Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Basketball
Topic:  Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion

Topic:  Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
Author
Message
bornacatfan
General User



Member Since: 8/3/2006
Post Count: 5,705

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/5/2016 8:20:11 PM 
Probably not just hoops related but not sure where to put it.

http://www.bcsn.tv/news_article/show/656160

Richard Vedder, the director of the Center For College Affordability and Productivity as well as an economics professor at MAC member Ohio University, called the rise in MAC athletics spending “borderline outrageous,” especially considering the role of student fees and tuition.

“There’s an athletics arms race that’s going on in the MAC, just as there is all over intercollegiate sports,” Mr. Vedder said. “But the students are paying for it.”


never argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Winter comes and asks how you spent your summer.....

The game loves and rewards those who love and reward the game

Back to Top
  
colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,151

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 8:37:28 AM 
I may be in a minority on here about this, but I think the fee is too high for students. Alums need to do more to reduce the deficits in athletics. Just saying. This article at least tries to make a case for the subsidies by quoting some university people.

Last Edited: 6/6/2016 9:36:28 AM by colobobcat66

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,007

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 9:19:58 AM 
colobobcat66 wrote:
I may be a minority on here about this, but I think the fee is too high for students. Alums need to do more to reduce the deficits in athletics. Just saying. This article at least tries to make a case for the subsidies by quoting some university people.


And this quote from BG's president is one of the best:

“It brings us a lot of visibility not only here in Ohio, but across the country,” Ms. Mazey said. “I came from Auburn, and I’ve been down there twice recently and every time I go down there, they keep telling me what a great football team I have. I feel pretty good about that, that people down in Alabama are talking about Bowling Green’s football team.”

No wonder some professors on campus are up in arms.

Back to Top
  
Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,028

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 11:08:03 AM 
As I've said before, the percentage of MAC schools' athletic budgets coming from student fees is the biggest vulnerability of the athletic programs. It's very sensitive politically whether we support this use of student fees or not. Is it a house of cards? Time will tell. Meanwhile, we all need to step up private giving if we can.
Back to Top
  
bn9
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 422

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 11:20:19 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
colobobcat66 wrote:
I may be a minority on here about this, but I think the fee is too high for students. Alums need to do more to reduce the deficits in athletics. Just saying. This article at least tries to make a case for the subsidies by quoting some university people.


And this quote from BG's president is one of the best:

“It brings us a lot of visibility not only here in Ohio, but across the country,” Ms. Mazey said. “I came from Auburn, and I’ve been down there twice recently and every time I go down there, they keep telling me what a great football team I have. I feel pretty good about that, that people down in Alabama are talking about Bowling Green’s football team.”

No wonder some professors on campus are up in arms.



I don't know what else professors think people in Alabama are going to pay attention to. Maybe she would get compliments on her Latin Studies program if she went to the Greater Alabama Dead Language Fair. Would that make professors happy?

Back to Top
  
Recovering Journalist
General User

Member Since: 8/17/2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Post Count: 1,838

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 11:24:24 AM 
This is pretty damning: "Asked how much athletics played a part in choosing a MAC school, 73 percent of respondents said it was unimportant or extremely unimportant."

It doesn't seem like a sustainable path unless interest increases, costs stabilize and/or donations rise considerably.

I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.
Back to Top
  
GoCats105
General User

Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 6,870

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 11:47:49 AM 
I'd like to see what the annual giving is used for, percentage wise if they can figure that out. Or do people generally just give to all of athletics and they choose how to distribute?
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,007

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 12:50:50 PM 
GoCats105 wrote:
I'd like to see what the annual giving is used for, percentage wise if they can figure that out. Or do people generally just give to all of athletics and they choose how to distribute?


That is a very interesting question. A few years back I saw those figures and a significant portion of the unrestricted "giving" went to operations of the obc. Sport specific giving does't give you seat benefits. I'll see if I can find that chart.

I did though just find this from the 2014-2015 annual report. The obc raised $587,000 during the period that that report covers according to the report.

Last Edited: 6/6/2016 5:06:16 PM by Alan Swank

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,420

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 1:21:17 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
GoCats105 wrote:
I'd like to see what the annual giving is used for, percentage wise if they can figure that out. Or do people generally just give to all of athletics and they choose how to distribute?


