Friday 151113

Snatch Pull

70% x2
75% x2
80% x2
85% x2
90% x2

5 x5 @90%

From The Huffington Post

stadium eruption illustration

Sports At Any Cost

How College Students Are Bankrolling The Athletics Arms Race

SUNDAY, NOV. 15, 2015, 8:00 PM EDT

Deep within the stadium, the team gathered for a college football ritual. The marching band gave its cue, and the players bounded through a long tunnel, a blue and white blur, pumping fists and high-fiving students who had gathered to cheer.

For a few moments, it was possible to believe that the team’s enthusiasm would be met by the roar of spectators and the full pageantry of gameday in the deep South. But then the tunnel ended, and the team, the Georgia State Panthers, emerged into the largely empty 70,000-seat Georgia Dome, home of the NFL’s Atlanta Falcons.

An announced crowd of 10,252 clustered at midfield clapped politely. But a few minutes after kickoff of this season-opening game, after the home team had fumbled the ball on its opening possession, all the energy had left the building.

The Panthers, now in their sixth season, haven’t given fans much reason to celebrate. In the 2013 and 2014 seasons, competing at the highest level of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the team recorded just a single victory. Average attendance last year was among the 10 worst in the NCAA’s top level. Yet Georgia State’s 32,000 students are still required to cover much of the costs. Over the past five years, students have paid nearly $90 million in mandatory athletic fees to support football and other intercollegiate athletics — one of the highest contributions in the country.

A river of cash is flowing into college sports, financing a spending spree among elite universities that has sent coaches’ salaries soaring and spurred new discussions about whether athletes should be paid. But most of that revenue is going to a handful of elite sports programs, leaving colleges like Georgia State to rely heavily on students to finance their athletic ambitions.

In the past five years, public universities pumped more than $10.3 billion in mandatory student fees and other subsidies into their sports programs, according to an examination by The Huffington Post and The Chronicle of Higher Education. The review included an inflation-adjusted analysis of financial reports provided to the NCAA by 201 public universities competing in Division I, information that was obtained through public records requests. The average athletic subsidy these colleges and their students have paid to their athletics departments increased 16 percent during that time. Student fees, which accounted for nearly half of all subsidies, increased by 10 percent.

Many universities are demanding that their students pay more to support sports at the same time they are raising tuition, forcing many students to take out bigger loans to pay the bill.

Student fee increases have sparked campus protests at some institutions, and have drawn criticism from lawmakers in some states. A few elite athletic programs bring in so much revenue that they do not require student fees or other subsidies, and some even return cash back to their universities. At the other end of the spectrum are five universities in Virginia, including the College of William & Mary, that charged students an athletics fee that exceeded $1,500 a year during 2014-15, more than most students spend on their annual cell phone bills.

Maxcy quote750

The HuffPost/Chronicle analysis found that subsidization rates tend to be highest at colleges where ticket sales and other revenue is the lowest — meaning that students who have the least interest in their college’s sports teams are often required to pay the most to support them.

Many colleges that heavily subsidize their athletic departments also serve poorer populations than colleges that can depend more on outside revenue for sports. The 50 institutions with the highest athletic subsidies averaged 44 percent more Pell Grant recipients than the 50 institutions with the lowest subsidies during 2012-13, the most recent year available.

At Georgia State, athletic fees totaled $17.6 million in 2014, from a student population in which nearly 60 percent qualify for Pell Grants, the federal aid program for low-income students. The university contributed another $3 million in direct support to its sports programs. All told, those subsidies represented about three-fourths of the athletics budget.

Georgia State is far from an outlier. Last year, sports programs at 47 other public colleges reviewed by The Chronicle and HuffPost were even more dependent on fees and other institutional support as a percentage of their athletic budget.

The growing schism between have and have-not colleges, and the reluctance of universities that rely heavily on subsidies to scale back their spending, has alarmed professors, presidents and even college coaches, who are raising new questions about the long-term viability of major college athletics.

