Dreams and Plans: A Case Study of the Football Facilities of the University Of Georgia

Clemson University

TigerPrints

All Dissertations Dissertations

8-2018

Dreams and Plans: A Case Study of the Football

Facilities of the University Of Georgia

Misty B. Soles

Clemson University, msoles@clemson.edu

Follow this and additional works at: h6ps://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations

5is Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by

an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact kokeefe@clemson.edu.

Recommended Citation

Soles, Misty B., "Dreams and Plans: A Case Study of the Football Facilities of the University Of Georgia" (2018). All Dissertations.

2182.

h6ps://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/2182

DREAMS AND PLANS: A CASE STUDY OF THE FOOTBALL FACILITIES OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA

A Dissertation

Presented to

the Graduate School of

Clemson University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Educational Leadership

Misty B. Soles

August 2018

Accepted by:

Robert C. Knoeppel, Committee Chair

D. Matthew Boyer

Michael Godfrey

Mindy Spearman

ABSTRACT

Intercollegiate athletics are an integral part of colleges and universities in the

United States and have been for decades. Large athletic facilities expenditures began in

the interwar period, the period between the two World Wars, with widespread

construction of on-campus stadiums. Currently, athletic facilities expenditures are

experiencing a second nationwide spending spree that began around the turn of the

century. This study considers the types of athletic facilities, motivations for those

facilities, and financial models used to pay for those facilities at the University of

Georgia. The study concentrates on facilities constructed solely or primarily for football

during two chronological periods: the interwar period and the 2000-2017 period. This

study proceeded as a case study examining the University of Georgia’s football facilities,

with two embedded cases, the chronological periods.

During the interwar period, the University of Georgia constructed Sanford

Stadium, an on-campus football stadium that held seating for 30,000 people, a significant

total at the time, particularly for the South. During the modern period, the University of

Georgia has engaged several football facilities projects. Sanford Stadium has undergone

five significant renovations and expansions. Additionally, several student athlete

facilities have been constructed, renovated, or expanded, including Butts-Mehre Heritage

Hall, the William Porter Payne and Porter Otis Payne Indoor Athletic Facility, and the

Rankin M. Smith, Sr. Student-Athlete Academic Center.

The motivations for the construction of Sanford Stadium included the need for

increased seating, the national increase in on-campus stadium construction, the desire to

iii

provide fans and athletes with modern amenities, and the goal of increasing the stature of

the University of Georgia. Steadman Sanford was the individual most responsible for the

planning and construction of Sanford Stadium. In comparison, the motivations for

modern intercollegiate athletic facilities construction at the University of Georgia center

around recruiting/the arms race, revenue production, improving the athlete and fan

experiences, increased functionality, and the need for more seating in Sanford Stadium.

Sanford Stadium was constructed through the loans that were guaranteed by alumni.

Modern athletic facilities projects have been funded through a variety of means,

including bonded debt, athletic department reserves, and large gifts.

The conclusions arrived upon as to the types of facilities, motivations for

facilities, and funding models for facilities at the University of Georgia for the two

periods is primarily consistent with what we already knew about those three questions.

However, Georgia also appears to be a unique case in several ways.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I gratefully acknowledge the help and guidance of my committee, Mike Godfrey,

Matthew Boyer, and Mindy Spearman, as well the chair of my committee, Rob

Knoeppel. Thank you all for your assistance with this project. Rob, thank you for being a

wonderful friend, mentor, and collaborator throughout our time together.

I also wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Hargrett Rare Book and

Manuscript Library at the University of Georgia, as well as the assistance of Loran Smith.

Finally, I thank my partner in all things, Anthony Harvey, who listened to endless

thoughts, ideas, and questions relating to this project and gave unwavering support

throughout.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1

Background and Organizational Overview .............................................. 1

Other Considerations ............................................................................. 14

II. METHODS .................................................................................................. 16

Approach and Design ............................................................................. 16

Data Collection ...................................................................................... 22

Data Analysis and Work Plan ................................................................ 27

Other Considerations ............................................................................. 34

Implications............................................................................................ 37

III. HISTORICAL FINDINGS .......................................................................... 38

Historiography and Literature ................................................................ 38

Findings.................................................................................................. 53

IV. CONTEMPORARY FINDINGS ................................................................. 74

Literature Review................................................................................... 74

Literature for the Contemporary Period ................................................. 77

Findings................................................................................................ 104

Analysis and Conclusions .................................................................... 115

V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 128

Conclusions from this Study ................................................................ 128

Implications and Extension of Knowledge .......................................... 133

Recommendations for Further Research .............................................. 137

APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. 137

A: Appendix A: Glossary of Terms ................................................................ 140

B: Appendix B: Power Five Original Stadiums with Opening Dates ............ 144

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 146

Table of Contents (Continued) Page

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1.1: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the Interwar

Period ............................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 1.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction in the 21

Century ............................................................................................................................. 8

Figure 1.3: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Student Athlete Facilities

Construction in the 21

Century ...................................................................................... 9

Figure 1.4: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding Decisions10

Figure 2.1: Bounded Cases in this Study ....................................................................... 17

Figure 2.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the Interwar

Period ............................................................................................................................. 30

Figure 2.3: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction in the 21

Century ........................................................................................................................... 31

Figure 2.4: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Student Athlete Facilities

Construction in the 21

Century .................................................................................... 32

Figure 2.5: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding Decisions33

Figure 3.1: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the Interwar

Period ............................................................................................................................. 53

Figure 3.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the Interwar

Period ............................................................................................................................. 71

Figure 3.3: Motivations for the Construction of Sanford Stadium ................................ 72

Figure 4.1: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction in the 21

Century ........................................................................................................................... 99

Figure 4.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Student Athlete Facilities

Construction in the 21

Century .................................................................................. 100

Figure 4.3: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding Decisions104

viii

List of Figures (Continued)

Page

Figure 4.4: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction in the 21

Century ......................................................................................................................... 116

Figure 4.5: Motivations for Sanford Stadium Expansion and Renovation in the 21

Century ......................................................................................................................... 117

Figure 4.6: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Student Athlete Facilities

Construction in the 21

Century .................................................................................. 119

Figure 4.7: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Student Athlete Facilities

Construction at Georgia in the 21

Century ................................................................ 120

Figure 4.8: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding Decisions122

Figure 4.9: Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding Decisions at Georgia123

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background and Organizational Overview

Background of the Study

Intercollegiate athletics are an integral part of colleges and universities in the

United States and have been for decades. Large athletic facilities expenditures began in

the interwar period, the period between the two World Wars, with widespread

construction of on-campus stadiums. Currently, athletic facilities expenditures are

experiencing a second nationwide spending spree that began around the turn of the

century. Though intercollegiate athletic income has drastically increased in the last 20

years due to conference revenues and other factors, the athletic spending at many

institutions has nevertheless continued to outpace revenues. As such, the motivations for

athletic facilities expenditures are of interest on all campuses that house intercollegiate

athletic programs.

Additionally, there are numerous stakeholders implicated by any discussion of

intercollegiate athletics. In Division I, approximately one of every 25 students is a

student athlete; in Divisions II and III, the proportions increase to one in every 11 and

one in every six, respectively. Division I institutions field more than 6,000 athletic

teams, with more than 170,000 student athletes (National Collegiate Athletic Association,

2018f). Intercollegiate athletics impact other stakeholders in addition to the student

athletes themselves, including the student body, faculty, staff, and the local community.

Substantial physical facilities are required for the considerable number of sports

and student athletes in Division I. These facilities, like all university facilities, require

periodic construction, renovation, and updating. Few studies have considered when,

why, and how these projects have and are occurring in the specific context of

intercollegiate athletics.

The primary facility type constructed during the interwar period was the on-

campus stadium (Toma, 2003, p. 36). Two of the prominent goals for stadiums

constructed in the 1920s were meeting the “growing demand for game tickets at the

major football schools that easily exceeded the capacity of most of the old-style stadia”

and to “capitalize on the potentially great financial rewards” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 39).

Facilities in the contemporary period fall into two broad categories: venues and student

athlete facilities, and motivations tend to differ based on the type of facility. The

literature shows that athletic departments in the contemporary period rely on debt to

varying degrees, and debt has drastically increased as this period has progressed (Knight

Commission, 2018b). The goals of this study were to learn more about types of

intercollegiate athletic facilities, the motivations for those facilities, and how those

facilities were financed within the two target chronological periods of interest for the

subject institution.

Statement of the Problem

Data from the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics shows that the

total annual payment of debt service, leases, and rental facilities for athletic facilities

increased from a Division I FBS median of approximately $2 million per year in 2005 to

almost $5 million per year in 2015 (Knight Commission, 2018a). It is highly publicized

that institutions of higher education spend large amounts of money on athletic facilities.

However, we know little about the motivations for this spending or about how these

facilities are funded/financed. Because intercollegiate athletics are a prominent part of

many institutions of higher education, and due to the large number of stakeholders that

intercollegiate athletics impact, more research is needed to discern how and why

intercollegiate facilities spending occurs and has evolved.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study is to understand more about how

a) types of intercollegiate athletic facilities,

b) motivations for intercollegiate athletic facilities, and

c) facilities-related financials evolved at the subject institution.

The study considered both the initial period of widespread athletic facilities construction,

the interwar period, as well as the most recent period of widespread athletic facilities

construction, from 2000-2017. The research questions implicated by this purpose are as

follows: How do types of intercollegiate athletic facilities and the motivations for those

facilities compare between the interwar and 21

century periods at the subject institution?

How did funding models for intercollegiate athletic facilities at the subject institution

change between these two eras and why?

Significance of the Study

Findings from this study broaden our understanding of athletic facilities, both

historically and in the contemporary period. Additionally, the findings from this study

are helpful in understanding why decisions relating to the construction and renovation of

intercollegiate athletic facilities occur, as well as how decisions relating to funding

models for these facilities were made and have evolved.

This study makes an original contribution to the field because of the comparative

nature of the study. The researcher gathered, analyzed, and compared data about the two

key chronological periods relating directly to the subject institution. The comparisons

focused on types of facilities, motivations for those facilities, and funding models for the

facilities for the two periods. This process allowed for consideration of the two periods

separately and in comparison to one another, which will help us understand athletic

facilities spending in a more complete way, as each chronological period initiated an era

of drastically increased construction and spending.

In addition to adding to the body of literature on intercollegiate athletic facilities,

the study is significant as it differs in research methodology from the vast majority of

studies in these areas. Because this study is a detailed investigation into one site, the

types of facilities, motivations for those facilities, and financing of those facilities, it will

offer a detailed consideration of how these factors interact and how they have evolved.

Research Questions

The following research questions were used to guide this study:

1) How do types of intercollegiate athletic facilities and the motivations for those

facilities compare between the interwar and 21

century periods at the subject

institution?

2) How did funding models for intercollegiate athletic facilities at the subject

institution change between these two eras and why?

Organization of the Study

The researcher chose the subject institution based on three primary characteristics:

1) substantial financial investment in athletic facilities,

2) the construction of an on campus stadium during the historical period of

interest, and

3) maintenance of significant historical records relating to athletics.

Early on in the study, the decision was made to focus solely on football facilities

at the subject institution. This conclusion was stimulated by several factors. First,

football is both the primary athletic revenue generator and the primary source of athletic

expenditures at the subject institution. Football facilities at this institution have

experienced enormous growth in the contemporary period. As a result, using data related

to football offered more defined conclusions. Additionally, the data available for

football-related facilities is voluminous. Including facilities related primarily to other

sports would make the contemporary data set untenable. Finally, because the facility of

interest in the historical period is Sanford Stadium, concentrating only on football in the

contemporary period provides a distinct parallel between the two eras, which, in turn,

allowed a better comparison.

Analysis and Sensemaking

To assist in the process of analysis and sensemaking, the researcher created four

figures/frameworks (Figures 1.1-1.4) that reflected the researcher’s understanding of the

areas of interest through available literature. Part of the analysis and sensemaking in this

study consisted of thinking about how the experiences of the subject institution were

alike or different from the general body of knowledge. Does the subject institution

conform to the “norms” of types of facilities, motivations for facilities, and financial

models for facilities? If not, why not? Figures 1.1-1.4 are part of using literature to

guide the evaluation of data in this study.

The researcher derived Figure 1.1 primarily from the works of Toma (2003) and

Schmidt (2007). According to Toma (2003), “In the early twentieth century, permanent

stadiums, several of them seating upwards of eighty thousand people, cemented both

literally and figuratively the place of Football Saturdays on large American campuses”

(p. 36). While several factors were significant in the stadium construction boom of the

interwar period, two of the most important goals for stadiums constructed in the 1920s

were meeting the “growing demand for game tickets at the major football schools that

easily exceeded the capacity of most of the old-style stadia” and capitalizing on “the

potentially great financial rewards” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 39).

Figure 1.1: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the

Interwar Period

Figures 1.2 and 1.3 emerged from consideration of research published by

AECOM/Ohio University (2016) and the works of Smith (2009), Toma (1993 and 2003),

Neuman (2013) and others. For example, Smith (2009) argued, “Proponents of…athletic

spending justify the practice with reference to the general mission of the host college or

university. Programs need to build bigger and better facilities in order to attract better

athletes and coaches and to maintain fan interest and comfort at the games. This allows a

program to be ‘successful,’ and success translates to more pride in the institution, which

ultimately leads to benefits for the entire school” (p. 554). Similarly, Neuman (2013)

noted, “Even the best programs may see the need to add and upgrade facilities, and sport-

specific buildings can make all the difference. Specific training facilities for football,

basketball, hockey, and other sports, together with weight training, sports medicine, and

team lockers, are critical to recruiting” (p. 265).

Figure 1.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction or

Renovation in the 21

Century

Figure 1.3: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletics Student Athlete Facilities in the

Century

Figure 1.4 is a theoretical model based loosely on available research, primarily

from the AECOM/Ohio University study (2016) (which relates in part to funding

decisions), from the Knight Commission (2018b) (which relates to institutional debt and

spending), and based on collaborative research in which the researcher participated. Debt

accrual varies widely among institutions in similar geographic locations and with similar

student body sizes, even within the same or similar conferences; several factors,

including the outlook of the athletic administration, conference/donor support, and sports

culture of the institution/state/conference, potentially impact athletic facilities spending,

which then likely impacts funding models.

Figure 1.4: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding

Decisions

Factors

Motivations Support Culture Types

Definitions

The definitions for the study are included in Appendix A, Glossary of Terms, as

well as here, for the convenience of readers:

Conference: A voluntary association with other institutions in the same division and

level. Conferences are part of the revenue structure through which institutions receive

annual distributions, as well as being an intermediate level of governance between

institutions and the NCAA.

Division I: The highest division in intercollegiate athletics both in terms of the numbers

of level of competition and in revenue. “Among the three NCAA divisions, Division I

schools generally have the biggest student bodies, manage the largest athletics budgets

and offer the most generous number of scholarships. Schools who are members of

Division I commit to maintaining a high academic standard for student-athletes in

addition to a wide range of opportunities for athletics participation. With nearly 350

colleges and universities in its membership, Division I schools field more than 6,000

athletic teams, providing opportunities for more than 170,000 student-athletes to compete

in NCAA sports each year.” (NCAA, 2018a).

Division II: An intermediate division in intercollegiate athletics. Division II institutions

are subject to their own rules and regulations (separate from Division I rules). “Division

II offers a ‘partial-scholarship’ model for financial aid in which most student-athletes’

college experiences are funded through a mix of athletics scholarships, academic aid,

need-based grants and/or employment earnings…Student-athletes generally comprise a

high percentage of the student body at Division II schools, which insists that athletics is

an important component of the learning experience at these institutions.” (NCAA,

2018b).

Division III: The third level of intercollegiate athletic competition. Division III

institutions are subject their own rules and regulations (separate from Divisions I and II).

“More than 180,000 student-athletes at 450 institutions make up Division III, the largest

NCAA division both in number of participants and number of schools. The Division III

experience offers participation in a competitive athletic environment that pushes student-

athletes to excel on the field and build upon their potential by tackling new challenges

across campus. Academics are the primary focus for Division III student-athletes. The

division minimizes the conflicts between athletics and academics and helps student-

athletes progress toward graduation through shorter practice and playing seasons and

regional competition that reduces time away from academic studies.” (NCAA, 2018c).

FBS: Football Bowl Subdivision, within Division I. The highest level of competition in

Division I. Institutions that participate in bowl games belong to the Football Bowl

Subdivision. The subdivisions (FBS and FCS) apply only to football. There are ten

conferences in FBS.

FCS: Football Championship Subdivision, within Division I. Institutions that participate

in the NCAA-run football championship belong to the Football Championship

Subdivision. The subdivisions (FBS and FCS) apply only to football.

Flutie Effect: The possible increase in applications seen by schools that have a high

profile win or championship.

Group of Five/5 (G5): The five conferences in FBS that are not part of the Power Five

group are informally known as the Group of Five. The Group of Five is composed of the

American Athletic Conference, Conference-USA, the Mid-American Conference, the

Sun Belt Conference and the Mountain West Conference.

Interwar: The period of time between World War I and World War II, typically defined

as 1919 (the year of the signing of the Treaty of Versailles) and 1939 (the declaration of

war against Germany after the invasion of Poland).

NCAA: The National Collegiate Athletic Association. According to the NCAA, “The

National Collegiate Athletic Association is a member-led organization dedicated to the

well-being and lifelong success of college athletes.” (NCAA, 2018f).

Power Five/5 (P5): The most high revenue conferences in FBS: Atlantic Coast

Conference (ACC), Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10 and Southeastern Conference (SEC). These

conferences, with the Group of Five conferences, compose the FBS subdivision.

Revenue sports: Revenue sports are sports that “support themselves” and typically

generate more revenue than they have expenses. At most Division I institutions, the

primary revenue sports are football and men’s basketball. At some schools in the

Southeast, baseball is a revenue sport. At some schools in the Northeast and Midwest,

men’s ice hockey is a revenue sport. A very small number of schools consider other

sports, such as women’s basketball, gymnastics or softball, to be revenue sports.

Venue: As used in the context of this study, a “venue” is an intercollegiate athletic

facility, the primary purpose of which is to host competitive athletic events attended by

spectators.

Other Considerations

Delimitations

The two significant delimitations for this study are chronological periods and

types of facilities. The researcher narrowed the focus of this study to the two target

periods primarily based on the expenditures in these periods for athletic facilities. The

researcher chose the interwar period as the historical period because the literature

indicates that this period saw the first significant investment in intercollegiate athletic

facilities. As such, it is a clear period of interest. Additionally, the researcher chose the

contemporary period because of the amount of athletic facilities investment since the year

2000, the changes made in athletic revenues in that period, and the increased athletic

facilities debt loads that accumulated during this period. For the second delimitation, the

researcher narrowed the focus of this study to football facilities only.

Epistemology

The research paradigm that guided this study is critical realism. Critical realism

“strikes a middle ground between positivism, with its emphasis on objective truth, and

instrumentalism, with its stress on the subjective nature of human knowledge” (Hiebert,

1999, p. 69). This is appropriate for the method, as case study research “can embrace

different epistemological orientations” (Yin, 2014, p. 17). Critical realist epistemology

“affirms the presence of objective truth but recognizes that this is subjectively

apprehended” (Hiebert, 1999, p. 69). Critical realism is appropriate for this inquiry

because it is logically applicable to data, perceptions of data, and conclusions about data

derived from the historical method and case study research. Ontologically, critical

realism is a form of realism in its assumption of “a real world that exists independently

from human perceptions or opinions of it” (Hiebert, 1999, p. 69). In other words, to

critical realists, “the real is whatever exists…regardless of…whether we happen to have

an adequate understanding of its nature” (Sayer, 2000, p. 11).