That is a very interesting question. A few years back I saw those figures and a significant portion of the unrestricted "giving" went to operations of the obc. Sport specific giving does't give you seat benefits. I'll see if I can find that chart.


You get basically nothing, not even OBC membership when you give restricted or sport specific.
Back to Top
  
BobcatSports
General User

Member Since: 2/2/2006
Post Count: 1,068

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 4:55:46 PM 
I can't shoot the messenger on this one, Vedder raises some good points. The MAC will NEVER win an arm's race with the Power 5's of the world. The student fees will always be a necessity and in today's world will probably only continue to increase questioning the viability of sustaining such increases.

I also question the UT Athletic Director O'Brien's comments that sports are a quite popular "social" aspect on campus. Overall student attendance(lack of) through-out the MAC speaks otherwise.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,007

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 5:08:38 PM 
BobcatSports wrote:
I can't shoot the messenger on this one, Vedder raises some good points. The MAC will NEVER win an arm's race with the Power 5's of the world. The student fees will always be a necessity and in today's world will probably only continue to increase questioning the viability of sustaining such increases.

I also question the UT Athletic Director O'Brien's comments that sports are a quite popular "social" aspect on campus. Overall student attendance(lack of) through-out the MAC speaks otherwise.


These guys have been trained that if you say something enough times not only will you believe it to be true but you will be able to convince many others. Case in point, the proposed Athens 10 cent charge for plastic bags at Kroger, walmart, etc. The cashier at another store told me yesterday that the charge was going to be 20 cents per bag. I asked her where she heard that and she says that's what everyone is saying.

Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,549

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 6:09:32 PM 
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?


I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Recovering Journalist
General User

Member Since: 8/17/2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Post Count: 1,838

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 6:52:00 PM 
The Optimist wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?


Why should I? Those shiny new buildings don't pay salaries, scholarships, travel, etc. In fact, they add financial liability because they need to be heated, cooled, staffed and maintained. I'm not saying they're good or bad, but one-time support for capital projects does nothing to alleviate the burden of student fees.
Back to Top
  
colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,151

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 7:33:52 PM 
Recovering Journalist wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?


Why should I? Those shiny new buildings don't pay salaries, scholarships, travel, etc. In fact, they add financial liability because they need to be heated, cooled, staffed and maintained. I'm not saying they're good or bad, but one-time support for capital projects does nothing to alleviate the burden of student fees.


They are still bought by donations by fans to athletics. The large donations by lead givers and others are support for athletics regardless if you count them as such or not. Doesn't make any sense to do otherwise.

And as I recall, some of future expenses are raised as part of the project,

Last Edited: 6/6/2016 7:35:13 PM by colobobcat66

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,007

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 7:45:45 PM 
colobobcat66 wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?


Why should I? Those shiny new buildings don't pay salaries, scholarships, travel, etc. In fact, they add financial liability because they need to be heated, cooled, staffed and maintained. I'm not saying they're good or bad, but one-time support for capital projects does nothing to alleviate the burden of student fees.


They are still bought by donations by fans to athletics. The large donations by lead givers and others are support for athletics regardless if you count them as such or not. Doesn't make any sense to do otherwise.

And as I recall, some of future expenses are raised as part of the project,


Your last sentence is a fabrication of the truth. In the old days, when you wanted to build a building you had to have a very high percentage of the cost in hand. Today, it's only a percentage of that so you have debt service. The future maintenance expenses will come out of the general fund (tuition) or increased student fees.

Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,549

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 8:55:00 PM 
Recovering Journalist wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?

Why should I? Those shiny new buildings don't pay salaries, scholarships, travel, etc. In fact, they add financial liability because they need to be heated, cooled, staffed and maintained. I'm not saying they're good or bad, but one-time support for capital projects does nothing to alleviate the burden of student fees.


Ok, so edit your original post to state
Quote:
we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics ***to alleviate the burden of student fees.***


A donation to build a new building, even if it is something you and faculty senate might not think is a good cause, is still a donation to athletics.