“There’s no one to put the brakes on them,” says Joel Maxcy, a Drexel University economist who studies college sports. “There’s no one to say, ‘No, this is not a sound investment.’”

A Hail Mary

Georgia State, a commuter college located in a largely vacant stretch of downtown Atlanta, had long resisted a move into big-time athletics. Carl Patton, the university’s former president, says students began asking him to add football soon after he took the job, in the early 1990s. For years, he told them: “Not in my lifetime.”

At the time, the university had a series of aging classroom buildings and no on-campus housing. Patton, who retired from the presidency in 2008, oversaw the addition of a student recreation center, a library renovation and the construction of the first dormitories.

As the university evolved into a more traditional campus, Patton reconsidered his earlier opposition to football and commissioned a feasibility study from outside consultants. The study said that the addition of a football program could yield “many intangible benefits,” such as building a sense of community for students.

Most-Subsidized Colleges

Nearly 130 athletic departments rely on subsidies for over half their revenue. Search for a university below or compare them using our Subsidy Scorecards.

Source: 2010-2014 NCAA Financial Reports

All values adjusted for inflation. Read our methodolgy here.

But the report also cautioned that adding football was a gamble, requiring a near doubling of the student athletic fee and straining the university’s finances. “Budget issues raise serious concerns about the feasibility of a successful, self-sustaining program,” the report concluded.

One big problem: Georgia State had almost no history of philanthropy, with donations accounting for just 1 percent of its athletics budget.

Before greenlighting football, the university secured a $1 million commitment from donors to help start a team. The team started playing in 2010 in the Colonial Athletic Association, which competes in the Football Championship Subdivision, the lower of the two Division I football tiers. Soon after, during a wave of conference realignment, Georgia State got an invitation to move into the big leagues.

Bill Curry is a former head football coach at the University of Alabama and Georgia Tech. He led Georgia State’s football team in its first three seasons. Curry says his fledgling team was not ready to move, but that he ultimately agreed to the change and generally supports the university’s investment in the sport. In 2013, Georgia State joined the NCAA’s Football Bowl Subdivision, a group that includes elite powers like Ohio State University, which won the national championship last season.

Since joining the NCAA’s top level, the Panthers have gone 3-29. Curry says he feels bad for the players, but he understands the university’s motivation: Colleges like Georgia State feel tremendous pressure to seize opportunities to enhance their status. As much as anything, he says, it was a play for prestige.

“In America, and especially in sports, you’re not allowed an intelligent timeline,” he says. “You’ve got to take one that launches you so you’re on [ESPN’s] GameDay sooner.”

Curry says his experience at Georgia State led him to believe that some colleges are making “fundamentally flawed” business decisions in a desire to compete at the highest level.

At many mid-tier and smaller institutions, these decisions are fueled by a pressure to keep up with better-financed peers, even though the colleges are unable to tap into the same television and licensing money. Just two dozen universities collect nearly half of the $26 billion in revenue that has flowed into the athletic departments of Division I public colleges in the last five years, according to The Chronicle/HuffPost analysis.

Hundreds of colleges are vying to join this rarified group. In the past two decades, 32 universities have made the leap to Division I. Like Georgia State, the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the University of Texas at San Antonio, among others, have added football — the sport with the most potential to lead to big paydays. College leaders say such investments help attract prospective students and build connections with donors and other supporters.

More recently, efforts by the wealthiest universities to take better care of their athletes have put new financial pressures on other colleges. In January, the NCAA approved a change allowing Division I programs to offer athletes aid up to the full cost of attendance, which can amount to thousands of dollars a year to help players pay for living expenses.

Many programs in the five most powerful conferences — the Atlantic Coast, Big 10, Big Twelve, Pac-12 and Southeastern — have agreed to pay out $1 million or more in additional aid each year to finance scholarships.