Summary

This chapter provided a brief summary of this research project, which relates to

intercollegiate athletics facilities at the University of Georgia. Chapter Two focuses on

the methods utilized in both chronological periods of the study. Chapter Three covers

both existing literature and findings for the historical period. Chapter Four covers the

existing literature and the findings for the contemporary period. Chapter Five focuses on

the implications of the study for research and practice.

CHAPTER TWO

METHODS

Approach and Design

Research Approach

One of the first questions a researcher must resolve in planning a study is the

determination of the most appropriate method or methods for the study: “Methodology is

best understood as the overall strategy for resolving the complete set of choices or

options available to the inquirer” (Guba and Lincoln, 1989, p. 183). My approach to this

study involved the consideration of three different questions and two different time

periods. Each time period required a great deal of detail in order to understand it

properly. As a result, the determination was made to utilize a qualitative, case study

approach. Qualitative studies are interpretive and strongly connected to the researcher

herself (Stake, 1995). Furthermore, case study research includes single and multiple case

study designs (Yin, 2014). In this study, the University of Georgia’s football facilities is

the larger case, and the two time periods are bounded, embedded cases within the larger

case. Case studies can cover multiple cases and use them to draw conclusions (Yin,

2014).

Figure 2.1: Bounded Cases of this Study

While case studies can be, by nature, quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of

the two, it was determined that this study would be most appropriate as a qualitative

study: “In qualitative studies, research questions typically orient to cases or phenomena,

seeking patterns of unanticipated as well as expected relationships” (Stake, 1995, p. 41).

Each period, as an embedded case, requires separate research and descriptions, as well as,

ultimately, a comparison between the two.

Study Design

The selection of a research design is based, first and foremost, on the research

questions of the study: “One’s selection of a particular research design is determined by

how well it allows full investigation of specific research questions” (Hancock &

Algozzine, 2017, p. 37). According to Yin (2014), “how” and “why” research questions

are more likely to result in case study research than other types of questions because they

are more explanatory (p. 10). When “how” and “why” questions are present and no

control of behavioral events is required, case study research is appropriate, as is historical

research (Yin, 2014, p. 9). The research questions for this study are as follows:

1) How do types of intercollegiate athletic facilities and the motivations for those

facilities compare between the interwar and 21

century periods at the subject

institution?

2) How did funding models for intercollegiate athletic facilities at the subject

institution change between these two eras and why?

As a result, a case study design is reasonable for this study based on the research

questions.

Additionally, case studies are “different from other types [of qualitative research]

in that they are intensive analyses and descriptions of a single unit or system bounded by

space and time” (Hancock & Algozzine, 2017, p. 9). The boundaries of the two

embedded cases involved in this study were the time periods. According to Lincoln and

Guba (1985), the case study format “is most useful in achieving…the two major purposes

of reporting (raising understanding and maintaining continuity)…” (p. 358). As Stake

(1995) noted, a case is studied when it is of special interest (xi). Case studies “enable

detailed probing of an instance in question…” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 358).

The case study design is desirable when you want to understand a real-world case (Yin,

2014, p. 16). This study is based on a real-world case: the football facilities at the

University of Georgia.

The setting and situation of this study are also appropriate for case study research:

“As a research method, the case study is used in many situations, to contribute to our

knowledge of individual, group, organizational, social, political, and related phenomena”

(Yin, 2014, p. 4). In this study, the utilization of the case study method will allow further

understanding of how and why the football facilities of the University of Georgia evolved

based on the two bounded cases embedded within the study, the two chronological

periods.

Because this study includes an embedded historical case, historical methods were

utilized, particularly in terms of goals of the study, the evaluation of historical sources,

and the presentation of the case study report. The goals of modern historians include the

illumination of the past, understanding the events involved, and interpretation of those

events (Krentz, 2002, pp. 35-36). However, historians have a great deal of freedom in

terms of how sources are approached and interpreted: “Historical thinking

characteristically proceeds with a minimum of rules” (Higham, 1965, p. ix). Historians

have guidelines for finding historical data and guidelines for interpreting and presenting

data (Lange, 2013, p. 12).

Historical research and case studies can be complementary to one another:

“Historical research is essentially descriptive, and elements of historical research and

case study often merge” (Merriam, 2009, p. 47). Both are, in some ways, scientifically

motivated, in that both require evidence in order to draw reasonable conclusions:

“Historical method is the child of the Enlightenment” (Krentz, 2002, p. 55). Writing

history requires that historians make inferences based on evidence (Furay and Salevouris,

2010, p. 146). Like case study research, historical research can be utilized “to analyze

diverse phenomena” (Lange, 2013, p. 13). As Krentz (2002) noted, history deals with

“real events and real men,” as opposed to “abstractions” (p. 34). Effective historical

thinking requires sensitivity to multiple causes, sensitivity to context, and “an awareness

of the interplay of continuity and change in human affairs” (Furay and Salevouris, 2010,

p. 25). Similarly, case study research requires attention to detail and a heightened

sensitivity to context.

From a procedural standpoint, historical research allows consideration of a period

outside the present: “Historical method is a process for determining what really happened

and what the significance of past happenings was (and is)” (Krentz, 2002, p. 45). The

historian must determine “which accounts he or she will use” (Howell and Prevenier,

2001, p. 69). The evaluation of sources is a key aspect of historical research, as will be

discussed more fully below. Even though “historians will interpret the past differently”

from one another, “…in all cases their accounts must be based on…available relevant

evidence” (Furay and Salevouris, 2010, p. 16). The four essential tasks involved in

writing history are description, explanation, argument, and interpretation (Megill, 2007,

p. 96). Historical methods are appropriate in this study due to the presence of and

research questions relating to the first time period under consideration (the first bounded

case): “…historical methods are able to provide insight into the characteristics of

historical phenomena” (Lange, 2013, p. 13).

The final report of this study reflects both historical and case study

methodologies; as such, historical methods were considered in that aspect of this study as

well. Context is crucial in writing history (Guba and Lincoln, 1981, p. 234). Historians

rely on many sources then “construct their own interpretations about the past by means of

comparison among sources” (Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p. 69). Historians may not

merely assert that statements are true; instead, historians must “put forward arguments

and evidence that justify our agreeing that the claims in question are true” (Megill, 2007,

p. xii). As has been noted, however, the historian must make some judgment calls in

several areas, including which sources to use, how sources fit together, and how to

interpret the sources as a group: “All historical accounts are reconstructions that contain

some degree of subjectivity” (Furay and Salevouris, 2010, p. 13). Krentz (2002) also

emphasized the importance of “a firm chronological structure,” as “chronology is the

skeleton of history” (p. 37).

Limitations

The primary limitation identified by the researcher is related to potential gaps in

historical data: “The evidence for past events is…always incomplete and

fragmentary…Historians fit the pieces together as carefully as possible…” (Marius &

Page, 2012, p. 4). Historians are restricted by the available sources as well as how the

historian views those sources (Krentz, 2002, pp. 36-37). Unlike other types of research,

historical methods “cannot generate their own data” and are, instead, dependent upon the

sources that are available (Lange, 2013, p. 13). However, I feel comfortable with this

potential limitation based on preliminary investigation into the content and availability of

materials and have concluded that sufficient accessible data exists to proceed with the

study.

A second potential limitation relates to the usability and reliability of sources,

both historical and contemporary: “The sources for history have been conditioned by

when they were created and area also conditioned in the present by how they are read”

(Marius & Page, 2012, p. 30). I am aware of many of the potential circumstances and

biases that surround this topic and feel capable of making discerning decisions relating to

this potential limitation, particularly since I will be using multiple sources of data:

“Diligent historians assemble as many…accounts as they can, treating each of them

critically, sorting out obvious biases and errors, and fashioning as accurate a

reconstruction as possible” (Brundage, 2002, p. 19). Further, the strategies that were

employed as part of the data collection and evaluation process, as discussed in the next

section of this chapter, reduced the likelihood that this potential limitation presented a

problem in this study.

Data Collection

Data Collection, Overview

Case study research “does not claim any particular methods for data collection of

data analysis…Any and all methods of gathering data…can be used in a case study”

(Merriam, 2009, p. 42). According to Yin (2014), a case study inquiry relies on multiple

sources of evidence (p. 17). Historical case study research “typically includes direct

observation and interviews” as well as traditional, document-based historical research

(Hancock & Algozzine, 2017, p. 37). This study included multiple types of data from the

two bounded cases, which translated into the two chronological eras. As noted by Yin

(2014), the need to use multiple sources of evidence in case study research “far exceeds

that in other research methods,” and doing so will strengthen the study’s construct

validity (pp. 119-122). The two bounded cases, and data collection strategies for each,

will be discussed separately.

Data Collection and Evaluation, Historical

The historical data for this study was primarily collected from on campus

depositories at the subject institution: “Qualitative researchers tend to collect data in the

field at the site where participants experience the issue or problem under study”

(Creswell, 2014, p. 185). These facilities included the University of Georgia Main

Library and the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, both of which house

archival sources: Archives are “often considered the historian’s principal source of

information” (Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p. 34). Online resources, including historical

newspapers, were also utilized.

Finding aids were utilized to locate appropriate materials within the on campus

depositories. I visited the depositories to view the requested materials. The archival

materials were photographed. The most significant archival materials were drawn from

the Steadman V. Sanford papers. Sanford served in many roles for the University of

Georgia, including professor, dean, President of the University, Faculty Chairman of

Athletics (during the period under consideration), and later Chancellor of the University

of Georgia System. Some historians have characterized Sanford as having primary

responsibility for the proposal, financing and construction of stadium. The University

maintains 44 boxes of his papers, including photographs, scrapbooks, correspondence,

speeches, and writings.

I am aware that safeguards relating to credibility and trustworthiness must be in

place throughout the course of the data collection and evaluation processes: “Qualitative

validity means that the researcher checks for the accuracy of the findings by employing

certain procedures…” (Creswell, 2014, p. 201). This is particularly true of the historical

sources: “When archival evidence has been deemed relevant, a researcher must be careful

to ascertain the conditions under which it was produced, as well as its accuracy” (Yin,

2014, p. 109). A historian in the process of research must “always consider the

conditions under which a source was produced…” (Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p. 19).

The sources utilized for the historical bounded case were primarily evaluated

using the guidance of Krentz and Lincoln and Guba, among others. Krentz suggests

caution when considering historical sources: “Historical sources are like witnesses in a

court of law: they must be interrogated and their answers evaluated” (Krentz, 2002, p.

42). Though there are “no rules of thumb for determining authenticity,” certain factors,

including the verification of dates, content, and the history of transmission, can aid in the

process of determining authenticity (Krentz, 2002, pp. 42-43). The relationship of the

author of the document to the document itself should be ascertained (if possible) and

stated (Krentz, 2002, p. 51). According to Howell and Prevenier (2001), for a source “to

be used as evidence in a historical argument,” it must meet certain criteria, including

comprehensibility, location in place and time, and authenticity (pp. 43-44).

One of the initial steps in analyzing a source is the consideration of where, when, and by

whom it was produced (Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p. 62). Historians must also

consider the authority with which the author of a source speaks; in other words, what was

his or her viewpoint of the action? (Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p. 65). The

trustworthiness of an account “may vary enormously” depending on several factors,

including the psychological state of the author, the selectivity of the report, prejudices of

the author, and outside influences that may have influenced the construction of the source

(Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p. 66).

There are several techniques that increase the likelihood that “credible findings

and interpretations will be produced,” including prolonged engagement, persistent

observation, and triangulation (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 301). Triangulation was

particularly utilized during this study: “Triangulation is useful for verifying information

on the same event from different actors or participants and also for producing more

confidence in data generated by different methodologies” (Guba and Lincoln, 1981, p.

257). Triangulation of data involves validating data sources against other data sources

(Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 283). Prolonged engagement requires substantial

involvement at the study site (Guba and Lincoln, 1989).

As regards the newspaper coverage of certain events relating to Georgia athletics,

the researcher is aware that biases exist and may appear, either positively or negatively,

toward the subjects under consideration: “No matter what the medium in which it is

delivered and no matter the care with which editorial freedom is protected…every news

report is in some sense selective and therefore ‘biased’” (Howell and Prevenier, 2001, p.

32). I evaluated and considered these potential biases with each account. Additionally, I

am aware that Steadman Sanford was both personally and professionally invested in the

subject institution and in the growth of athletics in the southeast generally. Therefore, his

viewpoints and goals were considered when weighing the accuracy of his assessments

and statements.

Finally, I am aware that the historical period under consideration is different in

many ways from the present period, which is reflected in written accounts from the

period: “…historical writing is as much a product of its time as any other historical

development, and can therefore serve as a lens into major trends and developments in the

history of Western civilization” (Cheng, 2012, pp. 1-2). Values and concerns as reflected

by sources were quite different between the two eras under consideration; I attempted to

account for this.

Data Collection and Evaluation, Contemporary

Data collection for the contemporary period similarly relied on several forms of

data: “Qualitative researchers typically gather multiple forms of data, such as interviews,

observations, documents, and audiovisual information rather than rely on a single data

source” (Creswell, 2014, pp. 185-186). I made personal observations of facilities, as well

as collecting existing data from University records, state governmental records,

newspapers, press releases and other types of coverage of Georgia athletics, focusing on

football. Finally, it was necessary to conduct one personal interviews with a member or

members of the athletic administration to confirm data collected from other sources.

Data Analysis and Work Plan

Overview

According to Yin (2014), there are five key research design components that are

particularly important in case study research: the research questions, the study’s

propositions (if any), the unit(s) of analysis (the case), the logic linking the data to the

propositions, and the criteria for interpreting the findings. The research questions have

already been formulated and stated herein; the units of analysis, the larger case with two

embedded cases, have been stated and discussed in a more detailed manner in chapters

three and four.

Literature and Data Collection

The first step in my work plan was the research and writing of the literature

review and historiography sections, which are included in chapters three and four by

chronological period. The second step was the collection of the data from the two

periods. The historical data was collected via the physical or online repositories for those

records. Most of the historical records are housed on the University of Georgia campus in

various library facilities. The contemporary data was primarily available online. I also

collected contemporary data through observations of the facilities themselves. Case

studies that take place in “the real-world setting of the case” present the opportunity for

direct observations; observational evidence is “often useful” in providing information

about the topic (Yin, 2014, pp. 113-114). Finally I chose to conduct one interview as part

of the data collection process.

Analysis and Sensemaking

After the gathering of data from both of the relevant periods, the analysis and

sensemaking portion of this study was conducted in stages. In the first stage, the data

was organized and categorized by era and topically. Next, the data was coded in order to

establish patterns. Coding “involves taking text data or pictures gathered during data

collection, segmenting sentences (or paragraphs) or images into categories, and labeling

those categories with a term, often a term based in the actual language of the participants”

(Creswell, 2014, p. 198). Coding is used for many purposes, including the classification

of interviews or documents (Stake, 1995). Creswell (2014) describes codes as falling

into three “categories”: codes that readers expect to find based on the literature, codes

that are surprising/not anticipated, and codes that are unusual (pp. 198-199).

Once the coding process was completed, the codes were used to develop a

description of the setting, participants, and themes for analysis (Creswell, 2014). What is

known about the areas of interest (as discussed in chapters three and four) was compared

to what was learned about the areas of interest from the analysis within this study. As

previously discussed, utilizing numerous sources for data provided more than one

explanation for various events, a consideration of which is part of the process of analysis:

“When doing case studies, a major and alternative strategy is to identify and address rival

explanations for your findings” (Yin, 2014, p. 36). The findings from data collection and

coding are discussed in chapters three and four.

Finally, I interpreted the data and initial analysis: “A final step in data analysis

involves making an interpretation of the findings or results” (Creswell, 2014, p. 200).

According to Yin (2014), “one of the most desirable techniques” in case study analysis is

the use of pattern-matching logic; pattern-matching logic compares the pattern derived

from the findings from the study with a predicted pattern made before data collection (p.

143). A possible interpretation is that the case either confirms or diverges from the

previously held theories and from literature on the topic (Creswell, 2014). One potential

strategy that may be used to analyze case study evidence is the use of theoretical

propositions (Yin, 2014). The propositions that were utilized for analysis and for

interpreting findings are the models discussed in chapter one (and that are further

discussed vis-à-vis the literature in chapters three and four) relating to the research

questions of the study:

Figure 2.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the

Interwar Period

The information relayed through this figure (what we already knew about motivations

stadium construction in the interwar period) was compared to what was learned about the

motivations for stadium construction at the University of Georgia specifically.

Figure 2.3: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction or

Renovation in the 21

Century

The information relayed through this figure (what we already knew about motivations

stadium construction in the contemporary period) was compared to what was learned

about the motivations for stadium construction/expansion/renovation at the University of

Georgia specifically.

Figure 2.4: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletics Student Athlete Facilities in the

Century

The information relayed through this figure (what we knew about the motivations for the

construction of student athlete facilities in the contemporary period) was compared to

what was learned about the motivations for the construciton of student athlete facilities at

the University of Georgia specifically.

Figure 2.5: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding

Decisions

Factors

Motivations

Support Culture Types

The information relayed through this figure (what I hypothesized about the factors

involved in funding decisions for intercollegiate athletic facilities in the contemporary

period) was compared to what was learned about the funding decisions for intercollegiate

athletic facilities at the University of Georgia specifically.

The interpretation can also “suggest new questions that need to be asked”

(Creswell, 2014, p. 200). These potential questions are discussed in chapter five.

The Case Study Report

A case study report should contain an explanation of the problem, a description of

the context and/or setting, a description of relevant observations, a discussion of “those

elements identified as important that are studied in depth,” and a discussion of the

outcomes of the inquiry (Lincoln and Guba, 1985, p. 362). The present report is

organized into five chapters, the first being introductory, the second being methods, the

third and fourth being literature and findings, and the fifth being implications and future

research.

According to Stake (1995), the “traditional” organization of reporting research

(statement of the problem, review of literature, design, data gathering, analysis, and

conclusions), “is particularly ill-fitting for a case study report” (p. 128). Stake (1995)

advocated instead that case study researchers should consider alternatives then “work out

his or her own approach to portraying the case” (p. 128). I have already found Stake’s

conclusion to be valid in the present study; because of the two embedded cases, it was

determined to compartmentalize the literature and historiography portions of the case

study report within the findings chapters, as opposed to having a separate chapter that

only covers literature. Ultimately, what this study achieved is a critically written

narrative of the football facilities at Georgia: “Critically written narrative is not a mere

retelling of what the sources say, but a narrative based on what the sources say after their

adequacy, veracity, and intelligibility are questioned” (Krentz, 2002, p. 34).

