On Sept. 2, 2006, Tennessee will face California in a football season opener that could be billed the "Capital Spending Bowl."

It might be fitting if stadium architects for each university meet at midfield for the coin toss. College sports are fast evolving into a battle of who has the most coins to ante up for facilities, a kind of one-upmanship that NCAA president Myles Brand has termed an "arms race."

Last week, UT's Board of Trustees approved the first phase of a $107.6 million plan to renovate 104,000-seat Neyland Stadium. Within 30 days, Cal is expected to start its own renovation project, with published reports estimating the cost at $140 million.

At both public universities, the stakes are high.

Cal must break ground on its football facilities by Dec. 15, or a buyout clause in the contract of head coach Jeff Tedford will be reduced from $1 million to $500,000. If the football project still has not begun by Dec. 15, 2005, the buyout clause becomes zero, and Tedford also would no longer be bound by a clause preventing him from taking a job at another Pac-10 school.

Tennessee officials say the financial welfare of their athletic department hinges on the massive renovation of Neyland Stadium.

"If we don't spend money on Neyland Stadium, we'll wake up some day and the fans won't want to come there," university trustee Jim Haslam said. "And then we not only won't have a good football program; we won't have other sports either because those sports depend on football."

Noting that the oldest part of UT's stadium dates to 1921, he turned to other trustees sitting at the U-shaped conference table at the University Center last Tuesday.

"If you were in business," Haslam said, "and you had something that was 83 years old - which was making 85 percent of the revenue for your company - and you didn't spend any money on it, they would get a new board of directors for that company."

Point made. Heads around the table nodded in agreement. The following day, the trustees approved phase one of the 10-15 year stadium plan.

Costs not on books Football is the cash cow for most NCAA Division I athletic departments.

In fiscal year 2004, revenues directly attributed to Tennessee's football program were listed as $29 million and expenses were $12.86 million for a surplus of $16.14 million. Additional indirect football money from TV and radio contracts, scholarship fund gifts, concessions, souvenirs and other sources boosted the total revenue figure close to $45 million.

UT athletic director Mike Hamilton says it is the "economic engine" at Tennessee that helps support 11 women's sports and eight other men's sports.

Yet there is concern by leaders in college athletics that increasingly common $50- to $100-million construction projects stretch resources thin, with potentially disastrous consequences.

The average Division I-A athletic department lost $600,000 in fiscal year 2001, the most recent year that operating revenues and expenses were complied by the NCAA. Less than 40 percent of I-A athletic departments reported a net profit from operations.

However, some studies have indicated the percentage of athletic departments that turn a profit is much lower than 40 percent because total construction and renovation costs are not revealed on the accounting books of many athletic departments.

UT officials said capital project expenditures are not on its athletic department's income and expense statements. Approximately half of schools surveyed by the NCAA submit statements that reflect only the debt service (interest) on bonds and loans, and not total capital project costs.

NCAA officials have said that the focus of reforms in college athletics is shifting from academics to the financial realm. The Mellon Foundation is funding research aimed at collecting more accurate data on athletic construction and spending.

Douglas Dibbert, director of alumni affairs at the University of North Carolina, has been a member of the Knight Commission since its inception in 1989. The commission was organized to create a reform agenda in college athletics.

"The data is rather clear that there is an arms race as far as facilities and coaches' compensation,'' Dibbert said when asked his reaction to the Neyland Stadium project.

"Schools are claiming they have to do it to be competitive, and as long as that's the argument, no one is going to disarm.

"There are some who are convinced that this is the mortgaging of the future. As someone said, 'The team better win because they can't afford not to.' Otherwise, they are not going to have the revenue stream to pay back the financing."

Alienating some fans? The keep-up-with-the-Joneses spending spree in college athletics shows no signs of abating. Clemson's athletic department newsletter recently published a list of 13 universities that invested more than $50 million each on football facilities between 1999 and 2004.

As athletic fundraisers tap corporate and wealthy donors for revenue streams, Dibbert says schools run the risk of alienating an increasing number of fans who don't have the means to pay for a day at the stadium.

The 2,000-plus new luxury club seats to be constructed at Neyland Stadium will require one-time gifts of $15,000 to $25,000 per seat, plus an annual contribution of $2,500-$4000.

"One of the things I've been concerned about is that the more we move in the direction of professionalizing college sports, the more college sports puts itself at risk," Dibbert said.

