other schools seem to agree.

Since 2010, at least six Texas schools have moved up to Division I (FCS or FBS).

UT-Arlington, which shuttered its program in 1985 because of budget constraints, could be the next to join the mix. UTA athletic director Jim Baker has been in conversations regarding bringing back a football team, according to messages obtained through an open records request. Baker could not be reached for comment Friday afternoon.

On the surface, starting or revamping a football program seems like a risky investment.

Limited donor contributions combined with the large amount of university funds at UTSA and Texas State raise the question of long-term sustainability for their programs.

But administrators offer several reasons from athletic and university standpoints why the benefits of having a football program outweigh the costs.

Making the leap

When former UTSA athletic director Lynn Hickey was thinking about adding a football program, she felt the school lacked a sense of identity.

As the university explored its options, building an FBS program not only made sense academically but also fit the demographics of one of Texas’ largest cities.

“In San Antonio, you don’t have a party — you have a fiesta,” Hickey said. “If you’re going to do it, you’re going to do it big.”

The program’s inception was scheduled for the year after the school’s first capital fundraising campaign. Hickey said a vice chancellor in the University of Texas system advised UTSA to have the projects run concurrently to build excitement in both. It worked.

In 2008, Texas State also made a university-wide effort to make the jump into the FBS.

The student body voted to double the athletic support fee in order to move up to the NCAA’s top level. The vote came on the heels of the university’s first million-dollar athletic donation.

Teis and Hickey referenced how a move to the FBS fit into a university-wide scheme. Jordan Bass, an associate chair of health, sports and sciences at the University of Kansas, said he could see why school administrators believe a healthy athletic program can make the school stand out from its peers.

“Being successful in athletics, having a Division I program, having an FBS program, could be a way to differentiate your program,” Bass said. “I could definitely see that.”

Mixed results

When Texas State and UTSA made their FBS debuts in 2012 as members of the Western Athletic Conference, each university hired a head coach who carried a lot of name recognition in the sport.

Texas State hired former Alabama and Texas A&M coach Dennis Franchione, who previously coached the Bobcats for two years in the early ’90s.

UTSA went with Larry Coker, who led Miami to the 2001 national championship. UTSA went 8-4 in 2012, while Texas State went 4-8.

Then realignment split up the schools. Texas State went into the Sun Belt Conference, while UTSA joined Conference USA, which sits slightly higher in the financial pecking among “group of five” conferences.

Hickey wasn’t sure if the Roadrunners were ready for the move, but at that point they didn’t have much choice. It was time to make the next step.

“I think we did the right thing by jumping into it, but we didn’t have some of the foundational pieces in place because we went so fast,” Hickey said.

After the coaches helped establish their respective programs, their success tapered off and they were eventually fired.

Their replacements are still trying to find ways to elevate their respective programs.

In two years at Texas State, Everett Withers is 4-20. Frank Wilson steered UTSA to the school’s first bowl game in 2016 and is 12-12 in two seasons.

The financial situations at both schools hint at why there’s a sense of urgency for the programs to do well quickly.

Seeking sustainability

NCAA records show Texas State’s athletic department earned an operating surplus of $12.4 million between 2013 and 2017.

But hidden in that number is the primary source of the Bobcats’ resources. Student fees accounted for $18.2 million of the athletic department’s $38.4 million in revenue during the 2017 fiscal year.

More than 72 percent of Texas State’s operating revenue came from the university, the highest margin of the eight in-state FBS programs. UTSA was third in the state at 60.4 percent, according to NCAA records.

With students at both schools spending $20 per credit hour on athletics, becoming less dependent on university funds could be vital for UTSA and Texas State. In February, 76.7 percent of voters in UTSA’s largest-ever student vote rejected a proposal to raise the student athletic fee by $1 per semester credit hour.

“I think students are very cost-conscientious right now,” current UTSA athletic director Lisa Campos said. “I think they are paying more attention to where every dollar is going in their tuition fees.”

When Campos was interviewing for the job last year, she heard the administration’s concerns of finding ways to increase ticket sales and contributions, both of which have steadily declined in recent years. Campos said the athletic department has regained control of ticket sales.

Finding the right revenue mix to keep football programs competitive is a complex task.

But for university administrators, those headaches are offset by the benefits football can provide.

Since UTSA added the sport, Campos said alumni donations and engagement have increased along with community engagement with the entire university.

“There’s a direct correlation of when football started and when all those other things started to happen,” Campos said.

Schools are constantly looking to build winning athletic programs as part of a plan to make their respective universities among the best in the country. For Texas schools looking to elevate their profiles as institutions, football is a clearcut solution, even with its high expenses.

“It’s the sport of Texas,” Hickey said. “It’s the thing to do in Texas. I don’t know how you turn your back to the sport of football.”

Twitter: @Ben_Baby

University-funded athletics

With the exception of Texas and Texas A&M, public in-state Football Bowl Subdivison schools lean on university dollars in some capacity to help fund athletics. Here’s where the eight schools stack up (all dollar figures in millions).

Total institutional School Student fees support Total revenue Subsidy rate Texas State $18.18M $27.79M $38.44M 72.29% North Texas $10.57M $21.40M $32.15M 66.56% UTSA $12.22M $17.39M $28.77M 60.44% UTEP $7.43M $18.49M $31.78M 58.18% Houston $8.09M $25.70M $57.17M 44.96% Texas Tech $3.27M $5.80M $88.80M 6.53% Texas A&M 0 0 $211.96M 0% Texas 0 0 $214.83M 0%