Other Considerations

Reflexivity

As the person actively collecting, organizing and reflecting upon the data in this

study, I was aware that I was an active participant in the study. As a result, I had an

obligation to reflect upon how I might impact the study: “In qualitative research, the

inquirer reflects about how their role in the study and their personal background, culture,

and experiences hold potential for shaping their interpretations, such as the themes they

advance and the meaning they ascribe to the data” (Creswell, 2014, p. 186). I have long

been an observer of intercollegiate athletics, including football in the southeastern United

States. Additionally, I completed my law degree at the subject institution and taught at

the subject institution for three years. As a result, I have a familiarity with and fondness

for the subject institution, though I would not particularly consider myself a fan of the

athletic teams fielded by the institution. I have never contributed any financial support to

the athletic teams fielded by the subject institution.

I teach numerous courses relating to intercollegiate athletics in my current

professional role, including a graduate level course relating to athletic facilities. As a

result, it is clear that I am both interested in and engaged in the intercollegiate athletic

environment from a professional viewpoint. I find intercollegiate athletics and, to a

certain extent, investment in athletic facilities, to be primarily consistent with the

missions of institutions of higher education. Further, I am aware that my viewpoints,

background and potential biases might affect the interpretation of the data in the study.

The Setting

One of the key aspects of a case study is a description of the case itself: “A case

study is an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p.

40). According to Merriam (2009), “the single most defining characteristic of case study

research lies in delimiting the object of the study, the case” (p. 40). The aspects to be

included in the study should be distinguished from the aspects to be excluded: “Once the

general definition of a case has been established, other clarifications sometimes called

bounding the case—become important” (Yin, 2014, p. 33). In this study, the setting is

the University of Georgia, the case is the football facilities at the University of Georgia,

and the embedded cases within that case are the two chronological periods.

I chose the University of Georgia as the setting for this study for several reasons.

First, the University of Georgia is part of a Power Five conference, the Southeastern

Conference (SEC). The SEC revenue distributions to its members rank in the top two

among Power Five conferences annually; in 2017, for example, the average distribution

from the conference to each institution was $40.4 million. Additionally, Georgia is one

of less than thirty institutions in Division I that regularly ends each fiscal year with an

athletic budget surplus. As a result, financial investment in athletic facilities is

significant, making contemporary data highly available. Second, the University of

Georgia constructed its first significant athletic facility, Sanford Stadium, during the

interwar period, which was a target period of interest for this study. Third, the University

of Georgia maintains significant historical records relating to athletics. As the flagship

university for the State of Georgia, the University controls significant archival materials

in on campus depositories, including the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library,

which “focuses on Georgia history and culture, holding rare books and Georgiana,

historical manuscripts, photographs, maps, broadsides, and UGA archives and records”

(University of Georgia Libraries, 2018). Based on these factors, the University of

Georgia was a practical choice for this study and was “purposefully selected” based on

these factors (Creswell, 2014, p. 189).

Implications

This study contributes to the field of knowledge related to intercollegiate athletic

facilities through a detailed, long-term consideration of the subject institution, including

when and why football facilities were/are being constructed, what types of facilities

were/are being constructed, and how those facilities were financed. This type of study is

necessary because most of the information that we have about athletic facilities is of a

general nature. Additionally, there is little empirical research relating to the actual

motivations for athletic facilities. While there are many common assumptions about the

motivations for these expenditures, there has been little actual research done to either

confirm or deny those assumptions. Finally, while there has been significant public

outcry relating to athletic facilities expenditures, there is little by way of research to shed

light on how funding models operate in intercollegiate athletic facilities spending. This

study offers a thorough look at how one program made, and is making, decisions relating

to athletic facilities construction.

CHAPTER THREE

HISTORICAL FINDINGS

This chapter is divided into two primary sections. The first section is the

historiography and literature for the first embedded case of the study, the interwar period.

The second section is the findings and analysis for that portion of the study. The

literature and findings for the contemporary period are covered in chapter four.

Historiography and Literature

The purpose of this section is to examine research related to intercollegiate

athletic facilities that is pertinent to the historical period under consideration in this study.

There are two sub-sections within this section. The first sub-section is a historiographical

overview. This overview is organized first by topic, then chronologically. There are two

primary topics: intercollegiate athletic facilities generally and the University of Georgia

specifically. There are several possible methods for organizing a historiographic essay;

one possible organization is based on a topical approach, regardless of date of publication

(Brundage, 2002). There is no “rigid formula” for organizing a historiographic essay

(Brundage, 2002, p. 66).

The second sub-section covers significant findings from the literature. This body

of literature is relatively new, as large-scale construction of intercollegiate athletic

facilities did not begin in the United States until after World War I. These findings are

organized by research question. Organization via research question is functional for this

study given that there are three separate questions, each of which applies to the two

embedded cases, the periods. The same organization is employed in chapter four for the

literature review relating to the contemporary period so that there will be continuity

between the two cases.

Historiographic Overview

Historiography “blends historical explanation with critical appraisal” (Higham,

1965, p. 89). A historiography is “an account of how historians have written about the

topic” (Brundage, 2002, p. 53). Popkin (2016) indicated that historiography includes “the

various methods historians use in gather data, analyzing it, and communicating it,” as

well as “how historians of the past conceived of their projects” (p. 3). In short,

historiography is “the critical assessment of the ways in which historians try to

reconstruct past events” (Popkin, 2016, p. 3).

Richard Pennington’s Home Field: An Illustrated History of 120 College Football

Stadiums was published in 2003. To research this work, the author contacted the sports

information departments of each of the 120 featured institutions; using each institution’s

sports media guide, he constructed a short vignette about the stadium of each (R.

Pennington, personal communication, February 10, 2018). The resulting work covers

115 selected Division I stadiums, as well as five Ivy League stadiums. Each stadium

receives two-three pages of coverage.

One of the most of useful works considered for this study was J. Douglas Toma’s

2003 work, Football U: Spectator Sports in the Life of the American University. For this

study, Toma visited 11 campuses, University of Arizona, Brigham Young University,

Clemson University, University of Connecticut, Louisiana State University, University of

Michigan, Northwestern University, University of Nebraska, University of Notre Dame,

University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Texas A&M University, where he conducted 177

interviews and did archival and observational research. The resulting work is a

comprehensive overview of the place of spectator sports, with a focus on football, in

American universities.

Raymond Schmidt’s 2007 study, Shaping College Football: The Transformation

of an American Sport, 1919-1930 was also an important resource for the present study.

In researching this work, Schmidt visited university archives at Chicago, Georgetown,

Illinois, Princeton, Notre Dame, St. Louis, Haskell Indian Nations, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio

State, Fordham, Yale, Boston College, Detroit, Marquette, and St. Mary’s of California.

The book is organized via 11 chapters, the third of which focuses on stadium building

prior to World War II. In that chapter, Schmidt (2007) argued, “Perhaps the most

defining and long-lasting legacy of 1920s college football was the conversion of the sport

into an unquestioned big-business venture for the schools as a by-product of the wave of

stadium building that swept across the universities during the decade” (p. 39).

In his doctoral dissertation, Games That Will Pay: College Football and the

Emergence of the Modern South, Matthew Bailey (2011) also contextualized stadiums

through modernity. Bailey (2011) argued, “The construction of modern, large capacity

stadia on campuses marks the final step in the development of modern football. By

constructing these cathedrals to football, which necessitated a high level of student,

alumni, and community support, universities were announcing that their programs had

come of age and achieved big-time status” (p. iii).

In 1956, the University of Georgia Press published The University of Georgia

Under Sixteen Administrations, 1785-1955, by Robert Preston Brooks. Brooks discussed

football at Georgia in two portions of the book. In the chapter on the William E. Boggs

administration, Brooks briefly discussed the beginning of football at Georgia. In the final

chapter, he spent three pages covering the development of intercollegiate athletics at the

university generally, with one page given to football specifically. Before a discussion of

All-Americans and bowl games, he concluded, “For more than half a century Georgia has

been a major Southern institution in sports…Football has been the major interest for

many years, highlighted by the annual contests with the Georgia Institute of Technology

and the Alabama Polytechnic Institute (Auburn)” (p. 227). The construction of Sanford

Stadium is covered in one brief paragraph. Brooks (1956) concurred with other

historians on Steadman Sanford’s role, as he referred to the stadium as “the child of the

imagination and energy of Dean Sanford” (p. 161).

John F. Stegeman’s The Ghosts of Herty Field: Early Days on a Southern

Gridiron was published by the University of Georgia Press in 1966. This work briefly

covered the origins of intercollegiate football in the United States. It is primarily

concerned with the development of football at Georgia through the 1916 season. While

most of the book describes seasons, games, and individual players, a fairly significant

amount is also spent on coaches and administrators, including Steadman Sanford, who

Stegeman (1966) characterized as “largely responsible for…the beautiful Sanford

Stadium of today” (p. 86).

The University of Georgia: A Bicentennial History, 1785-1985 is Thomas G.

Dyer’s history of the University, published in 1985 by the University of Georgia Press.

As Dyer (1985) indicated, this work “surveys the history of the University of Georgia”

via the discussion of “the principal themes in the university’s development within the

context of the history of Georgia and the South” (p. ix). Dyer spent less than 20 pages of

the book on football; an even smaller portion related to either Steadman Sanford or the

construction of Sanford Stadium. However, Dyer did recognize the significance of

football to the institution, as he noted in Chapter 11, covering the 1940s, that football was

“the student activity which captured the most attention on campus and off,” as it

“continued its growth in popularity and won a larger and larger share of the public

attention which fell on the university” (p. 246). Dyer’s primary coverage of Steadman

Sanford is due to Sanford’s role as chancellor and, to a slightly lesser degree, his role as

president of the university; little attention is given in the book to Sanford’s athletic role,

though he is acknowledged as “the driving force behind the decision to build the new

stadium” (p. 206).

Between the Hedges: 100 Years of Georgia Football, edited by Loran Smith, was

published in 1999 by Longstreet Press. Smith noted that the book was “not the definitive

history of Georgia football, but rather a celebration of the centennial of one of the

nation’s greatest football programs” (p. v). The book includes “most of the highlights,

most of the great games, most of the tremendous heroes” of Georgia football, as well as

“sidelights, features, and vignettes of many players who were not necessarily headline-

getters on Saturdays, but whose contribution to Georgia is nonetheless…significant”

(Smith, 1999, p. v). Smith (1999) characterized Steadman Sanford as “the father of

Sanford Stadium” and argued that it was Sanford’s “dream for Georgia to become

regionally recognized in football” (p. 47).

Steadman Sanford’s chief biographer, Charles Stephen Gurr, organized his 1999

biography of Sanford into periods and chapters based on Sanford’s primary activities.

Chapter Five is “The Decade of Sports, 1920s.” Athletics at the University of Georgia are

mentioned intermittently in other chapters as well; for example, in the World War I

chapter, Gurr mentioned that Sanford “corresponded with coaches and variety of sports-

related contacts” in the period leading up to the first World War (1999, p. 60). Gurr

(1999) recognized Sanford’s influence over Georgia athletics as a whole by stating, “In

his capacity as faculty athletic chairman, Sanford was not only the employer of coaches

and master of schedules but also chief publicist and troubleshooter for the program at

Georgia during the twenties” (p. 76). He also agreed with other historians in regard to

Sanford’s influence as to Sanford Stadium: “Those who write about Georgia football

never neglect to acknowledge the importance of the man who conceived the idea of the

stadium and worked so diligently to bring the idea into reality” (Gurr, 1999, p. 88).

Research Question One: Type of Facility

A review of the relevant historical coverage of intercollegiate athletic facilities

helped to frame this study in that it revealed that historians the interwar period was the

first major period of intercollegiate athletic facilities construction. The interwar period is

defined as the time between the two World Wars, 1919-1939. Prior to World War I, the

vast majority of football facilities could be characterized as “modest,” with small

grandstands; in fact, many of the fans were expected to stand, either along the sidelines or

just beyond the end zones (Schmidt, 2007, p. 39). The first significant type of high

expense, intercollegiate athletic facility was the campus stadium: “In the early twentieth

century, permanent stadiums, several of them seating upwards of eighty thousand people,

cemented both literally and figuratively the place of Football Saturdays on large

American campuses” (Toma, 2003, p. 36).

Most historians concur Yale initiated the trend toward on campus stadium

construction: “…it was the construction of the seventy-thousand-seat Yale Bowl in 1914

on the outskirts of New Haven that initiated the era of stadium construction” (Toma,

2003, pp. 36-37). When the Yale Bowl opened with a game against Harvard in

November 1914, it was the largest athletic stadium in the world, and it was the first

football venue with seating completely surrounding the field (Yale University Athletics,

2017). The Yale Bowl, in part because of the national standing of Yale, served as the

catalyst for many other institutions to plan and construct stadiums:

The long-standing belief in American higher education has been that if Harvard

and Yale are doing it, then it is not only worth doing, but mandatory. In the same

way, during the decade that followed the construction of the huge bowl at Yale,

large state universities across the nation followed its lead in stadium building,

thus investing heavily in their football programs (Toma, 2003, p. 37).

At that time, Yale, and in fact most of the teams of the Ivy League, was highly

competitive in football as well as being well-known for academics. Yale won 13

undisputed national championships in 25 years, and the premier All-America team,

selected in 1889, included three Yale players (NCAA, 2018; Whittingham, 2001, p. 12).

Some researchers credit Harvard, rather than Yale, as being the initiator of the

stadium building phenomenon that exploded during the interwar period. For example,

Pennington (2003) stated, “Harvard Stadium, a massive reinforced-concrete structure

built in four months, was regarded as an engineering marvel and a sign that American

college athletics was here to stay” (p. 1). In his chapter on Yale, Pennington continued,

“Archrival Harvard had erected a big new stadium a few years earlier, and one was

needed in New Haven, too. It would not do for Yale, the school of Walter Camp, boola-

boola cheers, and the fictional Frank Merriwell, to have a decrepit stadium” (5-6).

Though these views are seemingly contradictory, they can be easily reconciled. While

Harvard’s stadium was constructed earlier than Yale’s (1903 versus 1914), it was

significantly smaller. Additionally, if it influenced any other institutions, it is likely that

only Yale was influenced. Based on the gap in time between Harvard and most other

stadiums, it is relatively clear that Yale’s larger, more impressive stadium was much

more influential.

With a few exceptions, primarily from Ivy League schools like Princeton and

Yale, many universities were forced to put any large scale athletic facilities construction

on hold during World War I. Historians agree that a variety of factors coalesced during

the interwar period to create a climate that led to this period of facilities development.

After the War, patriotism “provided one justification for the projects” (Schmidt, 2007, p.

40). As a result, many of the new facilities were christened “Memorial Stadium.” The

post-War, 1920s mindset also contributed to the stadium building boom. This period was

a time of “vigorous economic growth,” and many indicators of economic vitality

(including gross national product, per capita income and the average purchasing power of

wage earners) showed major increases (Hewitt & Lawson, 2013, p. 658). Other

“substantive issues” that encouraged football’s growing popularity and “translated into

the stadium-building boom” included “major improvements in the country’s highway

systems” and an increasing number of automobiles (Schmidt, 2007, p. 41). Additionally,

the growth in athletic facilities construction corresponded with a nationwide construction

boom that culminated in the mid-1920s (Schmidt, 2007, p. 42).

Finally, as Schmidt (2007) noted, “After the war, the country’s enthusiasm for

having a good time and casting off the last vestiges of its restrictive Victorian principles

would be one of the driving forces in the escalation of college football’s popularity

during the 1920s” (p. 41). This “Roaring Twenties” mindset saw challenges to many

conventional standards and beliefs in the United States while allowing for growth and

expansion of others, including college football.

Research Question Two: Motivations

Several motivations were important to the planning and construction of the early

stadiums. Two of the prominent goals for stadiums constructed in the 1920s were

meeting the “growing demand for game tickets at the major football schools that easily

exceeded the capacity of most of the old-style stadia” and to “capitalize on the potentially

great financial rewards” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 39). The population of the United States

grew substantially during the 1920s. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2016), the

population saw an increase of 16.2% from 1920 to 1930. Student enrollments also grew

during the decade, and the growth was one factor that was “pushing universities toward

providing larger stadia” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 42).

The rationales for the 1920s-era intercollegiate athletic facilities included

“maintaining the muscular virility of the country’s youth,” maintaining “a satisfactory

state of physical preparedness among the nation’s young people,” and serving as

“vehicles for providing athletics for the masses” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 48). Many early

stadia were originally slated to be used for intramurals as well as competitive

intercollegiate athletics: “The claim that new stadia could be used for other sports was a

common one…” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 48). There were also plans to use early stadiums for

the local population generally: “Another approach taken in justifying the new stadia was

to suggest that they might provide a venue for all types of civic, sporting, and cultural

functions…in addition to enhancing the region surrounding the university” (Schmidt,

2007, p. 49). A few forward thinking institutions saw that a new stadium could increase

applications and enrollment, as was the case at Michigan State (Pennington, 2003).

While many of the rationales and motivations relating to facility construction

differ between the interwar and contemporary periods, there are some similarities that

have remained constant. In contemporary times, expenditures that promote the institution

as a whole, including athletic facilities, are often considered part of the institution’s

branding and marketing. During the interwar period, stadium construction became an

early and integral part of the branding of many institutions. Schmidt and Toma are in

agreement in regard to this function of the early stadiums. Schmidt (2007) indicated that

the early facilities were also “increasingly represented as symbols and advertisements for

the universities and a key link in maintaining alumni sentiment and its fund-raising

potential” (p. 48). Likewise, Toma wrote, “…facilities are embodiments of the role of

Football Saturdays in reflecting and representing the collegiate ideal at large universities.

They also demonstrate the importance of the institution itself. Architecture expresses

what is collegiate as well as what is distinctive and noteworthy about a university. When

the campus of UCLA was constructed in the 1920s, it was important that it look like a

‘real’ college. Any large campus certain to include certain things collegiate, such as ivy-

covered buildings and tree-lined walks. Though more utilitarian, the football stadium is

another of these collegiate structures that through its permanence and size underscores

significance” (Toma, 2003, p. 39).

Likewise, just as in modern times, there was some discomfort between the athletic

administrations and the academic sides of the institutions that chose to undertake stadia

construction during the interwar period. As in many cases today, the school presidents

sought to diffuse this tension by including the athletic facilities within the necessary

physical structure of the institutions:

With the considerable number of new football stadia being built on college and

university campuses, the school presidents who had given final approval for the

building of these giant arenas, and their athletic officials, sought to rationalize the

obvious contradiction to the concerns about overemphasis in their athletic

departments by the academic communities. It became essential that these new

stadia be represented as a fundamental component of the school’s physical

facilities. The stadium complexes also had to be defined as significant to the

physical development and well-being of the entire student population, while also

serving as a symbol of the school’s progress and prestige in the eyes of its alumni

(Schmidt, 2007, p. 47).

Additionally, there were rare examples of athletic administrators that did not support the

construction of a new stadium; at Clemson, for example, the departing football coach

advised the school’s administration against constructing a new stadium. However, his

successor staunchly disagreed with that assessment, and a new stadium was completed in

1942 (Pennington, 2003, p. 116).

Research Question Three: Funding Models

How were early 20

century facilities funded? Typically, according to Schmidt,

there was “virtually no government-provided funding,” which resulted in funding via

“subscription pledges that were tied into ticket-buying privileges, or the issuance of some

type of interesting-bearing bonds by the university to the general public” (2007, p. 51).

As will be subsequently discussed, this is a common model in contemporary times as

well, at least for a portion of cost of many facilities.

