Where College Football and National Housing Policy Are Similar
When the landscape changes in ways big and small, changes must be made to achieve success.
Source: gettyimages.com
I’m a big college football fan. I’ve been a fan of the University of Michigan Wolverines since the Bo Schembechler era of the ‘70s and ‘80s, and I celebrated their national championship last season. In doing so they showed a proof of concept – a hard-nosed, smash-mouth power running game and a stout defense can still win championships in today’s college football.
In the three years prior to Michigan’s title, the team took the steps necessary to build a champion. They modified the coaching staff with young assistant coaches with brilliant football minds. They recruited high school talent, even if not quite as highly rated talent as the schools Michigan was competing with. They focused on attracting the kind of players whose style and mindset fit the program framework. They emphasized player development, allowing the program to turn modest recruits into star players.
At the same time, however, the framework established by the program was being eroded by changes in the nature of college football itself, both big and small. The small change was Michigan coach Jim Harbaugh’s on-field success. With previous experience – and success – at the professional level in the NFL, Harbaugh flirted with NFL teams for head coaching jobs every offseason. Some recruits who weren’t certain if Harbaugh would remain with the team ended up selecting other schools.
The big change was the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of the NCAA v. Alston case in 2021, which tore away the veneer of college sports amateurism (specifically in football and basketball) and allowed players to profit off the use of their name, image and likeness (NIL). Many programs had found ways to funnel money to players for years, often against NCAA laws, and simply opened up a process that had been kept under wraps. Michigan was, let’s say, not as adept at the money-funneling. The program lost out on other players who now took money into account.
After three games, this year’s team is trying to do the same things without the same pieces. Harbaugh left to coach the NFL’s Los Angeles Chargers. The 38-year-old former offensive coordinator Sherrone Moore took over the Michigan job. Numerous assistant coaches were brought in. The team is more inexperienced and less talented. There’s room for improvement, but making the newly expanded 12-team college football playoff, much less pursue the championship, might be slipping from the team’s grasp.
My opinion is that Michigan’s suffering from a transition cost as it enters its next phase. The coaching staff hasn’t adapted to the strengths of this team; it’s trying to play the same hard-nosed, smash-mouth style without the same caliber of players. But there is a way for them to succeed if they adjust.
And that’s why Jenny Schuetz’s commentary on the poor political messaging of the YIMBY “end single-family zoning” mantra is spot on.
Wait, what does college football have to do with national housing policy? Everything.
There’s a through-line here. Over the last ten years or so, housing activists have made great strides in pursuing citywide and statewide zoning reforms that can increase housing supply and improve housing affordability. To do so, many activists have adopted the “end single-family zoning” saying as a way to achieve the mix of housing types needed in today’s market. However, in an institutional environment – and home-buying public – that’s been organized strongly in favor of single-family homes for nearly a century, that’s a radical approach. As Schuetz says:
“(G)ood-faith supporters of abundant housing should drop this phrase from their talking points for two reasons. First, “end single-family zoning” is sloppy, imprecise language that doesn’t help policymakers think through the details of their policy choices. Moreover, the vagueness and negative framing can unnecessarily confuse and scare voters.
Besides obscuring what housing types will be added, the phrase “end single-family zoning” can mislead casual observers into believing that proposed zoning changes will make single-family homes illegal. After all, “end single-family zoning” and “end single-family housing” sound quite similar, especially to the majority of people, who are not experts on the nuts-and-bolts of land use regulation.”
The reason housing has become so expensive is much more complex than the dominance of single-family housing and the government regulations – zoning – that promotes it. Housing has become unaffordable because the housing industry infrastructure hasn’t been nimble enough to adjust. Zoning is one part of that but there’s so much more.
Consider this from a generational and sociological perspective. Starting with the Greatest Generation (born between 1901-1924), American families responded to the industrial age by demanding housing that kept them away from whatever negative aspects annoyed them. You could say it started with a desire to live away from the noise and grit of factories. Subsequent generations built on that theme, and created what we now know as suburbia. The Silent Generation (1925-1942), Boomers (1943-1960) and even Gen Xers like myself (1961-1981) wanted more space for larger families. They wanted quiet environments with good schools, high levels of public safety, and frankly, greater implied input on who would become their neighbors.