If you want to make an argument that we don't donate enough to help alleviate the burden of student fees, fine. State that too large of a % of our donor's money is going to capital projects. Our donors are averaging "well OVER" $1 million towards Ohio athletics annually.

Quote:
If you love it, support it ***but lets make sure faculty senate gets a say in how you donate money you worked to earn first, or it doesn't count.***

Last Edited: 6/6/2016 8:56:00 PM by The Optimist


I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
colobobcat66
General User

Member Since: 9/1/2006
Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO
Post Count: 4,151

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/6/2016 11:10:51 PM 
Alan Swank wrote:
colobobcat66 wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?


Why should I? Those shiny new buildings don't pay salaries, scholarships, travel, etc. In fact, they add financial liability because they need to be heated, cooled, staffed and maintained. I'm not saying they're good or bad, but one-time support for capital projects does nothing to alleviate the burden of student fees.


They are still bought by donations by fans to athletics. The large donations by lead givers and others are support for athletics regardless if you count them as such or not. Doesn't make any sense to do otherwise.

And as I recall, some of future expenses are raised as part of the project,


Your last sentence is a fabrication of the truth. In the old days, when you wanted to build a building you had to have a very high percentage of the cost in hand. Today, it's only a percentage of that so you have debt service. The future maintenance expenses will come out of the general fund (tuition) or increased student fees.



Are you saying that we did not have enough money pledged for the latest two buildings to build them? I understand that the money is to come in over several years, but at today's interest rates, that's probably okay.

As I said, it's what I recall about the maintenance costs. Didn't mean to fabricate anything. When were the old days that you speak about?

Update: I found a Post article of July, 2012 saying no debt and no increased student fees(but a portion is paid by a fee reserve). So I'm not making it up. Maybe there's something later that changes that. Please let us know. I don't like to be called a fabricater of the truth. I don't have the advantage of sitting around in Athens and picking up every piece of news like some people.

Last Edited: 6/7/2016 7:57:17 AM by colobobcat66

Back to Top
  
rpbobcat
General User

Member Since: 4/28/2006
Location: Rochelle Park, NJ
Post Count: 3,495

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/7/2016 6:42:14 AM 
In the case of the IPF ,virtually all of the money to build it came from private donations.

But,according to an article in The Post a while back,the IPF is used, percentage wise,primarily by other then varsity teams,including ROTC and the 110.

If they are used primarily by other then varsity teams,I don't know why would anyone have a problem with the University handling maintenance costs.

Last Edited: 6/7/2016 7:25:41 AM by rpbobcat

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/7/2016 8:50:36 AM 
rpbobcat wrote:
If they are used primarily by other then varsity teams,I don't know why would anyone have a problem with the University handling maintenance costs.



They shouldn't. I contributed to that building, and I also now pay "student" fees for athletics. I don't complain about that either. How much of ANYTHING that you buy contains a percentage that goes toward marketing?
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,007

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/7/2016 9:45:15 AM 
colobobcat66 wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
colobobcat66 wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
The Optimist wrote:
Recovering Journalist wrote:
I've said it elsewhere but it bears repeating that we as a fan base donate well under $1 million annually to athletics. If you love it, support it.


I assume you are excluding the millions of dollars donated to build the IPF and millions more in giving towards the Academic Center in your calculation that annual giving to athletics is "well under" $1 mil?


Why should I? Those shiny new buildings don't pay salaries, scholarships, travel, etc. In fact, they add financial liability because they need to be heated, cooled, staffed and maintained. I'm not saying they're good or bad, but one-time support for capital projects does nothing to alleviate the burden of student fees.


They are still bought by donations by fans to athletics. The large donations by lead givers and others are support for athletics regardless if you count them as such or not. Doesn't make any sense to do otherwise.

And as I recall, some of future expenses are raised as part of the project,


Your last sentence is a fabrication of the truth. In the old days, when you wanted to build a building you had to have a very high percentage of the cost in hand. Today, it's only a percentage of that so you have debt service. The future maintenance expenses will come out of the general fund (tuition) or increased student fees.



Are you saying that we did not have enough money pledged for the latest two buildings to build them? I understand that the money is to come in over several years, but at today's interest rates, that's probably okay.