The vast majority of early stadiums were constructed via one of three financial

models. Most of the structures were financed through bonds, creating fairly substantial

debt for the institutions that chose to undertake them:

These institutions financed the structures through bonds that would be repaid

through ticket sales. Once financially committed to college football, institutions

could not turn back, lest they risk default. The financial investment alone in

stadiums meant that football was not only going to continue to be an important

aspect of institutions—it would become an even more significant one. Viewed in

the context of the emotional attachment that people both on and off campus—

particularly the emerging professional classes—formed with college football, the

investment was not especially risky (Toma, 2003, p. 36).

Just as Yale was the initiator of the new stadium-building craze, their funding formula

also served as the model to many other institutions (Schmidt, 2007, p. 51). Yale created a

scaled purchasing plan “that tied the number of tickets you might purchase to the size of

your subscription” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 51). The specifics of the bonds varied by location.

For example, at the University of Southern California, a city-county-state partnership

allowed an $800,000.00 loan at a reduced rate (Pennington, 2003, p. 40).

Revenue was therefore required due to the indebtedness created by the

construction. Additionally, the generated revenue was, at least initially, presented as

revenue that might be used for other, potentially non-athletic purposes. Because athletic

directors and coaches sensed that there was an “approaching battle between the academic

and athletic factions over the growing emphasis on college football,” stadium building

was presented to administrators as “an opportunity to generate much-needed revenue for

the construct of more campus buildings and facilities that would benefit the entire student

body” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 39). Additionally, the plans for many of the stadiums included

some type of World War I memorial, as well as “considerable architectural grandeur,”

allowing athletic administrators to present the facilities as “monuments to patriotism and

culture” (Schmidt, 2007, p. 39).

The better scenario for institutions, as opposed to funding based primarily or

totally on debt, was a large gift that covered most of the cost of construction, as was the

case with the University of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina received a

gift of $275,000.00 from William Rand Kenan, Jr. and was able to build its new stadium

in 1926; the football stadium in Chapel Hill is still named after the Kenan family

(Schmidt, 2007, p. 52). Cincinnati’s historic Nippert Stadium, dedicated in 1924, was

also funded by a single contribution; after his grandson, James Nippert, suffered a fatal

injury in the last game of the 1923 season, James Gamble (of Proctor and Gamble)

donated $250,000.00 to finish the school’s permanent stadium (Pennington, 2003, p. 12).

However, large gifts such as those at North Carolina and Cincinnati were

relatively unusual, leaving the other institutions to finance their stadiums through (often

lengthy) fundraising drives. Occasionally schools raised more money than was actually

needed. For example, at Ohio State, the initial stadium fundraising goal was

$600,000.00, but the drive raised nearly twice that amount (Pennington, 2003, p. 26).

More common was the situation at Kansas University: when the fundraising drive fell

well short of its goal, faculty, staff and students enthusiastically became stakeholders in

the physical construction process. A civil engineering professor designed the stadium,

and 4,000 students demolished the previous, inadequate venue (Pennington, 2003, p. 20).

The participation of members of the university (or college) community was quite

common in the construction of the interwar stadiums, many of which were short on funds

and had to cut costs whenever possible. At Clemson University, the coach and athletic

director, Frank Howard, supervised clearing and grading prior to the construction of

Memorial Stadium, and many players served as construction workers (Pennington, 2003,

p. 116).

Finally, some schools were granted funds by their state legislature or even the

federal government. Michigan State’s stadium, for example, was financed primarily

through $160,000.00 from the state legislature. A handful of stadiums were built by the

Works Progress Administration (WPA) and financed, at least in part, by the federal

government. The University of Toledo’s Glass Bowl, for example, was constructed by

the WPA; the project was primarily paid for by the federal government ($272,000.00),

though the City of Toledo and the University also contributed ($42,000.00) (Pennington,

2003, p. 99). However, this method of financing was not particularly common during the

interwar period.

The intercollegiate athletic facilities constructed during the interwar period were,

in hindsight, crucial to the development and permanence of college sports, particularly

football. As Schmidt (2007) noted, “Perhaps the most defining and long-lasting legacy of

1920s college football was the conversion of the sport into an unquestioned big-business

venture for the schools as a by-product of the wave of stadium building that swept across

the universities during the decade” (p. 39).

Figure 3.1 summarizes and represents what we know about the motivations for

intercollegiate athletic stadium construction in the interwar period. This figure will be

used in the analysis process after the discussion of data specific to the University of

Georgia’s stadium construction.

Figure 3.1: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the

Interwar Period

Findings

Introduction

Data for this section came from several types of sources, including histories of the

University of Georgia, histories related to football at the University of Georgia,

newspapers, University of Georgia records, and the Steadman Sanford Papers. The

Steadman Sanford papers, the University of Georgia’s yearbook, Pandora, and several

issues of the Georgia Alumni Record were acquired via the Hargrett Rare Book and

Manuscript Library, a special collections library on the University of Georgia campus in

Athens. Because these sources were critical to the data presented within this chapter, a

discussion of their location and authenticity is in order. A historian has two primary tasks

when considering a source: determining its authenticity and establishing “the meaning

and believability of the contents” (Furay and Salevouris, 2010, pp. 143-144).

The Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library is located in the Russell Special

Collections Building on Hull Street in Athens. This facility “focuses on Georgia history

and culture, holding rare books and Georgiana, historical manuscripts, photographs,

maps, broadsides, and UGA archives and records” (University of Georgia Libraries,

2018). To access the Steadman Sanford records, a patron must establish an account with

the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, find the needed materials, and request

the needed materials via an online form. Upon arrival at the facility, a patron enters on

the first floor and signs in. The Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library is located on

the third floor. Upon entering the Hargrett Rare Book and Manuscript Library, a patron

must show identification to the administrative employee on duty, who then notifies the

vault that the patron has arrived. The patron must leave all personal materials and

belongings other than a mobile phone in a locker in the entry area. The patron will then

be granted entry through to a closed hallway. The research librarian in the primary

research room then buzzes the patron into that room after communicating with the

administrative employee in the front room.

The primary research room houses all issues of Pandora, many issues of the

Georgia Alumni Record, and other types of University of Georgia records, as well as

some state records. The Steadman Sanford records, once relayed from the vault to the

primary research room, are held by the research librarian. A patron may only review one

box of the records at a time. The Steadman Sanford papers consist of correspondence,

texts of speeches and writings, photographs, and scrapbooks; the collections comprises

40 document boxes, 11 half document boxes, 30 oversized boxes, two slide boxes, and

two oversized folders. The majority of the Sanford papers were donated to the University

of Georgia by the Sanford family in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s; some of the records

were continuously held by the University as administrative records (E.G. Head, personal

communication, July 25, 2018).

The Setting: The University of Georgia

The University of Georgia was founded by state legislative charter in 1785; the

institution began matriculating students in 1801. Georgia was the first state to charter a

public university (Brooks, 1956, p. 5). The first president of the University of Georgia

was Abraham Baldwin, who is often given substantial credit for the founding of the

University. Thomas Dyer (1985) characterized Baldwin as “the project’s prime mover”

(p. 8). Robert Preston Brooks (1956) credited him with drafting the Charter of the

University of Georgia and helping it get enacted (p. 10). The difficulty in selecting a site

for the University was one of the reasons for the delay in matriculating students; founders

wanted a rural site “to protect youths from the temptations and vices of towns,” far away

from “the miasmic fevers of the coast,” with “good water” (Dyer, 1985, p. 11).

Ultimately a spot was chosen in the Georgia interior, “on the edge of Indian territory,”

near the headwaters of the Oconee River (Dyer, 1985, p. 12). Brooks (1956)

characterized the location as “on the outermost fringe of white settlement” (p. 18). A

town, Athens, soon grew up around the University (Dyer, 1985, p. 18).

The first nine graduates of the University of Georgia received their degrees in

1804. In 1866, the University of Georgia became the state’s land grant institution under

the Morrill Act, which provided significant financial aid to the University. Brooks

(1956) characterized that funding as “the principal support of the institution” for decades

thereafter (p. 53). Women were admitted to the University after a resolution passed the

Board of Trustees in 1918 (Brooks, 1956, p. 145). Enrollment at the University remained

quite low until after World War I, not passing the 1,000 mark until 1919-20 (Brooks,

1956, p. 153).

Football at the University: The Early Days

In 1891, “no collegiate game of football had ever been played south of Raleigh”

(Stegeman, 1966, p. 3). The first “intercollegiate football contest in the deep South”

featured Mercer College against the University of Georgia in Athens on January 30,

1892. The second University of Georgia football game was played in Atlanta in 1892

against Auburn. Georgia went 1-1 that year, defeating Mercer and losing to Auburn. The

annual games against Auburn eventually became known as “The Deep South’s Oldest

Rivalry” (Shute, November 8, 2017; Moriarty, November 11, 2017). It was the win

against Mercer at home, however, that won over all the students to football; according to

Stegeman (1966), “Georgia was hooked for good” (p. 7).

Prior to that two-game season, students played informal games that consisted of

“romping aimlessly around,” with no knowledge about the formal rules of football that

had been promulgated by Walter Camp at Yale (Stegeman, 1966, p. 2). Organized

football at Georgia was not a foregone conclusion. According to Brooks (1956), the

Board of Trustees “wrangled long and bitterly about intercollegiate athletics” (p. 90).

Ultimately, the decision to have intercollegiate athletics was left to the faculty, and

organized football at Georgia was born.

The first football coach at Georgia was Charles Herty; he arrived in Athens in

1891 as a chemistry instructor and soon introduced the undergraduates to the rules of

college football as written by Yale’s Walter Camp (Stegeman, 1966, p. 2). Georgia’s

schedule gradually grew in number of opponents and by 1902 included Furman,

Alabama, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Davidson, Sewanee, and Auburn (Stegeman, 1966).

Steadman Vincent Sanford and the Growth of Georgia Football

Prior to World War II, intercollegiate athletic programs, and particularly those in

the South, were in a period of organization and growth. There were no football powers

located below the Mason Dixon line; instead, schools like Harvard, Princeton, Yale, and

Michigan were the strongest in the land. The type of funding and staff that are part of

athletics, and particularly football, today were unimaginable in that period.

Intercollegiate athletics were primarily overseen by faculty members. As Carol Barr

(1999) noted, faculty athletics representatives held significant power at many schools

prior to 1922. Such was the case for Steadman Sanford at the University of Georgia.

Steadman Vincent Sanford was born in 1871 in Covington, Georgia. He

graduated from Mercer in 1890 with a degree in English, after which he taught and

served as an administrator in Marietta, Georgia, public schools. He joined the faculty at

the University of Georgia in 1903 in the English department. In 1907, Sanford was

named faculty chairman of athletics at Georgia, beginning a multi decade odyssey that

would make Sanford, and Georgia, nationally prominent. He agreed to this position,

according to Stegeman (1966), “because of his love for athletics” (p. 86). While Sanford

was faculty chair of athletics, and after he resigned from that position, he served in

several other significant roles for the University. He founded and presided over the

school of journalism in the 1920s. From 1927 to 1932, he was a dean, and from 1932 to

1935, he was president of the university. In 1935, he became chancellor of the University

of Georgia system, a position that he held until his death in 1945. Despite these

numerous responsibilities, however, “his heart was never far from the playing fields”

(Stegeman, 1966, p. 86).

Sanford was the primary decision maker for Georgia athletics for many years, as

his role was roughly equivalent to that of a modern athletic director and included

decisions about hiring, scheduling and facilities. Dyer (1985) stated that Sanford was

“active in university athletic affairs as faculty chairman of athletics,” a capacity in which

Sanford “worked hard to advance the role of athletics in the institution” (p. 206). In this

period, “there was no such thing as an athletic director to hire coaches, nor very much

money to pay them” (Smith, 1992, p. 15). According to Gurr (1999), “By 1910 Sanford

had established his credentials as the most devoted and involved non-player or coach, so

much so that he became sufficiently bold to take it upon himself to hire coaches on his

own” (44-45). For example, Sanford recruited and hired William Alexander

Cunningham as football coach prior to the 1910 season. Cunningham led Georgia to six

winning seasons out of seven, a new level of success for the program. The 1910 team

accumulated a record of 6-2-1, including the first win against Georgia Tech in six years.

In the 1911 season, Georgia defeated Clemson, a team that it had failed to score on in the

six previous meetings. Cunningham was “Georgia’s most successful early coach”

(Smith, 1992, p. 15). This hire was one of many decisions made by Sanford that helped

solidify Georgia athletics and football in particular.

When Sanford became faculty chairman of athletics, Georgia was a member of

the Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Association, which was formed in 1894. The

members of this conference were loosely affiliated and changed frequently. To Sanford’s

dissatisfaction, the conference rules were not particularly stringent. Under his leadership,

Georgia, and several other SIAA institutions, decided to secede to form a new

conference.

The Southern Intercollegiate Conference was founded in Atlanta in 1921, as

representatives from 14 institutions gathered at the Piedmont Hotel, where they voted on

rules and elected officers. The represented schools were Alabama, Alabama Polytechnic

Institute (Auburn), Clemson, Georgia, Georgia School of Technology (Georgia Tech),

Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi A&M (Mississippi State), North Carolina, North

Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), and

Washington & Lee. Sanford was elected president at the foundational meeting; though

he was initially elected for a one-year term, he served in that capacity for several years.

Steadman Sanford was the leader of the movement to form the new conference, and he

served a critical and focal role once conference play began (Sherrod, 1927, p. 35).

The rules adopted by the new Southern Conference, as it would come to be

known, were characterized as “the strictest regulations proposed for any similar

organization in the country” and were adopted to “protect the integrity of athletics”

(Charlotte Observer, 1921, p. 24). Significantly, the rules vested great power in the

faculty members of the members institutions, stating that faculty must constitute a

majority on the athletic committees of the institutions and must assume responsibility for

carrying out conference eligibility rules (Atlanta Constitution, 1921, p. 2). The

geographic reach of the new conference was wide, with members as far north as

Maryland and as far west as Louisiana.

As President of the Southern Conference, Sanford wielded significant power. He

received many letters asking for clarifications of rules, rule waivers and the enforcement

of conference rules. He alone could grant waivers of conference rules (Dougherty, 1924,

February 1). Additionally, it was Sanford who handled rules violations and questions

about rules violations; for example, when Clemson President Walter Riggs questioned the

conduct of Florida in violation of conference rules in 1922, it was Sanford from whom he

requested further action (Riggs, 1922).

He was also responsible for setting the tone, and to a certain degree the agenda, of

the yearly conference meetings through his annual address. The 1924 Minutes of the

Annual Meeting of the Southern Conference characterized his address that year as

“brilliant and inspiring”; his recommendations included the creation of a board of football

officials, the reorganization of the conference’s executive committee based on

geographical districts, changes to summer baseball rules and changes to scholarship rules

(Southern Conference, 1924).

Under Steadman Sanford’s leadership, the Southern Conference was formed,

expanded, and grew increasingly significant. Ultimately, it was only fitting that it was

Sanford who announced, at the 1932 Southern Conference meeting, that 13 of the

member institutions were departing to form a more geographically focused conference,

the Southeastern Conference. Georgia remains a member of the SEC today.

Sanford was also a member of the executive committee of the NCAA (Sherrod,

1927, p. 46). Through that role, he cultivated friends for Georgia and for the Southern

Conference. In 1923, for example, the President of the NCAA, Palmer Pierce, visited

Sanford in Athens and attended a meeting of the Executive Committee of the Southern

Conference. After that trip, he extended an invitation to Sanford to stay with him in his

home if Sanford accompanied the Georgia football team to New Haven the following

season for the Yale game (Pierce, 1923, July 6).

Steadman Sanford’s love for and appreciation of history is apparent in his

speeches and correspondence, which are replete with historical references. He was

particularly fond of Greek and Roman leadership references, so it is not a surprise to find

that he put great efforts toward the recognition of one the foundational leaders in college

football, Walter Camp. Sanford was responsible for raising money for the memorial

from schools in the South, and as evidenced by his correspondence from this period, he

was extremely dedicated to the task.

The Idea of the Stadium

When Steadman Sanford first became involved with athletics, Georgia’s football

team played on Herty Field, a small, sparse field that provided few amenities for either

athletes or fans. In 1908, athletic facilities consisted of Herty Field, an office in an

academic building, and a field house, consisting of “a few lockers and a shower”

(Stegeman, 1966, p. 87). Sanford soon began to push for the construction of a new field,

ultimately christened Sanford Field against his objections, which was completed in 1911.

The football team played on Sanford Field until 1929, and the baseball team played there

until 1943. For the period and region, Sanford Field was exceptionally well appointed; it

was level, covered with Bermuda grass and surrounded by a substantial fence, and the

grandstands could accommodate approximately 1000 spectators (University of Georgia,

1912). According to Stegeman (1966), Sanford Field “was considered one of the most

handsome fields in the South” (p. 98). Sanford Field has also been characterized as “one

of the best athletic fields in the South” (Smith, 1992, p. 23).

However, Steadman Sanford would soon dream of bigger and bolder facilities for

Georgia football. As early as 1924, his correspondence reflects discussions of a potential

stadium. A 1924 letter from Harold Hirsch to Sanford read, “I am terribly interested in

that stadium proposition that we talked of the other night…” (Hirsch, 1924, December

12, p. 1). Additionally, his 1924 report to the NCAA Executive Committee included a

discussion of the importance of holding football games on college campuses; in that

report, he stated, “Every college contest should be played on the college campus. That is

the ideal plan and that is what we are striving to do at the earliest possible moment. Until

we have adequate equipment on the campus this cannot be done” (Sanford, 1924).

According to Smith (1992), Sanford Field “became obsolete as time went by,” in part

because “there were not enough seats for big games, which is why the Tech game took

place in Atlanta until 1929” (p. 23). Smith (1992) also noted the significance of holding

the Georgia/Georgia Tech game in Atlanta as a potential motivation: “Never again [after

construction of Sanford Stadium] would the Bulldogs be forced to play Tech in Atlanta

for those extra dollars” (p. 50).

At the June 16, 1926, meeting of the Board of Trustees, Sanford introduced the

idea of an on-campus football stadium to the Board:

Dean Sanford appeared before the Board in advocacy of a plan for the

construction of an athletic stadium on the land between Sanford Field and the

Central of Georgia Railroad, the movement to be financed without cost to the

University, through gifts already promised and those to be secured, as well as by

using portions of the income of the Athletic Association. The following

resolution was passed. “That the Trustees of the Georgia State College of

Agriculture be requested to return to the Trustees of the University of Georgia the

control of the land lying between the road what is an extension of Summey Street,

the Central of Georgia Railway, the road leading to the cemetery on the northern

side of Tangand Branch, and the present property under control of the Trustees of

the University of Georgia.” (University of Georgia Board of Trustees, 1926, p.

402).

Sanford now faced the formidable tasks of planning the stadium and raising the money

for the stadium.

Motivations for the Stadium

Historians agree that Steadman Sanford was the primary influence behind the

movement for the stadium at Georgia. Gurr argued, “The capstone of the decade…was

Sanford’s conception of, planning for, and building of Sanford Stadium, considered by

many his most noteworthy achievement” (p. 74). Dyer (1985) characterized him as “the

driving force behind the decision to build the new stadium” (p. 206). Stegeman (1966)

wrote, “The reverie of this kindly English teacher and the administrative energy of the

same man years later were largely responsible for the transformation of that damp and

shadowy valley into the beautiful Sanford Stadium of today” (p. 86). Smith (1992)

concluded, “Dr. Steadman V. Sanford, an English professor who became university

president and chancellor university system, will forever be remembered as the father of

Sanford Stadium” (p. 47).