Colleges have rarely dropped sports or moved to a lower, less-expensive, NCAA level in response to added financial pressures. Those few that have considered reducing their athletic commitment have faced a backlash.

Late last year, the president of the University of Alabama at Birmingham announced that his institution planned to drop football, citing the escalating costs of big-time sports and a $20 million budget shortfall.

Six months later, following a public outcry, the university reversed its decision.

UAB plans to bring back its team in 2017, with renewed support from donors. But the athletic department is still projected to have operating deficits through at least 2020, according to a consultant’s report. And its reliance on subsidies is only growing. This year, the university is expected to subsidize more than two-thirds of the athletics budget.

“There’s this illusion that you can wave a magic wand, build all these fabulous stadiums and facilities, and the money’s going to roll in,” Curry says. But the reality is without consistent success on the field, donors will not write the big checks that colleges need to sustain their programs.

“You’ve got this problem all over the country,” he says. “It really is an epidemic.”

“The University Is Now Complete”

The driving force behind Georgia State football is Mark Becker, who took over as president in 2009. A self-described adrenaline junkie whose hobbies include ice climbing, he was a student at Penn State in the 1980s when it won a national championship in football and later worked at the University of Michigan during a Final Four run in basketball. He has seen how sports success can unite alumni and spark interest in a university.

Curry quote750

He has big plans for Georgia State, and football is only part of them. During his seven years there, the university has helped revitalize a dormant part of downtown, buying up abandoned buildings and converting them into high-end spaces to support its growing academic programs, including a law school ranked among the best values in the country.

Georgia State has nearly doubled its research spending in the last few years, to $100 million. Its hands-on approach to student retention has made it a leader in graduating low-income and underrepresented minorities. And its in-state tuition and fees, totaling around $10,000 a year, are about average among public universities.

Its student body, though, is especially sensitive to any extra costs. Pell-eligible students have nearly doubled since 2007, from 32 percent to 59 percent. And in 2012, more than 14,000 Georgia State students had unmet financial need, in some cases more than $15,000 a year. Despite efforts to create a more traditional college atmosphere, about three-fourths of Georgia State students still commute to campus, including many who attend part-time at night. (All fees, including those for athletics, are prorated for students who take fewer than six credit hours.)

While athletic fees have gone up during Becker’s tenure, the overall fee burden for the typical student has not increased. That is partly because the university has retired some other charges that students formerly paid. However, because of a sharp increase in students, overall fee revenue has continued to climb.

Becker says the subsidies are crucial to building a vibrant athletics department and turning Georgia State into a destination campus.

“Great research universities tend to have great athletic programs,” says Becker. With the additions, he says, “the university is now complete.”

The argument that elite universities need elite sports programs is “bogus,” says Nathan Tublitz, a University of Oregon professor and former head of the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics, a faculty-led sports watchdog group. “Schools without teams don’t have any problem getting applications.”

The Chronicle/HuffPost analysis of Division I finances suggests that Becker’s dream will be hard to realize. Very few strivers ever reach the upper echelon.

In 2010, 127 universities subsidized more than half of all costs incurred by their athletics department. In 2014, only five of those institutions had managed to boost outside revenue beyond 50 percent.

The Biggest Donors

On campus, views are mixed about what constitutes a reasonable subsidy, and whether students should foot the bill. Subsidies make possible thousands of athletic scholarships, which often go to low-income students who might otherwise not attend college. Without subsidies, many non-revenue sports like track and field and swimming would probably be cut.

Of the more than 100 faculty leaders at public colleges who responded to an online survey conducted by The Chronicle/HuffPost, a majority said they believe college sports benefit all university students. But they were divided about whether students should pay fees to support their college teams.

“Students are our biggest donors,” says Matthew Streb, a political science professor and the faculty athletics representative at Northern Illinois University, where subsidies account for more than two-thirds of the athletic department’s revenue. (About one-third of the department’s revenue comes from student fees, specifically.) Without that money, he says, universities couldn’t offer as many sports or scholarships as they do.

