Ad ‘value equivalency.’ Will football really return $1B to Sac State? | Opinion
On Feb. 19, when the Sacramento State Faculty Senate met to discuss the state of the university, members heard a somber presentation by Provost Erika Cameron on a structural financial deficit that continues to weigh down the institution. Spending on faculty salaries within the academic affairs budget is down more than 8% this fiscal year, or $13 million.
Only a few days earlier, University President Luke Wood announced that Sac State’s football team would join a higher division conference at a reported price tag of $23 million. The university framed this spending as an investment.
Wood’s logic? Joining the Mid-American Conference, the university contends based on a specially commissioned study, will generate more than $1 billion in “value” over five years. The athletic department’s website says that athletic economic impact increases to $975 million, while national broadcast valuation grows to $675 million and game day revenue grows to $46 million.
Wood’s rosy financial picture appears to be hanging on a financial analysis of joining the MAC from an organization in Georgia called Collegiate Consulting. A review of its staff’s credentials finds no degrees in, say, economics. So the credibility of the study is a first red flag.
Sacramento State has repeatedly refused to provide The Sacramento Bee with a copy of the actual study. That’s a second issue — an unwillingness by a public institution to provide the public information to back up what it says.
The biggest problem, however, appears to be how the Wood administration is valuing the benefit of playing football in the MAC.
Hundreds of millions in value are anchored in an economic methodology so controversial and discredited that experts around the world have discouraged using it in cases like this.
Here’s a real-world example: How should Sacramento State quantify the worth of, say, 10 minutes of banter about the Hornets during a 3½-hour football game, regardless of what the commentators are actually saying — win or devastating loss?
Under an approach known as advertising value equivalency, or AVE, that banter gets converted into real dollars, such as what it would cost to buy that same 10 minutes of airtime with real money.
This method fails the credibility test of the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication, which has advised for 16 years against using AVE to calculate the value of public relations. Far more meaningful would be a study that attempts to measure tangible economic outcomes, such as higher ticket sales.
As for the MAC, a respected source of factual financial information — the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics — reveals massive subsidies when it comes to athletics.
Ticket sales for all sports for a typical MAC university in the latest available year, for example, average less than $1 million per institution. Revenues from the NCAA and media rights are less than $4 million. The typical overall budget: $24 million.
Where does most of the money come from? The universities themselves and student fees.
Which brings us back to that Senate Faculty meeting.
Wood’s breathtaking portrayal of college football’s benefits underscores how Sacramento State is fast becoming a case study in alternate universes when it comes to its finances and future.
There is the traditional campus with its chronic budget woes that bodies like the Faculty Senate continue to confront.
And now there is this promised land of value and opportunity that Wood says he has created by having the Hornets play in the higher stratosphere of the Football Bowl Subdivision, which includes the MAC and other top-level programs. Wood’s future includes renovating the horse racing grandstands and track at Cal Expo into a new home for the team, yet another expense with no details behind it.
Something is going to give in the coming months.
The next Faculty Senate meeting, scheduled for March 5, should start with a full detailing from the president.
He needs to explain why spending on faculty salaries is down, while football spending is up.
He needs to explain how all this begins to pencil out in positive ways for the university, without the massive university and student contributions customary of Sac State’s new peers in the MAC.
The day of reckoning is coming, and it’s going to be ugly.
Unless Wood can prove otherwise. Which will require him releasing Sac State’s agreement with the MAC, the financial analysis he’s using to justify spending $23 million on football, and any other related documents.
The fact this has yet to happen speaks volumes.
A previous version of this column misstated the combined economic benefits Sacramento State projects from joining the Mid-American Conference. The accurate projection is at slightly more than $1 billion.
This story was originally published February 25, 2026 at 11:28 AM.