Sanford himself later explained the need for the new stadium in an article

originally printed in the Georgia Alumni Record in October 1929. His discussion

encompasses several types of motivations, the first being the time period and the “spirit”

of the time period: “This is the age of stadium building in America, and the stadium

today represents the spirit of this age just as the Gothic temple represented the spirit of

another age. The whole country has caught the fever of stadium building, and the

reaction to all this is that the college stadium is the place for college games. It is no

longer the city that attracts the football crowd; it is the football game that draws the

crowd” (Sanford, 1929, p. 13.)

A second motivation was the impact and influence on the students of the

institutions: “Athletic contests belong primarily to the students. It was never intended

that they should become hippodrome contests to attracts crowds to fairs or to attract

crowds to this city or that, but simply to be a normal part of college life” (Sanford, 1929a,

p. 13). In a separate writing entitled “The Objective of Athletics,” Sanford wrote,

“College athletics properly supervised and properly controlled afford a laboratory

training for the development of character such as is not afforded elsewhere in the life of

the undergraduate. Character must be developed and must be made strong in youth not

only by competition against himself but by competition against others. It is in this field

that our whole modern system of college sport fulfills so important a function” (Sanford,

No Date). He further elaborated on this topic in a 1929 speech: “If the function of a

modern university is to meet the needs of the age it serves, then it must provide for

physical education and competitive sports. No force in the University can be used for

higher or nobler purposes than our athletic games” (Sanford, 1929b).

Sanford went on to discuss specific reasons for stadium construction, including

bringing alumni back to campus and bringing people of the state to the institution:

One purpose of the stadium is to bring to the University its alumni that they may

renew their acquaintance with members of the faculty, may see the student body,

may learn more intimately the needs of the institution, and may be drawn more

closely to the Alma Mater (Sanford, 1929a, p. 13).

Sanford distinguished alumni from members of the community and state: “Not only is the

purpose to bring back the alumni, but to bring the people of the state on the campus of

this institution so that they may learn to love, to support, and to protect it as it so justly

deserves to be for the vital part it has played and is playing the history, the life, and the

development of Georgia” (Sanford, 1929a, p. 13.)

He also focused on the necessity of modernity, as people in the 1920s desired

pleasure and comfort: “People no longer attend games where the facilities are not modern

and are not adequate to care for the crowds—their pleasure and comfort” (Sanford,

1929a, p. 13.) Finally, Sanford suggested that the players themselves were a motivation,

implying a kind of early arms race: “Colleges likewise do not like to schedule games

with colleges that cannot handle large crowds and cannot have modern facilities for the

players. The students and the players likewise are entitled to facilities equal to those

found at other universities of similar rank and standing” (Sanford, 1929a, p. 13.)

According to Smith (1992), it was Sanford’s “dream for Georgia to become

recognized regionally in football, and nothing could help realize his ambition like the

creation of an outstanding stadium” (p. 47). Stegeman concluded, “For many years Dr.

Sanford has been revolving in his mind the idea that Georgia should have a stadium that

would compare in beauty and efficiency with the best athletic plants in the country and be

in keeping with the dignity of the traditions and history of the University” (p. 5).

Financing the Stadium

The Reports of the Comptroller General of the State of Georgia indicate no

disbursements for the construction of Sanford Stadium between 1926 and 1929; as there

was no state financing of the project, the Athletic Association had to be slightly creative

in its plans to pay for the project. Steadman Sanford addressed the plan for financing the

stadium in 1929, characterizing Georgia’s plan as “unique and original” (Sanford, 1929a,

p. 13). Guarantors endorsed the note of the Athletic Association in amounts of $500.00

and $1,000.00, as the Athletic Association “preferred to have many guarantors rather than

a few” (Sanford, 1929a, p. 13.) Sanford’s February 1928 correspondence includes a

preliminary list of guarantors, which at that time was already at nearly 100 (MacDougald,

1928). The October 1929 Georgia Alumni Record lists guarantors by city of residence;

over half the guarantors resided in either Atlanta or Athens, and the third largest group

resided in Columbus (pp. 14-15).

According to Smith (1992), approximately $250,000.00 was financed by a

guarantor system with 257 alumni as guarantors; if the note was paid on time, the

guarantors would never be called up on to pay the banks that financed the loans (p. 50).

No guarantor was ever called upon: “One of the proudest days in Georgia history came

when that note was paid off in less than three years” (Smith, 1992, p. 50). Brooks (1956)

noted that “most of the money for the purpose [of building the stadium] was borrowed

from the Atlanta and Lowry National Bank of Atlanta (now the Trust Company of

Georgia), on the endorsement of alumni and friends of the University” (p. 161).

The Significance of the Stadium

The final piece of the puzzle would be the opponent for the inaugural game. Dean

Sanford wanted a truly exceptional opponent for the special occasion, and after much

discussion, he was able to secure a commitment from Yale. At that time, Yale had never

played a game in the South. Yale was quite prominent nationally, having won 13

undisputed national championships in 25 years. Sanford was in continuous contact with

the powers-that-be at Yale; a 1928 letter from Sanford to the chairman of the Yale

University Athletic Association explained why Yale was the ideal opponent for the

inaugural game:

Among all the institutions which we meet there is none which so fully measures

up to our desires as Yale. In addition to the ordinary considerations, there would

be a strong feeling of that sentiment which plays so large a part in a proper

college spirit. The unfailing courtesy which our boys have received at Yale has

aroused the deepest feeling among our people, and we covet the opportunity of

repaying it in kind, if not in degree. It would give the people of Georgia, who

would gather in great numbers, an opportunity to see one of the great teams of the

country, and could not fail to impress them most happily. We therefore most

earnestly and cordially invite Yale to [illegible] by dedicating the new stadium,

October twelfth, 1929… (Sanford, 1928).

Sanford’s 1930 report to the Chancellor of the University of Georgia indicated that it was

“sentiment not money that compelled them to come to Athens and dedicate the stadium”

(Sanford, 1930). The General Assembly referenced Yale’s acceptance of Georgia’s

invitation to open the new stadium as a “distinguished honor,” particularly as it was

“such an unusual event for the Yale team to play at any field outside of New Haven,

except Harvard or Princeton” (Resolution No. 13, 1929).

The game was important not just for Georgia, but for southern football as a whole.

Newspapers across the region carried stories about the game in late summer 1929,

including an Associated Press story that ran in Richmond, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Tampa,

Montgomery, Mobile, Memphis, Nashville, Jacksonville, and Charlotte, among others; it

noted that many schools adjusted their schedules so that their fans “can view the first

southern invasion of the eastern Bulldog without missing anything at home” (Brietz,

1929).

In what was considered quite an upset at the time, Georgia won the game, 15-0.

Ralph McGill, who covered the game for the Atlanta Constitution, wrote that on that day

“all roads led to Athens” to see Georgia’s victory over Yale and to see Sanford

recognized for his “idea of a great stadium at Athens” which is now there to “shame the

skeptical and abash the timid” (1929, p. 1). According to Bailey (2011), “The completion

of Georgia’s modern stadium, a stadium still in use today, demonstrates that Georgia’s

football program had achieved big time status” (p. 192).

Sanford’s dream of an on campus stadium for Georgia had come true, and the

victory over Yale, covered in every regional and national newspaper, was the icing on the

cake. Even in defeat, Yale graciously acknowledged the hospitality they received.

Correspondence to Sanford from Yale’s band noted sore disappointment “at the failure of

the White Bulldog to hold his own with the alert, aggressive Red-Brindle Bulldog of

Georgia. But the memory of your gracious hospitality is a calming anodyne for other

painful recollections” (Ellis, 1929, October 16).

The dedication of Sanford Stadium was important to the University of Georgia

and to football in the South. According to Stegeman (1929), “No epoch in the athletic

history of any educational institution has been more important than the present one is for

us. The dedication of a new stadium marks a new era in the athletic activities of the

University of Georgia” (p. 5). Bailey (2011) argued, “The dedication of the stadium was

a rousing success and an important milestone for southern collegiate football” (p. 192).

Analysis

What we know about the motivations for stadium construction in the interwar

period is represented by Figure 3.1:

Figure 3.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Stadium Construction in the

Inter-War Period

What the data revealed about the motivations for the construction of Sanford

Stadium specifically is represented by Figure 3.3:

Figure 3.3: Motivations for the Construction of Sanford Stadium

One of the logistical, practical motivations was common to both stadiums as a

group as well as Sanford stadium: the need for more seating. Additionally, the idea of

modernity is common to both. However, the motivations for Sanford Stadium were also

somewhat unique, which appears to be due to the strong influence of Steadman Sanford

on the process of planning, financing, and building the stadium. Sanford had high goals

for Georgia, academically and athletically, and these goals, including increasing

Georgia’s stature in football, the uncompromising stance regarding an on campus

location, and the forward thinking concepts of fan and player comfort, made Georgia’s

motivations slightly different than the common motivations apparent in the literature. In

short, Steadman Sanford and his ideas made Georgia different than many others.

CHAPTER FOUR

CONTEMPORARY FINDINGS

Literature Review

This chapter is divided into two primary sections. The first section is the

literature review for the contemporary period of the study. The second section is the

findings and analysis for the contemporary period of the study.

According to Boote and Beile (2005), “A substantive, thorough, sophisticated

literature review is a precondition for doing substantive, thorough sophisticated

research,” with the “best” literature reviews being those that are “thorough, critical

examinations of the state of the field that set the stage for the authors’ substantive

research projects” (p. 3, 9). The Boote and Beile framework evaluates literature reviews

via the consideration of several criteria, including coverage (justification for

inclusion/exclusion), synthesis of materials, methodology, and significance (p. 8).

Coverage and Methodology

Sources consulted for the literature review chapter include peer reviewed research

publications, popular magazine publications, newspaper articles, books, textbooks, and

other research published by organizations that exist for the purposes of studying

intercollegiate athletics. Because of the scarcity of peer reviewed research for some of

the aspects of this study, as well as the high interest in some of the topics researched for

this study within the general public of the United States, newspapers, magazines, and

websites were important sources for consideration. These types of sources allowed the

inclusion of data related to very recent intercollegiate athletic facilities construction that

would have been unavailable if only peer reviewed research had been utilized as source

material.

Books and textbooks were also a critical source of information for this project.

Textbooks were an important body of source material to help provide overview data and

discussion. Textbooks consulted included those relating to higher education facilities

generally, those relating to intercollegiate athletics, and those relating to sport finance.

Additionally, research conducted by highly reputable and respected organizations

such as the Knight Commission was also included. These types of organizations have

access to high levels of information from the majority of institutions of higher education

that field intercollegiate athletic teams that is unavailable from any other source.

Databases consulted include JSTOR, Academic Search Premier and Clemson

OneSearch. Other articles and other studies of which the author had knowledge were

also included as topically appropriate.

Significance

A thorough review of the available sources relating to athletic facilities revealed

several gaps that should be considered by researchers. For the purposes of the present

study, there has been little research published that looks closely at the motivations for

intercollegiate athletic facilities. Likewise, there is very little research regarding funding

models for intercollegiate athletic facilities, despite the enormous amount of money being

allocated to this area.

The findings from this study can be helpful in understanding why decisions

relating to the construction and renovation of intercollegiate athletic facilities occur, as

well as how decisions relating to funding models for these facilities evolve. Because

intercollegiate athletics are a significant presence at most institutions of higher education,

an understanding of athletic facilities and spending is crucial.

Literature: Methodological Findings

The primary ways that others have studied intercollegiate athletic facilities can be

classified categorically to include the following primary areas: 1) overview and summary

analyses of types of facilities, 2) historical studies of types of facilities, 3) historical

studies of motivations for facilities, 4) studies of the effects of athletics (which implicate

facilities), 5) studies of factors involved in the student-athlete institutional selection

process and recruiting (which includes facilities), 6) news and popular interest studies

related to trends in facilities construction, 7) news and popular interest studies relating to

the funding of athletic facilities, and 8) surveys or aggregated data related to institutions

and facilities.

Except for studies on the effects of athletics and studies on recruiting, which are

primarily quantitative in nature, most studies and publications relating to athletic facilities

(and athletics generally) are typically qualitative in nature. Most of the qualitative studies

focus on Division I athletics and proceed from a descriptive, trend-based style. For

example, one of the most of useful works considered for this study was J. Douglas

Toma’s 2003 Football U: Spectator Sports in the Life of the American University. For

this book, Toma visited eleven campuses (University of Arizona, Brigham Young

University, Clemson University, University of Connecticut, Louisiana State University,

University of Michigan, Northwestern University, University of Nebraska, University of

Notre Dame, University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Texas A&M University), where he

conducted 177 interviews and did archival and observational research. The resulting

work is a comprehensive overview of the place of spectator sports, with a focus on

football, in American universities.

The quantitative studies typically utilize pre-existing data to formulate

conclusions regarding the effects of athletics. For example, several studies discussed

below used existing data related to the success of an athletic team or teams (typically

football and/or men’s basketball) and data relating to student body success metrics, such

as retention or graduation, in an attempt to explore possible relationships between

athletics and student body success.

Literature for the Contemporary Period

The sources relating to contemporary intercollegiate athletic facilities are a

mixture of textbooks, books, peer reviewed articles, articles written for popular

consumption, and research done by independent bodies that are focused around the study

of intercollegiate athletics.

Research Question One: Types of Facilities

The primary types of facilities being undertaken by athletic departments in the

century are venues (both new construction and, more commonly, renovation) and

facilities focused on student-athletes. Student athlete facilities are primarily multi-use

facilities and academic facilities.

Venues

In terms of venues, most modern football stadiums are renovated versions of the

institution’s original stadium, the majority of which were constructed during the interwar

period, as previously discussed: “Most on campus stadiums are located on sites that date

back to the 1920s, with the core of most of these structures remaining from their original

construction. Only the addition of sections of seating—either behind both end zones or as

upper decks—has noticeably changed most stadiums” (Toma, 2003, p. 38). The initial

date of construction, then, is in and of itself a motivation for venue construction or

renovation; “aging infrastructure” must eventually either be replaced or updated (Koger,

2001, p. 48). This is true across conferences; in the SEC, for example, only Kentucky

hosts games in post-WWII stadium, though most of the stadiums have been drastically

expanded and renovated to accommodate many more fans and to provide a much higher

level of amenities for the fans (Toma, 2003, p. 45). (See Appendix B for a full list of

Power 5 stadia with construction dates.)

All Power 5 institutions have taken part in the wave of facilities improvements of

the 21

century, but as with the interwar period, there were catalyst institutions that

initiated both the time frame and scale of activity: “The institutions leading the way in

facility improvements, especially stadiums, at the beginning of the 2000s were Ohio

State, $350 million ($210 million was for the stadium renovation); Penn State, $93.5

million; and Florida, $50 million” (Howard & Crompton, 2013, p. 176). This trend is

encompassing of the nature of sport in the United States as well as of the particularities of

modern funding models, which will be discussed subsequently. As Schirato (2007)

noted, “In the United States, much more so than was the case in Britain, Europe or the

British Empire, professional and even college sports increasingly produced themselves as

forms of entertainment with a strong spectatorial inflection” (p. 85).

Additionally, intercollegiate athletics, particularly in modern times, are influenced

by developments in professional sports, as these types of developments create a level of

expectation among fans: “Major college sports programs are following the same path as

professional franchises. Fully-loaded venues are replacing the traditional, bleacher-only,

concrete bowls that dominated the college landscape through the 1980s” (Howard &

Crompton, 2013, p. 177). As a result, stadium investments in the 21

century often focus

on creating new revenue streams through the addition of seats, the addition of

premium/luxury seating or the addition of other amenities for fans (Howard & Crompton,

2013, p. 176). Some researchers also consider better media accommodations to be one

factor within this new model, as prominent national broadcasters can “increase positive

exposure for the universities’ athletic programs” (Koger, 2001, p. 48).

The joint study undertaken by AECOM and the Ohio University Department of

Sports Administration is illustrative of types of facilities and of some institutional

motivations relating to intercollegiate athletic facilities construction. The first study by

the group was conducted in August 2014, with a second study done in November 2015.

The published study was based upon a survey of athletic directors that targeted facility

investments, fan experience, student athlete experience, operations and demographics.

Eighty-seven athletic directors from Division I institutions responded to the survey; these

athletic directors were representative of 25 conferences, with 64% being from public

institutions. The purpose of the study was to gauge “trends and priorities in facility

investment and building the student-athlete and fan experience” (AECOM, 2016, p. 2).

The results of the survey express that 94% of respondents plan to invest more than

$500,000.00 in athletic facilities improvements in the next five years, and 50% plan to

invest at least $25 million in the next five years (p. 4, 5). Sixty-five percent of the

surveyed FBS schools reported having budgets of more than $60 million (p. 16). Two

types of improvements were considered by the survey: amenities for fans and amenities

for student-athletes. While the published results do not implicitly state that fan amenities

relate to venue facilities, that can be safely assumed. The results indicate that food,

beverage and premium seating amenities are perceived as important in facilities

improvement (p. 25). In terms of attracting recruits, practice and training facilities were

considered to be most important, while locker rooms and academic space were

considered as secondary and tertiary motivations (p. 27). This study is currently the best

information available in terms of contemporary venue facilities and the motivations for

those facilities. Nevertheless, it is limited due to the expressed scope as well as the type

of study. This study leaves considerable space for a more detailed investigation of both

types of facilities, motivations and funding models.

Student Athlete Facilities

The second primary category of intercollegiate athletic facilities construction in

the 21

century is student athlete facilities. Student athlete facilities include both mixed

use facilities (those that include a student athlete component but may include other types

of uses, such as coaching and administrative offices) and academic facilities constructed

primarily, or more commonly, exclusively, for the use of student athletes.

Mixed use student athlete facilities are often sport specific, particularly for

revenue sports:

In general, the larger the institution and the higher the level of NCAA

competition, the more likely it is that the athletic facilities will be dedicated

exclusively to the competitive athlete, with very little sharing. The most frequent

exceptions are the natatorium, fieldhouse, and practice field space due to the cost

of aquatic facilities and lack of available land on many campuses (Neuman, 2013,

p. 265).

Sharing between student athletes and other students is more common at the Division II,

Division III and NAIA levels, although athletic competition takes precedence over

recreational use (Neuman, 2013, p. 265).

Within the contemporary mixed use facilities, several characteristics are common.

One of the common characteristics includes space for training and rehabilitation: “Sports

medicine or training rooms are part of the daily routine of prevention and therapy for the

student athlete as well as a critical recruiting tool and, in recent years, have grown in size

and complexity to respond to a greater need for treatment and rehabilitation and to

incorporate preventative modalities” (Neuman, 2013, p. 277). The University of

Kentucky’s $45 million, 100,000 square foot football training facility exemplifies the

importance of sports medicine and training, as it includes a 15,000 square foot weight

room and a new training room with an x-ray machine, two exam rooms, hot and cold tubs

and an underwater treadmill (Ramsey, 2016).