David Hughes is a Rutgers anthropology professor who has sparred with his administration over ballooning subsidies. His university has spent $172 million in the past five years to underwrite intercollegiate sports, more than any college in the country during that time.

The two major forms of subsidies, he says, undermine universities in separate ways. Growing student fees make college more expensive, while rising institutional support threatens the academic mission. “Add these things together,” he says, “and you have students paying more for a lower quality education.”

Research published in January in the Journal of Sport found that students themselves are often unaware of athletic fees or what they are used to support. The study of 3,500 students in the Mid-American Conference found that more than 40 percent of respondents either didn’t know, or were highly uncertain about, whether they paid athletics fees. Many said they were willing to pay fees for student centers or health care, but in general did not support fees for athletics.

Brea Woods, a 20-year-old junior at Georgia State, said she didn’t know she paid an athletics fee, which costs full-time students $554 a year. “That makes me mad because I’m not an athlete,” said Woods, who has taken out $19,000 to finance her education.

The Drake Group, a faculty-led reform group, has encouragedcolleges to adopt restraints on the use of student fees and other institutional subsidies, proposing that colleges establish a dollar limit on what students must pay.

Some states have also waded into the debate. In July, the state auditor’s office in Utah released a report detailing subsidies at the state’s eight public universities. The report, which found subsidies of 50 percent or greater at all but one institution, stopped short of recommending regulations but raised questions about the extent to which NCAA athletics should be subsidized and how responsible students should be for covering those costs.

Earlier this year, responding to concerns that many of the state’s public universities were putting too much of a financial strain on students, the governor of Virginia signed into law a bill that sets limits on the percentage of athletics budgets that can be funded through student fees. The changes, which don’t go into effect until July 2016, vary by NCAA level.

A Striving Institution

Back in the stadium, in September, Georgia State’s season began on a sour note. The team turned the ball over three times in the first half. In a box high above the field, the president watched with growing discomfort.

Becker faces the same dilemma as administrators of other striving programs. He says he wants to reduce the university’s financial support for athletics to less than half of its budget. But doing so requires a big boost in outside revenue, and there is no easy path to get there.

Serranofranklin quote750

Becker has had some modest success at fundraising: Two years before he started, the athletic department was raising just $100,000 a year in private donations. Last year, it brought in more than $1.5 million. But less than $70,000 was earmarked for football. And the team still spends $4.2 million more than it brings in.

The men’s basketball team had a brief moment in the spotlight in the spring, after it knocked off heavily favored Baylor University in the NCAA tournament and a clip of its coach falling out of his chair in excitement went viral. But converting an indelible sports achievement into sustained success — and more revenue — remains a huge hurdle.

Hank Huckaby, chancellor of the University System of Georgia, was seated near the president in his suite. He said he remains skeptical about the viability of the football program.

He has two degrees from Georgia State and was not a proponent of adding football. His biggest concern is the financial burden on students. He says he fields as many complaints about overall student fees as any issue.

Becker’s bold idea to reduce the subsidy: spend even more on athletics. He wants to build a football stadium for his team about a mile from campus. He envisions a modern 25,000- to 30,000-seat facility that offers a livelier game-day environment. He also wants a baseball field and a soccer field, retail shops and student housing. He believes he can secure investments from local real-estate developers and finance more through bonds, a strategy that wouldn’t require a student fee increase.

It might sound crazy — pumping even more money into what has so far been a losing venture — but Becker says students and faculty will get behind him. “As a striving institution,” he says, “taking risk is something people embrace.”

But selling students on the idea of risk is problematic, says William Serrano-Franklin, a master’s student in public administration, because many students won’t be around to see a return on that plan.

“It’s like throwing your chips down on a roulette game,” he says, “and leaving before the ball stops rolling.”

Down on the field, Georgia State mounted a comeback, but ultimately lost 23-20. Becker shook it off.