It wasn’t just zoning laws that gave us this built environment. A housing industry infrastructure was created to advance it. The G.I. Bill of 1944 was essential in establishing a new homebuying market for the nation. From Wikipedia:
“An important provision of the G.I. Bill was low interest, zero down payment home loans for servicemen, with more favorable terms for new construction compared to existing housing. This encouraged millions of American families to move out of urban apartments and into suburban homes.”
The Housing Act of 1949 enabled banks to insure mortgages with protections against default, further building up the housing industry infrastructure. The Interstate Highway Act of 1956 put the federal government firmly behind the development of a national highway system that would open up areas for development. Bankers, designers, engineers, developers and builders adapted to the new regulatory framework and built homes.
What’s changed over time? Well, starting with Gen Xers, and accelerating with Millennials and Generation Z, a dramatic change in housing market demand. Today’s families are smaller than 20th century families. In 1950, the typical U.S. household had 3.51 persons; by 2019 that dropped to 2.61. Also in 1950, only 9% of households had someone living alone; by 2019 that rose to 28%. That means a greater number of households are needed for a population that isn’t growing as fast.
There are other significant changes in demand. Young and middle-age adults want more rental options than earlier generations. They place a greater premium on access to desirable amenities. They may even want to reduce their dependence on automobiles to get around. But has the housing industry infrastructure adapted to the changes in demand? I’d say no.
In fact, the housing manufacturing complex is still pretty rigidly frozen into the models that gave us the single-family home dominant built environment we have today. Bankers whose loans and mortgages are predicated on the single-family home model. Designers, engineers and builders who haven’t developed the skills to reflect changes in housing design and construction as quickly as housing demand has. Of course zoning hasn’t adapted as quickly to shifting demands as it could have. But that’s true for the entire spectrum of the housing industry. It’s like changing course for a large ocean vessel – it can take a while before the course change even registers. Ships don’t turn easily, and neither do economic sectors with a long history of working in one very successful fashion.
In my experience as a planning consultant, I’ve found a message that resonates with government officials and community residents, and can work with housing manufacturing complex types as well. It’s this: as we’ve concentrated so much of our efforts on single-family home construction and homeownership, our communities have lost much of the housing adaptability and flexibility that leads to full-fledged, well balanced, vibrant communities. We need to create more housing adaptability and flexibility.
Fewer young and middle-age adults today are married with kids, and those who are have smaller families. It’s no shock they can’t find the housing that meets their needs. But the same is true for empty-nesters who want to downsize as their kids go to college, seniors who want to rid themselves of an empty home for a lively senior-oriented development, or older seniors who require assisted living services. All have become increasingly unaffordable. All are related to changes is how we live.
Today that works mostly for those with the greatest wealth, and it comes with an added social cost: it usually can’t happen unless you leave one community for another. Why should someone have to leave the neighborhood they love for the housing they need? We should develop communities that allow people to live all phases of their lives in the same community.
It’s no secret that the places that have been most successful in making this transition have been older cities that had huge redevelopment potential. Vacant warehouses were transformed into multifamily developments, leading to new multifamily construction. However, conversion of empty buildings and vacant spaces with new housing can only go so far before encroaching on existing development. The places that have been the least adaptable are suburban-oriented metros that continue to grow beyond their suburban orientation.
The end result is prices rise all over.
Let’s bring it back to college football. My Michigan Wolverines are paying a hefty transition cost this season for having a coach with NFL dreams that stifled recruiting, and a botched response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling that upended how football recruits decide where to go. The nation is paying a hefty transition cost because it hasn’t adjusted to dramatic changes in housing demand over the last 50 years. There’s a new housing landscape and the infrastructure hasn’t adapted. We’ll get there one day, but it will take much more than a singular focus on a local government regulatory tool that few people really understand.
Great analysis for both housing and college football (I was wondering this past week why my Wisconsin Badgers have dropped down from being a consistent elite Big Ten team but I now realize the Supreme Court decision and transition challenges are a likely good explanation).