While lockers have always been a basic requirement for athletes, lockers and

locker rooms generally have become one of many ways that revenue sports, particularly

football and basketball, can outshine competitors and rivals. The new locker rooms also

reflect the schedules of student athletes in contemporary times. According to Neuman

(2013), “In the past, locker rooms were provided on a seasonal basis at many schools, but

because today’s athletes are involved in a year-round training regimen—even at the

Division III level—teams are assigned designated lockers for the entire year. The locker

room is a home-away-from home and a symbol of team pride” (p. 278). Additionally,

football locker rooms are becoming increasingly extravagant: “It can range from a large,

lavish room with an adjacent players’ lounge for football, basketball, baseball, or hockey,

to more modest accommodations for non-revenue, or Olympic, sports” (Neuman, 2013,

p. 278). For example, the recently revealed University of Texas football lockers include

43-inch monitors above each player’s locker, as opposed to traditional nameplates. The

monitor will display player pictures, highlights and personal information. The lockers

will also include “glowing white doors,” a new technology that was custom designed for

Texas, as per the demand of the head football coach (Eberts, 2017).

Office and meeting spaces are also frequently included in student athlete

facilities: “Team meeting rooms to accommodate 15-120 people are required, as are

locker and office suites for coaches, whose recruitment is also heavily influenced by an

institution’s facilities” (Neuman, 2013, p. 278). The University of West Virginia

unveiled a new football team room in 2015 that displays the type of amenities that are

commonly included in state of the art, revenue sport team meeting rooms. It includes 162

theater-style chairs emblazoned with the West Virginia logo, three televisions leading

into the rooms that will display continuous video of moments in West Virginia football,

and colorful graphics throughout the room (Antonik, 2015).

Celebratory areas are also common to student athlete facilities, as they may play a

role in recruiting: “A hall of fame is standard for programs of all sizes and can be

representative of all sports or related to a specific sport” (Neuman, 2013, p. 278). The

University of Alabama, whose football facility has undergone two renovations since

2005, includes its “Hall of Champions” on the second floor; this area houses national and

conference trophies, as well as highlighting individual accomplishments, such as national

awards (University of Alabama Athletics, 2017).

A comprehensive and highly publicized example of a contemporary multi-use

facility for a revenue sport is the recently opened football operations center at Clemson

University, also known as the Allen N. Reeves Football Complex. This facility includes

a football-only dining room, locker rooms, a high definition theater, a barbershop, a putt-

putt golf course, a full size basketball court, a bowling alley, and an indoor slide

(Brenner, 2016). Coaches’ offices, meeting rooms, recruiting rooms and a training area

with a lap pool and four hydrotherapy pools are also part of the complex. The Players’

Village, which includes the basketball and golf areas, also includes a large water feature,

a wading pool, a twenty-foot screen for movies, a grilling area, a nap area, a horseshoe

pit, and a beach volleyball area. The facility, which encompasses 140,000 square feet

and was constructed at a cost of $55 million, was designed to address “virtually every

player’s daily needs outside the classroom” (McGranahan, 2017).

The second type of student athlete facility that most athletic departments have

invested in recently are academic centers: “In response to academic eligibility

requirements, academic centers for the student athlete have proliferated in recent years”

(Neuman, 2013, p. 278). While this type of student athlete facility has been standard

among Power 5 institutions for over twenty-five years, newer, bigger, better versions are

just one type of facility that institutions have begun to construct. For example, the

University of Florida opened its new academic support center, the Otis Hawkins Center,

in 2016. The facility includes 74 study/tutoring labs, an auditorium and a food service

area. The 82,613 square foot facility was constructed at a cost of $25 million (Carter

2016).

Research Question Two: Motivations

Institutional

According to existing literature, intercollegiate athletics, and, therefore, by

extension, athletic facilities, can be useful in advancing institutional goals. These goals

include community building, student engagement, student success, institutional branding

and increasing revenue: “Proponents of…athletic spending justify the practice with

reference to the general mission of the host college or university. Programs need to build

bigger and better facilities in order to attract better athletes and coaches and to maintain

fan interest and comfort at the games. This allows a program to be ‘successful,’ and

success translates to more pride in the institution, which ultimately leads to benefits for

the entire school” (Smith, 2009, p. 554).

There is general agreement that intercollegiate athletics can assist in community

building on college campuses in within communities, and even states, which include

institutions with intercollegiate athletics. Community building is a significant issue,

according to Tinto, who argued that students are more likely to remain at institutions at

which they feel a sense of community: “Institutions of higher education are not unlike

other human communities, and the process of educational departure is not substantially

different from the other processes of leaving which occur among human communities

generally. In both instances, departure mirrors the absence of social and intellectual

integration into or membership in community life and of the social support such

integration provides. An institution’s capacity to retain students is directly related to its

ability to reach out and make contact with students and integrate them into the social and

intellectual fabric of institutional life” (Tinto, 1993, p. 204).

Many researchers are in agreement that athletics can help foster a sense of

community, and Toma has written extensively on this topic, particularly as it relates to

football: “Football is unique on campus in that it affords members of broadly defined

university communities a shared investment in something perceived to be significant,

central, and enduring” (Toma, 2003, p. 77). While Toma’s theoretical approach applies

to intercollegiate spectator sports generally, he typically uses football to illustrate his

points, and football is central to his discussion of the community building value of

athletics: “Football highlights the unique culture through which particular institutions

express the collegiate ideal. In both substance and form, institutional culture helps make

institutions understandable and accessible to those associated with them by highlighting

the appealing qualities, such as community, that are at the core of the collegiate ideal”

(Toma, 2003, p. 8).

More specifically, Toma argued, “Football also builds campus community by

strengthening morale, instilling pride, and deepening spirit” (Toma, 2003, p. 80).

Additionally, other common student activities that may or may not be officially

sanctioned by the university, such as tailgating, are meaningful in community building

(Toma, 2003, p. 81). In addition to the campus community itself, athletics can also help

build community with those that are not implicitly part of the institution on a daily basis,

a concept that is sometimes referred to as “town gown relations.” Toma noted,

“…spectator sports provides the broadest opportunity for extended communities to share

in a complex cultural experience that embodies the collegiate look and feel that people

expect of even the largest institutions” (Toma, 1993 p. 9).

Despite the community building function of intercollegiate spectator sports, there

is also evidence that not all undergraduate students participate in any athletically related

events, as various groups “do not experience college sports—or institutions more

generally—in the same ways” (Toma, 2003, p. 85). However, there is no one single

element that builds community among every stakeholder on a campus; there is no

question that many students attend athletic events, as well as other types of events that are

facilitated through athletic events.

There is some administrative evidence to support Toma’s community building

theory, though it is limited and not entirely analogous to his discussion. In a 2014 article,

David Dymecki discussed the process of researching and writing the University of

Pittsburgh’s Athletic and Recreational Facilities Master Plan Update, a process that was

commissioned in 2011 and completed in 2012: “The update envisioned a dramatic

transformation of the university’s Hillside and Hilltop Districts’ existing academic,

athletic, and recreational facilities and underutilized open space into a cohesive campus

prescient as an extension of the university’s Lower Campus and urban landscape

framework” (p. 47). Several “principles” were part of this process, many of which are

notable for the purposes of the present study, including the enhancement of the campus

setting generally, the creation of a unified community setting, improvement in the

interrelationship of campus facilities, and the enhancement of the athletics game day

experience (p. 48). In regard to one portion of the project, the renovations and additions

to Trees Hall, Dymecki noted several expected outcomes, including “Create Community

and Social Interaction: Creating social connections through recreation, well-being, and

sports programs lies in an understanding of the social ‘space between’ program areas—

lounges, game rooms, and meeting rooms—all supported by a carefully organized

circulation network with simultaneous visual connections to multiple activity areas”

(Dymecki, 2014, p. 60).

Research also has revealed that intercollegiate athletics can promote engagement

among many students. Engagement is a significant topic in higher education, as it has

been largely recognized as a factor in long-term student success: “At the very outset,

persistence in college requires individuals to adjust, both socially and intellectually, to the

new and sometimes quite strange world of the college. Most persons, even the most able

and socially mature, experience some difficulty in making that adjustment” (Tinto, 1993,

p. 45). Similarly, Mangold, Bean and Adams (2003) concluded, “In summary, as overall

academic and social student integration increases, persistence increases as well” (p. 543).

Other researchers have concurred: “College commitment and social connectedness also

had positive and significant direct effects on whether students stayed or dropped out…”

(Allen, Robbins, Casillas, & Oh, 2008, p. 658).

Athletics can be an important part of the social experience of college for many

undergraduates, “for whom college can be as much a social experience as an academic

one” (Toma, 2003, p. 76). As Falk (2005) noted, “Among the numerous activities that

serve to define American society, sports ranks high” (p. 1). McCormick and Tinsley

(1990) combined these two arguments to conclude, “One desirable recreational vocation

available to many college students is intercollegiate athletics. Sports competition between

schools is available in football, basketball, baseball, soccer, tennis, track, golf, hockey,

swimming, wrestling, and others. Of these football and basketball are big spectator

sports. On some campuses, football weekends are the single largest social events of the

school year” (McCormick & Tinsley, 1990, p. 195).

Toma’s (2003) argument about the importance of intercollegiate athletics and

building community is closely related to engagement:

In order to maintain the collegiate ideal so closely associated with American

higher education, campuses must seek formulas for enhancing connections

between and among individuals and small groups. There are academic reasons to

stress community—it is not merely a strategic issue for institutions. Community

enhances student engagement—and there is clear evidence that students benefit

more from college when more engaged academically, have strong relationships

with others on campus, and are involved through the extra-curriculum. In short,

student learning improves when students feel integrated…Spectator sports

contribute several of the attributes that mark the strong community that is such a

basic norm, value, and belief in American higher education. These events

encourage cohesiveness and involvement…football is an important contributor to

residential life at large universities (pp. 79-80).

Toma’s basic equation is that football encourages engagement for many students.

Students form relationships due to their attendance at football related events. They

become attached to one another as well as to the institution.

The conclusions relating to the relationship between intercollegiate athletics and

student success are mixed. Because student success is of such great concern to

institutions of higher education, research relating to factors that can contribute to student

success is significant: “Educational attainment and persistence are central issues in

postsecondary education” (Allen, Robbins, Casillas, & Oh, 2008, p. 648).

Tucker (1992) studied how football and basketball affect student time using the

Associated Press polls for five consecutive years to measure athletic success. Tucker

concluded that basketball success was unrelated to graduation rates. However, Tucker

also concluded that football success does correlate with reduced graduation rates. Tucker

explained this phenomenon vis-a-vis the amount of time that students tend to spend on

football related activities, such as tailgate parties, band practice and the number of

athletes and other students directly involved in the game. However, Tucker also

concluded that football success enhances the academic mission of universities through

advertising. Mangold, Bean and Adams (2003), studied both the positive and negative

effects of athletic programs on non-student-athletes and concluded that “Intercollegiate

sports such as football and basketball are often viewed as catalysts for student interaction,

thus facilitating social involvement and ultimately enhancing student institutional

affiliation and commitment” (p. 543.) In contrast to Tucker (1992), Mangold, Bean and

Adams (2003) concluded that basketball success has a greater negative effect on

graduation rates than does football success.

Mixon and Trevino (2003) presented athletics as a kind of balm to heal frazzled

college students. In contrast to Tucker’s (1992) concern that “football fever” might

distract students, Mixon and Trevino argued that “’football chicken soup’” can help

students adjust to collegiate life (p. 99). Their study concluded that football success is

associated with both higher freshman retention rates and higher graduation rates. Finally,

in agreement with Mixon and Trevino (2003) , McCormick and Tinsley (1990)

concluded, “The thesis maintained here is that many students get more than one

education while enrolled in college; intercollegiate athletic competition is a natural

consequence and by-product of undergraduate education for many students. This implies

that athletic success goes hand in hand with academic success and that critics of athletic

success, insofar as this study goes, are misguided if their motive is the academic

improvement of the university” (p. 201).

As previously noted, athletic success has long been considered a means of

marketing and branding for academic institutions. Many researchers are in agreement

that athletics can prove a successful marketing strategy for institutions. In theory,

schools that become well-known nationally for athletic success can use that success as

part of their branding strategy, which can increase general awareness of the institution.

Theoretically, this can increase the public’s awareness of the institution’s academic

programs and offerings as well (Smith, 2009, p. 554). Writing specifically about football,

Toma (1993) concurred with Smith: “When teams are successful and appealing, football

is the source of national prestige at large institutions…” (p. 10). Chung (2013) arrived at

an even stronger conclusion connecting athletics to marketing of institutions: “The

primary form of mass media advertising by academic institutions in the United States is,

arguably, through its athletics program” (p. 680).

Statistical research supports the Smith/Toma/Chung conclusion. Goff (2000)

used data related to university exposure due to athletics between 1991 and 1996 for two

institutions in order to determine the advertising effects of athletics. Goff (2000)

concluded that “athletic success translated into substantially increased exposure for both

institutions” (p. 91). Goff argued,

Athletics is an integral source of name exposure for almost every university and

often the only frequent source of exposure for schools possessing little in the way

of academic reputation. Even for institutions with highly regarded academic

reputations, many potential donors and potential students are more likely to

become aware of, and interested in, the institution due to its participating in a

major bowl game or the NCAA ‘Sweet Sixteen’ than they are due to the work of a

Nobel prize-winning chemist. Also, athletic events provide opportunities for

large numbers of prospective students and their parents…to visit campuses they

might not otherwise visit (Goff, 2000, p. 91).

The increased advertising or exposure due to athletics can result in several

specific outcomes, including effects on applications. Chung (2013) used statistical

analysis to test the long-accepted “Flutie effect,” an increase in applications for

admission thought to be experienced by institutions after major, high profile athletic

success. (The term “Flutie effect” was adopted by the popular media after Boston

College’s nationally televised 1984 upset of the University of Miami, in which the final,

game-winning play was a long, downfield pass by Boston College quarterback Doug

Flutie, which resulted in a touchdown. Subsequently, Boston College experienced a

massive increase in applications for admission.) Chung determined that “athletic success

has a significant impact on the quality and quantity of applications to institutions of

higher education in the United States” (Chung, 2013, p. 696). He further speculated that

this increase might be due to a variety or combination of factors, including generally

increased awareness of the institution and the appeal of a sports culture:

Sports are a big part of American culture. It is common for people in the United

States to make the sporting events of their alumni institutions the focal point of

their social interactions. Students may find it appealing to take part in such social

bonding over sports in order to feel as though they are part of something special,

something bigger than themselves (Chung, 2013, p. 696).

Smith (2009) concluded that “some portion of the college-seeking high school population

is drawn to schools offering big-time college football…Schools with longer football

traditions and established cultures have first-year students with better academic

credentials. Consistent with a presumed advertising effect and the branding of the

school’s football program, SAT scores and percentages of students with B or better GPAs

and top-10 standings rise when schools have seasons that could lead to greater media

coverage” (p. 571). Further, a 2014 study found a positive, statistically significant

correlation with freshmen applications at two of the three institutions studied when the

institutions moved from FCS to FBS (Jones, 2014, p. 303).

Finally, there is evidence that athletic success can increase an institution’s

revenue generated via contributions from alumni and others. As Smith (2009), noted,

“The list of presumed consequences of a winning program is long” (p. 554). The

assumptions about the effects of athletic success, particularly football and basketball

success, include increased alumni giving (to both athletics and academics), more student

applications, higher quality students, increased student engagement, increased student

satisfaction and an overall rise in rankings (Smith, 2009, p. 554).

McCormick and Tinsley’s (1990) study used quantitative analysis to test the

revenue portion of this assumed relationship. Their conclusions support Smith’s theory:

“Empirically, we find a positive, significant relationship between academic philanthropy

and gift giving to support athletics; athletic fundraising does not appear to crowd out gifts

to academics. We concluded there is a symbiotic relation between athletics and

academics on many campuses and the elimination of athletics and athletic fundraising

could have deleterious effects on both academic contributions and academic standards”

(McCormick & Tinsley, 1990, p. 201).

McCormick and Tinsley also proposed a somewhat novel effect relating to the

relationship between athletic success and academic standards vis-à-vis revenue: “Athletic

investment and success may also bond the university. A high-quality athletic program is

expensive…Just as large expenditures on advertising signal an investment protected only

by maintaining product quality, large expenditures on athletics are recouped only by

attracting fans and students in the future. Hence, expenditures in one year become sunk,

inducing the administration to maintain academic standards for fear of losing the

investment in the future. Interpreted in this light, large expenditures on athletic stadiums

and teams have a comparable quality-assuring effect on education as investments in a

new chemistry building or refurbished academic hall” (McCormick & Tinsley, 1990, pp.

196-197). This conclusion certainly warrants further future investigation.

As Toma noted, branding and revenue are often connected, and successful athletic

teams can function in both areas:

Furthermore, spectator sports also provide institutions that are essentially local in

their reach with a national brand, adding distinctiveness and importance to

otherwise commonplace campuses. Teams and games provide a convenient

vehicle through which external constituents, in particular, relate to institutions and

identify with them—coming to think of the institutions as their own. In

connecting key constituents to the institutions they come to want to support—

institutions that are thought to be distinctive, central, and enduring—football is a

critical tool in external relations…serving those in alumni relations, development,

government relations, public affairs, and admission. These events make

institutions accessible and desirable—and thus worthy of support. Spectator

sports are thus central in the strategic approach to the acquisition of resources…

(Toma, 2003, p. 8).

Athletic

One of the primary goals of athletic administrators in funding intercollegiate

athletic facilities appears to be based upon the belief that better facilities will assist in

recruiting student athletes: “Even the best programs may see the need to add and upgrade

facilities, and sport-specific buildings can make all the difference. Specific training

facilities for football, basketball, hockey, and other sports, together with weight training,

sports medicine, and team lockers, are critical to recruiting” (Neuman, 2013, p. 265).

However, literature relating to the factors considered by recruits when making college

decisions, as well as how facilities may or may not play into those decisions, is

conflicting. The commonly accepted “theory” is that non-venue (student athlete)

facilities upgrades “placate coaches and players, which leads to better recruiting and

more wins, which in turns makes fans happy” (Brenner 2016). As Koger (2001) noted,

“Modern sports facilities improve recruiting efforts and enable college teams to remain

competitive” (p. 48).

Messenger and Schneider’s (2012) study of Division I men’s hockey players

sought to determine how various factors, including facilities, impacted college choice

decisions. The players were surveyed and asked to rate a list of 24 factors. The top three

factors were playing time, athletic financial aid, and perceived professional opportunities.

Athletic training facilities tied for sixth in terms of importance, and the actual

competition area (in this case, the rink/arena) tied for twelfth most influential. The

researchers therefore concluded, “It is interesting to note that athletic facilities do not,

with regards to the subjects in this study, as well as in the literature review of previous

studies, impact bringing in student-athletes to play Division I hockey. In fact, in the

previous research, facilities were well down the list of most influential college choice

factors just as they were in this study” (p. 809.)

Additionally, research has shown that recruiting can be a significant predictor of

success; one 2016 study concluded that “based on recruiting quality alone, a starting

lineup comprised primarily of five and four-star freshmen and sophomores generates

more than twice the number of wins compared to a team with an average level of talent”

(Treme & Burrus, 2016, p. 752). While this study was about Division I men’s basketball,

this conclusion is logically applicable to all sports. Further, this conclusion is a

presumption upon which coaches and athletic administrators are relying upon in their

decision-making. The relationship between recruiting and performance has also been

studied for college football. Langelett (2003) investigated the relationship between

football recruiting and team performance using regressive analysis; his conclusions

suggest “that recruiting does indeed affect team performance over the next five years” (p.