“At least,” he said, “we won the second half.”

Wednesday 141105

Snatch Balance…heavy single. Between sets, perform 7-10 straight leg DLs (RDLs).  DON’T FORGET YOUR KB SWINGS!

From The Atlantic

Building Better Athletes With More Sleep

Getting enough rest can be a struggle for those who play professional sports. But even among those getting enough, adding a few extra hours may dramatically enhance performance.

Scott Rovak/Reuters

For us humans, sleep is completely crucial to proper functioning. As we’ve all experienced, we’re simply not as adept at anything in our lives if we don’t sleep well. Without proper sleep, whether it’s a short-term or long-term deficit, there are substantial effects on mood, mental and cognitive skills, and motor abilities. When it comes to recovery from hard physical efforts, there’s simply no better treatment than sleep, and a lot of it.

Most research on the effects of sleep on athletes has studied sleep deprivation. And those effects are quite strong. Just like the rest of us, athletes see a drop in their performance across all sorts of measurements if they are kept awake for the entire night, or even just interrupted in their sleep.

It seems like certain kinds of athletic tasks are more affected by sleep deprivation. Although one-off efforts and high-intensity exercise see an impact, sustained efforts and aerobic work seem to suffer an even larger setback. Gross motor skills are relatively unaffected, while athletes in events requiring fast reaction times have a particularly hard time when they get less sleep.

But instead of focusing on the effects of a lack of sleep, it’s more interesting to explore additional sleep as an advantage. If an athlete gets more sleep than his or her competitors, will that lead to an edge? That’s just the question that Stanford researcher Cheri D. Mah set out to answer. She reached out to athletes at her university, trying to find a group that would participate in an experiment in which they would first measure their athletic performance after having their normal amount of sleep, and then spend weeks trying to extend their sleep as much as possible, to see what effect it would have on objective measurements of athletic performance. Amazingly, no one had ever done a study to see the effect of sleep extension on competitive athletes.

The Cardinal men’s basketball team volunteered to be Mah’s study cohort. Eleven players used motion-sensing wristbands to determine how long they slept on average—just over 6.5 hours a night. For two weeks, the team kept to their normal schedules, while Mah’s researchers measured their performances on sprint drills, free throws, and Read more Wednesday 141105

Tuesday 140422

Time to get back to Squatting
for 1 last time…80% of your FSquat 1RM for 4 sets of 4 FSquats/8 BSquats
Complete 10-Straight Leg DLs between each set.
From Upwave

Who The Health Knows: Can Exercising At Night Hurt Your Sleep?

The Rumor: Exercising at night can interfere with a good night’s sleep

Maybe you’re the kind of person who likes to lift weights while watching Late Night With Jimmy Fallon, go running in the park at 10 p.m. or practice Pilates after you’ve digested your dinner. If so, you’ve no doubt heard the rumblings that exercising at night is baaaaad for your sleep. After all, exercising raises your core body temperature, increases your heart rate and prompts your system to release stimulating epinephrine (adrenaline). While those are normally desirable outcomes (they’re kind of the reason you work out in the first place), popular wisdom says that at night, the effects of physical exertion can keep you up hooting with the owls. The question is: Is this true, or is it just a myth invented by people who are looking for an excuse to bail on their after-work workout?

The Verdict: For the most part, exercising at any time of day will help you sleep

There is anecdotal evidence that some people have difficulty falling asleep after vigorous bouts of late-night exercise — and Stuart Quan, MD, the Gerald E. McGinnis professor of sleep medicine at Harvard Medical School and editor-in-chief of, acknowledges that these individuals should be wary of working out too close to bedtime. “Their adrenaline is high, their brain is active, and it’s difficult to wind down,” he says. If you fall into that group and have experienced trouble sleeping after a midnight-hour cardio workout or yoga session, Quan recommends that you give yourself a few hours between workout time and sleepy time. This strategy will allow your body temperature to return to its usual 98.6 degrees, your heartbeat to return to its resting rate and your adrenaline levels to stabilize so you can get your Z’s.