"I think there's no question that a number of things will continue to frustrate and disappoint average fans - ticket prices, television deciding when the games are going to be played, the high cost of concessions, and lack of parking. For the family of four of modest means, that way of life 20 years ago seems to be disappearing in Division I college football."

Can't move the team A few hours after the trustees' vote to approve phase one of the stadium renovation, Hamilton was back at work in his office in Stokely Athletics Center. Upbeat after talking with an assistant in the development office, he learned that more than 20 individuals had called to express interest in the new stadium club seats.

"From the Knight Commission's perspective, we are different from a lot of programs in that we are self-sustaining," Hamilton said.

"There are a lot of athletic programs in America that are doing these kind of things and they are taking dollars from the institution and from the state. Ours is completely self-funded without tax dollars or university funds."

Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said he and Hamilton have joked that, "It's not like we can threaten the city that we're going to move our football team somewhere else if they don't build us a new stadium."

Unlike pro teams that are often wooed to relocate by tax incentives and other government subsidies, college teams play in the same facility decade after decade.

"We don't have the benefit of saying, 'All right, community, if you don't like what we are doing, we're going to move to Asheville, N.C.,' " Hamilton said.

"I'm not saying we should have that benefit. What I'm saying is that a lot of colleges have older facilities that were built in the 1920s and '30s. Eventually you have to renovate or reinvest, and it goes beyond coats of paint.

"We are addressing a stadium that was started 83 years ago. It's a stadium that not only helps to fund 19 other sports but also provides a significant economic to our community, and to our institution in terms of our support to academic programs."

Hamilton added that the athletic department operates as part of the university, not a separate entity. Budget documents for fiscal year 2004 show the athletic department spent nearly twice as much for debt service ($1.1 million) on five university parking garages as it did for football recruiting ($611,100).

Stadium of the future What will be the long-term impact of the facilities arms race in college athletics?

Will it be a path to riches for some, and a path to ruins for others?

"It wasn't too long ago that some colleges were selling tickets out of a little metal petty-cash container with the change drawer inside, one step up from the cigar box," Oklahoma's Castiglione said.

"Think about how much more sophisticated everyone has become. We change with the times. I look at it that way more that way than what people call an arms race."

It is difficult to project what the future holds beyond a 15-year horizon. However, stadium technology spending might eclipse investment in steel, bricks and mortar in the next generation.

NASCAR fans can already eavesdrop on two-way radio exchanges between a driver and his crew chief. Pay-per-listen frequencies in football could generate millions.

"No, we're not going to have it where you can listen to the offensive coordinator," Hamilton said with a laugh.

Perhaps not, but the technology already exists that could spur other changes.

Some possibilities: A wall of television sets in luxury suites in Neyland Stadium that would air every SEC game in progress. Hand-held video sets that would show closed circuit shots of every play in a Tennessee game from several angles. Screens that would show updated statistics for every player could be integrated into the back of chairback seats.

"As Americans, we are always looking for the next best thing," Hamilton said.

Doug McCarty, president of McCarty Holsaple McCarty Inc. architects, said the master plan for Neyland Stadium was finalized after numerous proposals were explored.

One of those options was adding sections of skyboxes around the curved areas at the top of the stadium. Hamilton said another possibility for beyond year 2020 is adding club level seating at the top of the East sideline seats under the overhang of the East upper deck. No lower-level West club seating has been considered. That area is considered off-limits because some state legislators have seats there.

Hamilton said he vetoed a preliminary proposal to move the media to an end zone so the space occupied by the sideline press box could be converted to skyboxes for wealthy donors. The New England Patriots and University of Florida have already set that precedent.

With each of UT's 120 existing skyboxes bringing in an annual revenue stream of $38,000 ($4.56 million total), converting the press box area to skyboxes would have a significant impact on the bottom line of the budget. Nearly 100 people are on the waiting list to buy skyboxes.

"We're not ready to do anything like that right now," Hamilton said. "That being said, by the very nature of this business we are always looking for the next source of revenue."

Meanwhile, the debate continues whether the spending spree in athletics is a path to riches, or a path to ruins. The next scheduled meeting of the Knight Commission is set for February.

"The hope is that the NCAA will provide some leadership,'' Dibbert said.

"I think there are some initiatives under way to do that. Some of it has to do with discussions that would address coaches' contracts, compensation and scholarships. But I'm not aware of anything that would thwart the efforts of those who would build an edifice complex."

Gary Lundy covers University of Tennessee athletics. He may be reached at 865-342-6274.