244). Further, Langelett (2003) concluded that there is a “bi-directional relationship

between recruiting and team performance,” such that team success is helpful in the

recruiting process (p. 244).

The competition with rival institutions to have the best facilities has come to be

known as the “arms race.” The athletic facilities arms race is “a nationwide competition

between many of the country’s largest universities to build the best, most luxurious

facilities as recruiting tools” (Hobson 2017). This competition appears to be a primary

motivating factor in terms of decisions relating to both types of facilities and facilities

funding within athletic departments: “Athletic department officials grow concerned when

they sense a disparity between their school’s facilities and the facilities of other

institutions in their conference or league” (Neuman, 2013, p. 265). As Koger (2001)

noted, “…when one school in a conference upgrades, others feel pressure to follow” (p.

48). The arms race has been and is most prevalent and influential in terms of revenue

sports, particularly football, men’s basketball, and, depending on region, baseball or

hockey, but it recently began to impact non-revenue sports as well. Changes in

conference affiliations, changes in post-season play in revenue sports, and lucrative

conference and institution media contracts have escalated the arms race. The athletic

facilities arms race “has been fueled by the substantial increase in funds major colleges

have received from football bowl payouts, football television fees, and the billion-dollar

television fees for the NCAA Men’s Division I basketball tournament” (Howard &

Crompton, 2013, p. 176).

Competition with in-state, conference, regional, and, in some cases, national

rivals has therefore had a direct effect on the types of intercollegiate athletic facilities that

have been constructed in the 21

century: “Driven by the need to recruit the best athletes,

dedicated practice facilities are being constructed for many sports…Indoor practice

football fields are becoming a requirement at schools with a strong football program”

(Neuman, 2013, p. 275). Again, revenue sports lead the way in terms of these types of

dedicated facilities. The assumption, as Howard and Crompton noted, is that “The best

student athletes and the best coaches are attracted to institutions that have the best

facilities. Because success is so strongly influenced by quality of facilities, as some

colleges upgrade others are forced to match them or accept that they will attract only

second-tier athletes and coaches” (Howard & Crompton, 2013, p. 176). It is therefore not

uncommon to see multiple renovations to a prominent athletic facility within a span of

ten to twenty years: “Many campus athletics and recreation buildings are in need of

renovation and/or expansion. Functional and aesthetic expectations have changed, and

even buildings from the 1990s are frequently outdated and inadequate to meet current

demands” (Neuman, 2013, p. 293). For example, as previously noted, Alabama’s

football facility has been renovated twice since 2005.

Figure 4.1 summarizes the literature relating to the motivations for intercollegiate

athletic venues in the contemporary period.

Figure 4.1: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction or

Renovation in the 21

Century

Figure 4.2 summarizes the literature relating to motivations for intercollegiate

athletic student facilities in the contemporary period.

100

Figure 4.2: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletics Student Athlete Facilities in the

Century

Research Question Three: Funding Models

Athletic facilities construction in the 21

century has become a prominent concern

on campuses and in the national media due to the costs associated with this construction,

particularly in comparison to the other expenditures at many institutions. The debt

accumulated by many institutions has steadily increased through the course of the 21

century, as the number and complexity of athletic facilities has continued to grow.

According to the Knight Commission, the median outstanding debt for athletic facilities

101

among FBS institutions increased by 157% from 2005 to 2014, from $20,250,000 to

$52,099,217. However, debt accrual varies widely among institutions in similar

geographic locations and with similar student body sizes, even within the same or similar

conferences. We know very little about how the motivations for facilities, or the types of

facilities, may or may not impact the debt load created by athletic facilities. One of the

goals of this study was to learn more about that relationship at the subject institution.

Theoretically, “The basic phases for designing and delivering a sports building are

the same as for most campus buildings: establish need, programming, schematic design,

design development, contract documents, bidding or negotiation, and construction. The

success or failure of a project is often determined by decisions made at the earliest stages.

It is vital to have budget and expectations aligned” (Neuman, 2013, p. 292). However,

what is “needed” is understood differently in the athletic context than in other areas of

higher education due to the motivational factors previously discussed. As a result,

aligning budget with expectations is entirely different in the athletic context when

compared to other educational contexts. One element that is considered in funding

athletic facilities that is typically not part of the planning process for academic facilities is

revenue generation: “New facility constructions and expansion is driven by the inclusion

of expensive seating and amenity features for which avid fans are expected to underwrite

capital improvements by purchasing the premium inventory” (Howard & Crompton,

2013, p. 177). Additionally, return on investment in turns of the presumed recruiting

effects for student athlete facilities appears to be of a high level of concern for athletic

administrators. Therefore, many institutions have accumulated an enormous amount of

102

debt within the contemporary era of facilities construction. The University of Michigan,

for example, had an athletic debt of $240 million as of the preparation of this manuscript

(Shea, 2017). While the common conception is that Michigan can manage this debt,

smaller institutions with smaller alumni bases, and potentially less successful teams, will

have more trouble managing large debts. Understanding how decisions are made

regarding funding models, therefore, is critical to the financial future of many athletic

departments.

Athletic departments rely on debt to varying degrees. For example, within a span

of approximately 18 months, Clemson University conducted several athletic facilities

upgrades, three of which were $10 million or more in cost: the baseball operations center

(a multi-use student athlete facility) at $10 million, the previously discussed football

operations center ($55 million) and the renovated basketball arena (a venue) at $63.5

million (Brenner, 2016). The facilities were financed through a combination of gifts to

the athletic department’s fundraising arm (known as IPTAY) and bonded indebtedness.

The bond payments will be made via a combination of funds that are provided by fees

that are added to ticket prices for revenue sports (football, basketball and baseball),

general contributions to IPTAY, and facilities specific gifts (Brenner 2016). The

legislative cap on Clemson’s ability to accumulate athletic debt is $200 million (S.C.

Code of Laws § 59-110-940). According to the most recent available figure, Clemson’s

annual debt service is approximately $9 million, with a total athletic facilities debt of

$134,450,000 (Clemson University, 2016, p. 50). Clemson’s 2016 athletic revenue was

103

approximately $112,996,000, while operating expenses were $92,274,000 (Clemson

University, 2016, p. 81).

In contrast, the University of California’s athletic department operated at a $21.7

million deficit in the 2016 fiscal year, due in large part to their $460 million athletic

facilities expenditures (Wilner, 2017). Cal’s financial situation is expected to worsen

unless conditions change in a significant way, as their debt service, currently at $18.5

million annually, will increased dramatically in the next 15 years (Wilner, 2017).

Based on the available literature in this area, there are four probable influences on

funding models and decision-making generally for intercollegiate athletic facilities:

motivations of athletic administrators (particularly the athletic director), level of support

(from the institution’s donors and conference), athletic culture of the institution and types

of facilities chosen for construction. These factors are interrelated, and the combination

of factors at any given institution appears to impact the way in which facilities are

financed. As previously discussed, motivations appear to be reflected in types of

facilities in the contemporary era. However, it is unclear at this time how these factors are

weighed in terms of decisions.

Figure 4.3 summarizes the hypothesized factors that are part of funding decisions

for intercollegiate athletic facilities construction.

104

Figure 4.3: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding

Decisions

Findings

Introduction

The findings section of this chapter is organized by facility. Within each section,

the three research questions will be addressed. After the discussion of the findings

relating to each facility and research question, the findings are compared to the models

discussed in the literature review to draw conclusions about the data. The data in the

findings section of this chapter was derived primarily from newspaper accounts and

University of Georgia Department of Athletics press releases.

Sanford Stadium

Sanford Stadium is the on-campus venue for football, and it opened in 1929.

During the contemporary period, it underwent significant expansions and renovations in

105

2000, 2003, 2004, and 2010. An additional renovation was underway as this study was

being conducted.

The 2000 renovation increased the number of SkySuites (luxury boxes) from 30

to 50, as well as adding the SkyClub. This renovation increased the seating capacity of

Sanford Stadium to 86,520 and cost $12 million. The 2004 renovation added 27

SkySuites; this $8 million project brought the total capacity to 92,746. Because these two

renovations were of the same nature (adding premium seating), they will be considered

together. SkySuites vary in capacity from 18 to 36 seats; each includes a restroom,

televisions, a refrigerator, lounge chairs, and a credenza. Each SkySuite has its own

buffet, and a dessert and coffee buffet are part of the SkySuite common areas on each

level. The SkyClub is approximately 6,000 square feet and is also considered a

“premium space” within Sanford Stadium, as it includes covered exterior seating, an

interior lounge and dining area, restrooms, and over 25 televisions (Georgia Athletic

Hospitality, 2018). SkyClub seats also include a buffet, and according to the Athletic

Department, the SkySuites “offer a great way for fans to cheer on the Bulldogs in style”

(University of Georgia Athletics, August 2, 2010).

Premium seating options are designed to generate revenue. Most schools that

utilize premium seating, including Georgia, utilize a system that relates to level of annual

giving. For the 2018 season, for example, regular stadium seating in Sanford Stadium

requires an annual giving level of between $275.00 and $475.00 per seat, depending on

the location of the seat; in contrast, premium seat required annual giving levels range

106

from $300.00 to $2,250.00, depending on the location of the seat (Hartman Fund Donor

Guide, 2018).

Additionally, the premium seats themselves have an associated cost. In 2000,

when one of the SkySuite expansions occurred and when the SkyClub was added, the 36-

person boxes rented for $72,000.00 annually and required a five year contract (Kampfer,

August 29, 2000). SkyClub seats cost $1080.00 plus the purchase of a regular stadium

ticket (Kampfer, September 15, 1999). Additionally, there was a demand for an

increased number of boxes, as the Athletic Association at that time had a 100 percent

renewal rate for SkySuites; before the 2000 expansion was completed, many of the new

suites had already been rented (Kampfer, August 29, 2000). Since their inception in

1994, SkySuites have sold out every season; as such, increased demand was one

motivation for the expansion in this area (Kampfer, September 15, 1999).

Tickets, including Sky Club tickets, are allocated based on priority points, which

is an additional strategy that many schools, including Georgia, use to increase annual

giving. In essence, priority points are awarded based on giving amount for each year. At

Georgia, and at most schools that utilize this system, a donor is awarded one priority

point for each dollar given. To change seats in Sanford Stadium, or to acquire new seats,

a donor presents an application that includes priority points. All applications to change

or acquire seats are prioritized by priority points; in other words, the donor with the most

priority points has the first option to change or acquire new seats, including premium

seating, when seats are available.

107

The 2003 renovation added upper deck seating to the north side of the Sanford

Stadium. This 5,500 seat addition brought the total capacity to 92,058, and the cost of the

2003 renovation was $25 million. This additional seating was required due to the high

demand for Georgia football tickets , and even with the new seats, 4,000 ticket requests

were refunded due to lack of seats when the new section opened (Weitz, August 18,

2003). This renovation was paid for via bond; the money for the payments was generated

“through fundraising and additional revenue made from the new seats” (Weitz, August

18, 2003).

Both the addition of upper deck seating and premium seating added to the total

capacity of Sanford Stadium. Total capacity has several impacts, including noise during

games and general “wow” factor, both of which Georgia administrators recognize.

According to a 2008 press release, for example, Sanford Stadium provides a special

venue for football, based in part on its large capacity: “Filled on Saturdays to its 92,746

capacity, Sanford Stadium has long been one of the country's most beautiful and

electrifying arenas for college football. Georgia's average home attendance has ranked

among the nation's top 10 for 23 consecutive seasons and among the top seven for 21 of

the past 24 years” (University of Georgia Athletics, January 11, 2008). The increased

capacity also allowed for larger attendance records. Prior to the 2000, 2003, and 2004

additions, the attendance record at Sanford Stadium was 86,117; after these three

additions were completed, the attendance record was 92,746, which gave Georgia a

ranking of fifth nationally in 2004 (University of Georgia Athletics, February 18, 2009).

108

In 2010, the north side concourse was renovated and named Reed Plaza; it was

designed to function as a “pedestrian area connecting Sanford Drive and East Campus

Road” (University of Georgia Athletics, September 2, 2010). Reed Plaza provided

approximately 30,000 square foot of “patron space,” including expanded restrooms and

concession areas; the plans for this space also provided that it would be used on non-

game days “for student affairs activities and outdoor lectures” (University of Georgia

Athletics, September 2, 2010).

Cooper Carry, the Reed Plaza architects, emphasized the added amenities, as well

as the improved use of space in their discussion of the project: “The project added much

needed amenities and circulation space along the entire north side of the UGA’s Sanford

Stadium. The area has been transformed from a narrow, dark alley into a spacious and

inviting gathering place. Major excavation and site utility work allowed for the addition

of 24 concession points of sale, 96 restroom fixtures, and extensive hardscaping” (Cooper

Carry, 2018). Safety was also a key element to the design, as were functionality and

efficiency: “The new Reed Alley greatly improves public safety and facilitates easy

access to the central campus location. Cooper Carry and HGOR worked with Manning

Brothers and Aramark to design and coordinate concession services. The spaces were

designed to be extremely functional and efficient. The project was transformed what was

a marginal space into a true amenity” (Cooper Carry, 2018).

The West End Zone project, which was underway as this study was being

conducted, is an upgrade project for Sanford Stadium announced in early 2017, with a

planned completion date of August 2018. The project consists of 121,000 square feet and

109

includes a new home football locker room, recruiting space, and additional concession

areas and bathrooms. A “new and enhanced video board” that is 33% larger than the

existing board is also part of the project (The Georgia Bulldog Club, 2018). The

projected cost for the project is $63 million, with some of the cost being funded by gifts

and approximately $10 million coming from athletic reserves (Weiszer, May 12, 2017).

Recruiting space is a major component of this project. Above the new locker

room will be a 10,500 square foot “hospitality lounge,” which will be used exclusively

for hosting prospects and their guests on game days (University of Georgia Athletics,

February 14, 2017). According to Director of Athletics Greg McGarity, “‘The West End

Zone Project…is unique to Georgia and Sanford Stadium. It really focuses on the locker

room and the recruiting space, which will be usable by so many units of the university at

certain times” (University of Georgia Athletics, February 14, 2017). The Bulldog Club

predicted that the project will have a “transformational impact” on Sanford Stadium and

that the improved space “will offer fans a dramatically improved game-day experience”

(The Georgia Bulldog Club, 2018).

In addition to the West End Zone project, Georgia began or completed several other

athletic facilities projects in 2017. The Spec Towns Track facility was resurfaced at a

cost of $1.275 million; the David Boyd Golf Center, housing both men’s and women’s

golf, was fully renovated, at a cost of $4.35 million, and the grandstand and media center

at the Jack Turner Soccer Complex was replaced, at a cost of $4.6 million (Weiszer, 12

May 2017). Stegeman Coliseum is a multi-use facility that is utilized by men’s

basketball, women’s basketball, gymnastics and volleyball. In fall 2017, an $8 million

renovation to the facility was completed. The renovation included both visual and

technological improvements, including new seats, an improved lighting system, a new

sound system, and celebratory visual elements/graphics. The 2017 renovation was Phase

II of the renovation for Stegeman. Phase I was completed in 2016 and included a new

scoreboard and a mural. In 2010, a $13 million upgrade was completed; that project

110

Butts-Mehre Heritage Hall

Butts-Mehre Heritage Hall was constructed in 1987; it houses locker rooms, a

weight room, a sports medicine room, historical displays, and administrative space for the

Athletic Association. As a mixed-use facility with several student athlete functions, it is

classified as a student athlete facility in this study. It underwent a $40 million expansion

and renovation which was dedicated in 2011. The expansion and renovation project

resulted in improvements in the weight and sports medicine areas, as well as increasing

meeting space, administrative areas, practice areas, and adding a lounge and outdoor

plaza for student-athletes. The football meeting rooms were equipped with “state-of-the-

art technology,” approximately 20,500 square feet were dedicated for strength and

conditioning and athletic training areas, and approximately 1,900 square feet were

dedicated to a student athlete lounge, with televisions, game stations, and several types of

seating; graphics were added throughout the building “trumpeting Georgia’s academic

and athletic success” (University of Georgia Athletics, February 11, 2011).

The design professionals for the expansion and renovation project were Menefee

+ Winer Architects / Menefee Architecture. According to Menefee Architecture, this

facility serves as “museum for the fan base, fundraising inspiration for proud alumni, a

story-telling opportunity to preserve Bulldog tradition, a recruiting tool for future players,

teaching/strategy building spaces for both the coaches and the team, and a consolidated

destination for football practice and training” (Menefee Architecture, 2018). According

to Associate Athletic Director of Internal Operations Josh Brooks, some of the

focused on spectator access to concessions and restrooms. In the past ten years,

approximately $20 million has been spent on renovations to Stegeman.

111

motivations for the renovation and expansion were flexibility with practice schedules,

increased functionality, and additional luxuries for the football program (Dillard, January

31, 2011). One of the most highly publicized parts of the project was the film database

and video system, “a state-of-the-art system that rivals that of any college or professional

football program in the country”; accordingly, “many staffers said they believe the

upgrade in technology will provide an edge on the football field and in the world of

recruiting student-athletes” (Dillard, January 31, 2011). The Director of Athletics in

2011, Greg McGarity, indicated that “‘The new football areas are cutting edge and state-

of-the-art, and they will give us an advantage in practices and game preparation as well as

with recruiting. The other changes will help make our building more functional for the

day-to-day operations of our various departments. We could not be happier with the way

all of this has come together’” (University of Georgia Athletics, February 11, 2011).

The University of Georgia Board of Regents approved the request to expand and

renovate the facility in its June 10, 2009, meeting (Cofer, 2009). The project was funded

through the Athletic Association; approximately half of the money for the project came

from private donations, and the remainder was bonded debt (Red and Black, 2009). A

single donor contributed $10 million (The Red and Black Archives, 2009).

Indoor Practice Facility

Indoor practice facilities are student athlete facilities. Georgia’s indoor practice

facility (the William Porter Payne and Porter Otis Payne Indoor Athletic Facility) was

dedicated in February 2017. The 102,306 square foot structure is climate controlled and

opens onto the football practice fields. The new facility includes a 100-yard football

112

practice field, a 65-meter track, jumping pits, and a netting system to allow indoor

practices for multiple groups simultaneously. The indoor practice facility is technically a

multi-use facility that will support 21 varsity teams and hundreds of student athletes.

According to University President Jere Morehead, “Working together, we are fulfilling

our commitment to provide our student-athletes with the tools and resources they need to

succeed at the highest levels—from conference and national championships to Olympic

competition on the international stage” (Morehead, 2018).

Georgia was the last SEC school to build an indoor practice facility, which may

have been used negatively against them in football recruiting. As Seth Emerson (2017),

noted, “Georgia was famously the last SEC school to get a full-length indoor facility.”

Administrators believe that the indoor practice facility has helped Georgia in football

recruiting; head football coach Kirby Smart noted, “It helped a lot in recruiting”

(Weiszer, February 15, 2017). The indoor practice facility was completely funded by

private gifts, at a cost of $30.2 million (University of Georgia, 2017; Morehead, 2018).