For most people, however, exercising close to bedtime doesn’t appear to adversely affect sleep quality in the slightest. A 2011 study determined that subjects slept just as well on nights when they exercised for 35 minutes right before bed as they did on nights when they didn’t exercise.

And the National Sleep Foundation’s 2013 “Sleep in America” poll, which studied the sleep habits of 1,000 participants, found that an overwhelming majority (83 percent!) of people who exercised at any time of day (yep, including late at night) reported sleeping better than those who didn’t exercise at all. More than 50 percent of vigorous and moderate exercisers slept better on days when they worked out than they did on days when they skipped exercise completely. And only three percent of late-day exercisers said they slept worse on days when they exercised, compared to days when they didn’t.

So if right before bed is the only time when you can squeeze in a workout, do it! Not everyone is a morning go-getter who likes to sprint through the pre-dawn streets, Rocky-style. And even fewer have jobs where lunchtime trips to the gym are feasible (though that would be nice). Getting exercise is almost always better than getting no exercise at all. If nothing else, that’s definitely an idea worth sleeping on

Friday 131108

1400m today on the rower!

Bench Press and Straight Leg DLs (AKA RDL)
Do this “Lynne” style.  Use your Press 1RM for the Bench Press and use 135 lbs (M) / 95 lbs (F) for the Straight Leg DLs

From Business Insider

6 Charts That Show How The War On Fat Was A Gigantic Mistake



The “war” on saturated fat is the biggest mistake in the history of nutrition.  As people have reduced their intake of animal fat and cholesterol, the incidence of many serious diseases has gone up. We are now in the midst of worldwide pandemics of obesity, metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes.

Studies conducted in the past few decades conclusively show that neither saturated fat nor dietary cholesterol cause harm in humans (1234). Scientists are now beginning to realize that the entire low-fat dogma was based on flawed studies that have since been thoroughly debunked.

Here are six graphs that clearly show how incredibly damaging it has been to advise people to reduce their consumption of animal fat.

1. In Europe, the Countries that Eat the Most Saturated Fat Have the Lowest Risk of Heart Disease

saturated fat heart disease in europe

Data from: Hoenselaar R. Further response from Hoenselaar. British Journal of Nutrition, 2012.

Have you ever heard of the “French Paradox“?

It is a phrase used to describe the seemingly “paradoxical” fact that French people have a low risk of heart disease, while eating a diet that is high in saturated fat.

Well … here is the European paradox, where there is simply no correlation between saturated fat consumption and heart disease deaths in different countries in Europe.

If anything, the countries eating more saturated fat have a lower risk of dying from heart disease.

The reason for this is simple, actually … the truth is that saturated fat simply has NOTHING to do with cardiovascular disease. There is no paradox. It was a myth all along (5).

Thanks to Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt for the enhanced graph.

2. The Obesity Epidemic in the USA Started at Almost The Exact Same Time the Low-Fat Dietary Guidelines Were Published

low fat guidelines

Kris Gunnars 
Source: National Center for Health Statistics (US). Health, United States, 2008: With Special Feature on the Health of Young Adults. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics (US); 2009 Mar. Chartbook.

Back in the year 1977, the low-fat diet was recommended to all Americans. Looking back, it is interesting Read more Friday 131108

Monday 090601

Dr. Rick Coaching during our Man Overboard session

From he CrossFit Football Site
On the minute:
Perform 2 Power Cleans on the minute for 15 minutes.

*Start the clock. At the top of every minute perform 2 Power Cleans.
*Use a maximal weight. 80% – 85% of 1 RM
*For every rep not completed, perform 5 Burpees during rest time.


work up to 110% of your Clean 1RM for 3 sets of 3 reps…KEEP A FLAT BACK!