Virginia football experienced what might be the worst loss of the past two decades Saturday — a sobering 26-14 blow dealt by in-state “rival” William & Mary. The last time Virginia lost to a team from the Football Championship Subdivision, formerly known as Division 1-AA, was 1986. The opponent was the same.
Unfortunately, such losses have bigger effects than just bruised egos. Though one embarrassing defeat will not have long-lasting repercussions, such an event can underscore fundamental problems with a team. When that team plays football, the strongest revenue-generator of all collegiate sports, trivial athletic concerns can suddenly mean serious woes for the college itself.
Virginia athletics on the whole has no great crisis. The 2009 Director’s Cup, a competition that judges each college’s overall sports program, ranked the University eighth nationally in its final standings. The baseball team won the ACC title en route to its first-ever College World Series appearance. Many other Virginia squads also captured conference championships.
When college sports are thought of as successful business ventures, however, only two make the cut: football and men’s basketball. Both produce more income than they consume and receive the bulk of media attention. Therefore, when Virginia consistently underperforms at both sports, the perception is (wrongly) that University athletics in general are inferior.     Furthermore, poor showings in the revenue sports translate to disadvantages in two key areas: financial opportunities and marketing power. The immediate effect is lost revenue from reduced ticket sales. Lower attendance at games also adversely affects the local economy by bringing in less business for Charlottesville stores and restaurants. The longer-term outcomes of a weak athletics program are reduced donations and dwindling alumni support. This result damages more than just the Virginia Athletics Foundation. Sports are a rallying point to maintain connections with alumni and to reenergize their affiliation with the University. When this opportunity is lost, the effects can be catastrophic.
The marketing component of college sports cannot be overlooked either. A barrage of appearances on national television, in prestigious bowl games and in media commentary — think newspapers, sports radio and the Internet — is an obvious source of free advertising for the University. In 2000, the year after Michael Vick led the Hokies to an undefeated regular season and a national championship appearance, applications to Virginia Tech increased 14 percent. Some call it coincidence, but it could very well be the result of relentless media attention, let alone the fact that some people prefer winning football programs.
Naturally, we would all like to think that prospective students are not easily swayed by football wins. That should be especially true for students considering an academically competitive school like the University. Still, the “brand name” factor should not be denied. There is little question that a larger applicant pool would be beneficial, affording the University greater selectivity and the opportunity to pursue more diversity in its incoming class. The University’s brand need not hinge on athletics — Ivy League schools have built reputations exogenous to sports — but the University must recognize that poor performance in revenue-generating sports can be severely detrimental. A fine model to follow is that of Duke, an academic powerhouse that is enhanced by its strong, nationally-recognized men’s basketball program.
This is not an endorsement of the professionalization of college sports. Nevertheless, the value of a winning football program is undeniable, and recognizing this does not have to compromise the University’s academic mission. If the University seeks to strengthen and secure its reputation among America’s premier higher education institutions, officials must address the revenue-generating sports’ glaring flaws.