According to Athletic Director Greg McGarity, the facility “will provide a first

class, state of the art practice environment that will benefit our sports and student-athletes

for decades to come” (University of Georgia, February 14, 2017). Head football coach

Kirby Smarted noted, “This new indoor facility is a remarkable addition to our overall

football footprint. It opens many new doors for the opportunity our student-athletes will

have to practice not only in adverse weather conditions but also provides a first-class

working environment for parts of our strength and conditioning and nutrition programs”

(University of Georgia, February 14, 2017). University President Jere Morehead called

113

the new facility “a world-class facility that supports the training needs of our more than

600 outstanding student-athletes” (Morehead, 2018).

Rankin M. Smith, Sr. Student-Athlete Academic Center

The Rankin M. Smith, Sr. Student-Athlete Academic Center is also a student

athlete facility; opening in the fall of 2002, the $6.7 million, 31,000 square foot facility

includes computer labs, classrooms, tutoring room, a writing center, a counselor’s office,

and a large assembly area that can seat 250 people. This project was funded in part by a

$3.5 million gift from the Smith family.

Several motivations exist for this facility. First, in order to play in games, student

athletes must be academically eligible; this is particularly significant in football given the

amount of money that is implicated by wins and losses (Steinberg, November 2, 2006).

Beyond the motivation of eligibility, Georgia encourages student athletes to succeed

academically. In 2012, 11 Georgia teams were among the top five in the SEC in NCAA

Academic Progress Rate, which measures eligibility, retention, and graduation of student

athletes. Director of Athletics Greg McGarity credited the teamwork between student

athletes and the Rankin Smith Center for this achievement, which he called “‘a combined

effort of excellence’” (University of Georgia Athletics, June 20, 2012). Additionally, the

Rankin M. Smith Center “is one of the things the Athletic Association uses to improve

the graduation rates” and “to develop a culture that supports its athletes off the field in

accordance with NCAA rules” (Steinberg, November 2, 2006). According to Ted White,

Director of Academic Support Services, student athletes at Georgia are pushed to

graduate in four years; he further noted that “the purpose of study halls and tutoring is to

114

develop solid work habits students will use when they move on to upper division

courses” (Steinberg, November 2, 2006).

Finally, all Division I institutions are required by NCAA rules to have academic

counseling and tutoring services available to student athletes, as per Rule 16.3.1.1:

“Member institutions shall make general academic counseling and tutoring services

available to all student-athletes. Such counseling and tutoring services may be

provided by the department of athletics or the institution’s non-athletics student support

services. In addition, an institution, conference or the NCAA may finance other academic

support, career counseling or personal development services that support the success of

student-athletes (NCAA, 2017, p. 224).

A 2006 Georgia press release discussed the importance of athletic facilities

generally, focusing on student athlete facilities:

One of the most crucial needs of the UGA Athletic Association is private support

for the maintenance, renovation and construction of our athletic facilities. The

elite athlete of today demands the finest in athletic facilities and equipment. For

recruiting purposes especially, it is essential that Georgia's facilities meet or

exceed the expectations of prospective student-athletes and compare favorably to

our competitor schools. As always, maintaining facilities and strategically

planning for the future is an ongoing process (University of Georgia Athletics,

June 22, 2006).

The release specifically noted the recent completion of the Smith Academic Center:

“With the recent completion of the Rankin M. Smith Academic Center for all student-

115

athletes, Men's and Women's Tennis clubhouses, and a clubhouse for Women's Soccer

and Softball, in addition to the new Stegeman Coliseum Annex, Georgia Athletics boasts

some of the newest facilities in the Southeastern Conference and the nation” (University

of Georgia Athletics, June 22, 2006).

Georgia’s Athletic Finances Generally

In comparison to many other Power Five institutions, the University of Georgia

Athletic Association is fiscally healthy. The Athletic Association, a private nonprofit

corporation with a corporate board, finished the 2017 fiscal year with a surplus of over $4

million (University of Georgia, 2017; Shearer, 2017). Operating expenses for 2017 were

$119.1 million, while operating revenues were $130.3 million. The primary sources of

revenue were football tickets (over $25 million), conference distributions (over $38

million), and contributions that ticket holders pay above the cost of the tickets that they

purchase (Shearer, 2017).

Analysis and Conclusions

Sanford Stadium

Sanford Stadium underwent several expansion and renovations projects in the

contemporary period. Three of the projects were focused on seating: two of the projects

added premium seating, and one of the projects added regular seating. The major

motivation for all three of these projects was the need for increased seating; there was a

high demand for more seats, both premium seating and regular seating. An additional

motivation was revenue generation. Because all seating in Sanford Stadium requires a

116

certain annual donation, increasing the number of seats automatically increases revenue,

in addition to the fact that each seat must be purchased by the seat holder.

One of the projects (Reed Plaza) was related to patron amenities and comfort.

The primary motivations for this project were improving the amenities available in the

north portion of the stadium, improving the circulation of fans in the north portion of the

stadium, and improving the appearance of the north portion of the stadium. The final

project (the West End Zone) is focused on student athlete comfort and recruiting. The

primary motivations of this project are the locker rooms and recruiting space for game

day use.

What we know about the motivations for venue expansion and renovation projects

in the contemporary period is represented by Figure 4.4:

Figure 4.4: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletic Venue Construction or

Renovation in the 21

Century

117

The motivations for the Sanford Stadium expansion and renovation projects in the

contemporary period are represented by Figure 4.5:

Figure 4.5: Motivations for Sanford Stadium Expansion and Renovation in the 21

Century

Some of the motivations for the Sanford Stadium projects in the contemporary

period are comparable to what was known about 21

century venue construction,

including concerns about competition, recruiting, and the facilities arms race, as well as

fundraising and revenue motivations. The other two motivations, the need for additional

seats and the improvement of the fan experience, are likely not unique to Georgia but

118

may be unique to certain types of institutions. The need for additional seating is a

motivation for programs that have been successful. In the contemporary period, most

schools have not found it necessary to add seating, as college football attendance has

actually declined over the course of the 21

century. From 2016-17, “attendance at

games played by FBS teams as a whole…dropped 3 percent,” and for the first time in the

history of recorded attendance at college football games, college football attendance has

declined on average nationally for four consecutive years (Bonesteel, February 13, 2017).

This trend has not affected Georgia and a small group of additional schools; in fact,

NCAA research indicates that Georgia’s all game attendance (home and away games) for

2017 was second nationally, while their home game average attendance was ninth

nationally at 92,746, which is the full capacity of Sanford Stadium (NCAA, 2018).

Student Athlete Facilities

Georgia also undertook several significant student athlete facilities projects in the

contemporary period. The primary motivations for the Butts-Mehre Heritage Hall project

were increased functionality and recruiting. The primary motivations for the Rankin M.

Smith, Sr. Student-Athlete Academic Center project were student athlete eligibility for

athletic participation, student athlete academic success, and recruiting. The primary

motivations for the William Porter Payne and Porter Otis Payne Indoor Athletic Facility

were recruiting and increased functionality.

Figure 4.6 represents what is known about the motivations for student athlete

facilities in the contemporary period:

119

Figure 4.6: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletics Student Athlete Facilities in the

Century

Figure 4.6 represents what we know about the motivations for student athlete

facilities projects at Georgia specifically in the contemporary period:

120

Figure 4.6: Motivations for Intercollegiate Athletics Student Athlete Facilities at

Georgia in the 21

Century

The primary difference between what is known about the motivations for student

athlete facilities as opposed to the motivations at Georgia specifically relates to the

availability of conference funding. However, Georgia does have access to a high level of

conference funding. It is not unreasonable to assume that this funding, and their financial

situation generally, has encouraged the student athlete facilities projects in the

contemporary period. However, the data does not implicitly reveal that motivation.

121

Additionally, concerns about increased functionality in student athlete facilities appears

to have been a primary factor in student athlete facilities projects at Georgia in the

contemporary period. This is not a motivation that is emphasized in the literature.

Project Funding

All of the Sanford Stadium projects utilized bond funding, though gifts were also

involved in some of the projects, most notably the West End Zone project. As previously

noted, the premium and regular seating expansions were motivated, in part, by a simple

need for more seating, as demand was extremely high in the late 20

and 21

centuries.

As a result, a level of security existed as to being able to make the bond payments easily.

Because of their high attendance at games, and because of conference funding, Georgia

can afford to carry out projects that are focused purely on improving the fan experience

without accumulating tremendous debt; many other schools do not have that luxury.

There was little risk involved in the accumulation of the debt that did occur.

Furthermore, Georgia’s athletic reserves allow them to take on debt with a security

blanket should attendance decline for any reason. Finally, the conference payout that

Georgia receives annually guarantees a substantial income that can be utilized for bond

payments. The student athlete facilities projects in the contemporary period were funded

primarily by gifts, and the indoor practice facility was funded fully by gifts. The

remainder was paid for by bonded debt and athletic reserves.

Figure 4.8 illustrates the theoretical model developed in the early part of this

study to help illustrate the factors that may be taken into consideration for intercollegiate

athletic facilities funding decisions in the contemporary period:

122

Figure 4.8: Theoretical Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding

Decisions

Factors

Motivations Support Culture Types

Figure 4.9 represents the factors that appear to have influenced funding decision

for athletic facilities projects at Georgia in the contemporary period.

123

Figure 4.9: Model of Intercollegiate Athletic Facilities Funding Decisions at Georgia

The data related to funding for athletic facilities at Georgia reveals a slightly

different configuration than the hypothesized configuration. The type of facility is a key

factor, as hypothesized. The Sanford Stadium projects were funded primarily by bonded

debt, while the student athlete facilities were funded primarily by gifts. This is a key

difference that appears to be based on type of facility. However, the hypothesized model

included culture and support as separate considerations. At Georgia, these two

considerations appear to be so closely related as to be considered one factor. The culture,

as illustrated by the attendance at games and the high need for seats, impacts the support,

both in terms of annual giving and in terms of project specific gifts, such as the indoor

practice facility. The perceived need, or motivations, for the facility, also appears to

impact funding decisions. Facilities that are motivated primarily by recruiting appear to

124

be more likely to receive gift and athletic reserve funding. Facilities that are motivated

by other factors, such as fan need, are more likely to be funded by bonded debt.

Confirmation of Conclusions via Interview

The conclusions discussed above were confirmed, in part, via an interview with

an athletic administrator at Georgia. The interview participant for this study was selected

via a multi-part process. In the first part of the process, the researcher identified an

administrator (Administrator A) at the subject institution that had a working knowledge

of athletic facilities construction and decision making based on his publicly available job

description. Administrator A was then recruited for the study by email. Administrator A

responded to the email by contacting the researcher via telephone. Administrator A

indicated during that telephone call that due to his short tenure with the subject institution

that he would be unable to provide most of the information sought for the study.

However, he recommended two other administrators that he thought would be better

suited to be participants: Administrator B and Administrator C. Administrator B was

subsequently contacted by email and was later interviewed. Administrator C was no

longer a university employee when the recommendation was received from Administrator

A. A fourth potential interview candidate, Administrator D, was also contacted for a

potential interview based on job title, tenure, and experience, however, Administrator D

accepted a position at another institution during the research process and declined to be

interviewed.

The interview was recorded via handwritten notes. As Lincoln and Guba (1985)

noted, “…the advantages of handwritten notes are impressive” and include careful

125

attendance to what is being said and interpolation of questions and comments onto the

paper; Lincoln and Guba in fact recommend the use of handwritten notes (p. 272).

Administrator B was interviewed by telephone, as per his request, due to his extremely

demanding work travel schedule. According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), the researcher

should use an unstructured interview technique when the interviewer “does not know

what he or she doesn’t know” and a structured interview when the interviewer “knows

what he or she does not know and can therefore frame appropriate questions to find it

out” (p. 269). Because confirmation, as well as further information, was sought from the

interview participant, a semi-structured technique was utilized for the interview. Lincoln

and Guba (1985) suggested five steps in interviewing which were utilized during this

interview: selecting the participant, preparation, “initial moves”/creating a relaxed

atmosphere, “pacing the interview and keeping in productive, and ending the interview

(pp. 270-271).

The interview began with casual conversation about Administrator B’s current

work related travel and the weather to increase familiarity and the comfort level between

the interviewer and interview participant. This was the “initial moves” portion of the

interview as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985). Next, the interviewer requested that

the interview participant discuss the West End Zone project; the interview participant

focused on funding in his initial discussion of this project, as he is intimately involved in

that process. He indicated that a large portion of the desired $53 million in gifts had been

raised and that there was confidence, based in part on the success in fundraising for the

indoor practice facility, that the remainder would be raised. He did note, however, that

126

bonded debt is always a concern: “It’s gotten to be an arms race. If people stop coming

to games or watching them on tv, it’s going to be a problem” (Administrator B, personal

communication, October 18, 2017).

He suggested, in response to a question about motivations for facilities, that both

the West End Zone project and the indoor practice facility project were motivated in large

part by recruiting. For the indoor practice facility in particular, he stated that “we are one

of the last schools to get one,” and, as a result, “we are at a disadvantage” (Administrator

B, personal communication, October 18, 2017). He stated that “we were able to sell this”

(the fact that Georgia was the last school in the conference to build an indoor practice

facility) to raise the money to build it (Administrator B, personal communication,

October 18, 2017). He further noted that “the need may not be as critical as we think, but

you can’t think how you think, you have to think how recruits think. Kids see what

Clemson and Alabama are doing, and they measure what you are doing. It’s gotten to be

an arms race” (Administrator B, personal communication, October 18, 2017).

Increased functionality was also a key motivation for the indoor practice facility,

primarily due to the potential for difficult weather: “Lightning is a concern for practice.

We had to bus to the Falcons’ facility, which is about an hour away, when we knew the

weather would be really bad. You can potentially lose a whole day of practice with bad

weather” (Administrator B, personal communication, June 19, 2018). According to the

interview participant, this type of concern is of a modern nature: “In the old days, Coach

Dooley or Coach Howard at Clemson may not have worried about a lightning strike; now

127

you have to worry about that” (Administrator B, personal communication, June 19,

2018).

The interview with Administrator B confirmed conclusions derived from the data

that recruiting, the arms race, and increased functionality are primary motivations in both

venue and student athlete facilities projects.

128

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Conclusions from this Study

The four essential tasks involved in writing history are description, explanation,

argument, and interpretation (Megill, 2007). In this study, the purpose of chapter one

was to serve as introduction and overview, while chapter two served as discussion of

methods. Chapters three and four included description, explanation, and some argument

as to the two embedded cases, the interwar period and the contemporary period. The

present chapter also includes argument, as well as interpretation.

The purpose of this study was to understand more about how

A) types of facilities,

B) motivations for facilities, and

C) facilities-related financials evolved at the subject institution.

As Popkin (2016) noted, “history is one of the disciplines that can help us understand

human behavior” (p. 18). The research questions, which are how and why questions

related to the football facilities at the University of Georgia, evolved from this purpose.

The research questions of this study were as follows:

1) How do types of intercollegiate athletic facilities and the motivations for those

facilities compare between the interwar and 21

century periods at the subject

institution?

2) How did funding models for intercollegiate athletic facilities at the subject

institution change between these two eras and why?

129

The research questions were formulated to consider multiple causality within the

context of the cases under consideration: “Viewing history through the lens of multiple

causality is a basic ingredient of thinking historically” (Furay and Salevouris, 2010, p.

41). This study contributes to the field of knowledge related to intercollegiate athletic

facilities through a detailed, long-term consideration of the subject institution. This type

of study is important because there is little empirical research, as opposed to assumptions

that are commonly made, relating to the motivations for the construction and funding of

intercollegiate athletic facilities. Additionally, while intercollegiate athletic facilities

expenditures are often noted, discussed, and criticized by various stakeholders, there is

little research to help us understand how funding models are created and operate in

intercollegiate athletic facilities spending. This study offers a detailed examination of

how one program made, and is making, decisions relating to athletic facilities

construction.

The study considered the initial period of widespread athletic facilities

construction, the interwar period, as well as the most recent period of widespread athletic

facilities construction, from 2000-2017, at the University of Georgia. Georgia was

chosen as the setting for this study for several reasons. As an initial matter, there was a

high probability that relevant, useable data from historical sources would be available for

the University of Georgia since it is the flagship institution of the State of Georgia and

because the University maintains a substantial collection of University of Georgia-related

materials in their archives and special collections library. Many of those records are

directly related to Steadman Sanford, the party most historians agree is primarily

130

responsible for the planning of the stadium. Additionally, Georgia constructed their

stadium during the first target chronological period for the study, the interwar period, and

this facility is still in use. Georgia has also made significant football facilities investment

in the contemporary period, and, as a result, significant data was almost assured through

Georgia as the selected site.

This study proceeded as a case study examining the University of Georgia’s

football facilities, with two embedded cases, the chronological periods. Data was

gathered and analyzed for each time period. Conclusions were drawn for each research

question for each period. The primary objective in case study research is the

understanding of the chosen case, not understanding other cases; however, “people can

learn much that is general from single cases” (Stake, 1995, pp. 4 and 85).

Historical research is part of this study because it allows consideration of a period

outside the present: “Historical method is a process for determining what really happened

and what the significance of past happenings was (and is)” (Krentz, 2002, p. 45). Even

though “historians will interpret the past differently” from one another, “…in all cases

their accounts must be based on…available relevant evidence” (Furay and Salevouris,

2010, p. 16). This study was based on several types of records from the two embedded

cases, so that each case could be described and discussed, both independently and in

comparison to one another. Historians may not merely assert that statements are true;

instead, historians must “put forward arguments and evidence that justify our agreeing

that the claims in question are true” (Megill, 2007, p. xii).

131

Research Question One: Types of Facilities

During the interwar period, the University of Georgia constructed Sanford

Stadium, an on-campus football stadium that held seating for 30,000 people, a significant

total at the time, particularly for the South. This project was consistent with national

trends at the time; during the interwar period, most institutions that are currently

members of Power Five conferences constructed an on-campus stadium.

During the modern period, the University of Georgia has engaged several football

facilities projects. Sanford Stadium has undergone five significant renovations and

expansions. Additionally, several student athlete facilities have been constructed,

renovated, or expanded, including Butts-Mehre Heritage Hall, the William Porter Payne

and Porter Otis Payne Indoor Athletic Facility, and the Rankin M. Smith, Sr. Student-

Athlete Academic Center.

The dramatically expanded athletic facilities construction at the University of

Georgia, when comparing the two embedded cases, is indicative of the growth of

intercollegiate athletics, and football in particular, at this institution and nationally.

College football is, at the University of Georgia, a producer of enormous revenue. When

Sanford Stadium was constructed, the Athletic Association at the University of Georgia

had to rely on alumni guarantors to secure the loan for the stadium. In contrast, the

Athletic Association’s reserve at the conclusion of the 2017 fiscal year was in excess of

$45 million, with total assets valued at nearly $375 million (University of Georgia, 2017).

The growth of college football, particularly at the Power Five institutions, has

created environments in which more money can be spent on athletic facilities,

132

particularly those related to football. This growth in revenue and spending explains the

changes and diversification in types of facilities between the two cases. Additionally, the

concept of the “arms race” in intercollegiate athletic facilities has become more

prominent in the modern period. The increased competition among institutions for high-

level recruits has fostered an environment of facilities spending that shows no signs of

decreasing in the immediate future.

Research Question Two: Motivations for Facilities