As I said, it's what I recall about the maintenance costs. Didn't mean to fabricate anything. When were the old days that you speak about?

Update: I found a Post article of July, 2012 saying no debt and no increased student fees(but a portion is paid by a fee reserve). So I'm not making it up. Maybe there's something later that changes that. Please let us know. I don't like to be called a fabricater of the truth. I don't have the advantage of sitting around in Athens and picking up every piece of news like some people.


By old days I mean that the state changed the law as to how much money you had to actually have in hand before moving forward with a building project. As someone already stated, the indoor facility is truly a multi-purpose facility run by student life which benefits all students and the community.

Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,549

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/7/2016 10:13:50 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:
How much of ANYTHING that you buy contains a percentage that goes toward marketing?

Always nice to be reminded that other people "get it" around here.


I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Campus Flow
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 4,951

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/8/2016 12:03:51 AM 
BobcatSports wrote:
I can't shoot the messenger on this one, Vedder raises some good points. The MAC will NEVER win an arm's race with the Power 5's of the world. The student fees will always be a necessity and in today's world will probably only continue to increase questioning the viability of sustaining such increases.

I also question the UT Athletic Director O'Brien's comments that sports are a quite popular "social" aspect on campus. Overall student attendance(lack of) through-out the MAC speaks otherwise.


It's more than the administration and faculty opinion on athletics. The student opinion is very important. I remember a few years back Schaus made a presentation to the Student Senate on student fees. The response by the student body was they were concerned about the subsidy level but thought there is hope in the future of reducing the subsidy percentage which Ohio has done by not increasing the budget, while adding revenues and more students to reduce the per student subsidy. At EMU the student senate voted for a resolution to drop football. Its the administration that is standing in the way from making a move on it. One recession and football could be done at a school in a bad financial position.


Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

Back to Top
  
Campus Flow
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Post Count: 4,951

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/8/2016 12:53:46 AM 
Jeff McKinney wrote:
As I've said before, the percentage of MAC schools' athletic budgets coming from student fees is the biggest vulnerability of the athletic programs. It's very sensitive politically whether we support this use of student fees or not. Is it a house of cards? Time will tell. Meanwhile, we all need to step up private giving if we can.


I don't see it as a house of cards outside of a few that are grossly over extended financially. The popular universities at the MAC level will hang in there bolstered by the weaker schools stepping out of the game. Universities that are high enough on the food chain to keep the students rolling in and withstand recessions.


Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended
2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round
2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl
2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086

Back to Top
  
Flomo-genized
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/8/2016 1:15:52 PM 
No doubt sports help market the institution. The question is just whether a public academic institution should be making this level of investment in a single type of marketing, not to mention how effective that marketing actually is. How do we know if we are getting a sufficient return on our marketing investment? Would other marketing tools be equally or more effective at a lesser cost?

Sports appeal to a certain subset of the population. Playing on ESPN is great, but it doesn't reach everyone (or even most of the people) that the university should be marketing itself to. And even then, while sports fans are likely to be more aware of the Ohio brand, in most cases they'll still view us as a secondary program compared to the more established, power conference schools.

At the end of the day, we all love Ohio athletics. But Ohio athletics, as currently constituted, isn't anywhere near being financially self-supporting without significant, compulsory subsidies from the student population. So pretty much everyone here is free-riding, to some extent, on the fees that the institution's current students are subjected to.

Reasonable minds can differ on the acceptability of that, but to suggest that anyone who questions the sustainability or appropriateness of OU's current athletic funding model doesn't "get it" is pretty close-minded.

Last Edited: 6/8/2016 1:17:45 PM by Flomo-genized

Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
   Posted: 6/8/2016 1:30:39 PM 
Flomo-genized wrote:
So pretty much everyone here is free-riding, to some extent, on the fees that the institution's current students are subjected to.


That's a big leap. Many of the posters on here paid their dues when they were students. They continue to pay into the system in the form of athletic contributions, ticket purchases, apparel purchases, etc. Many additional posters are now paying those student dues as parents of current students. I hardly think that qualifies the vast majority as "free-riding."

But even beyond those financially tied to the program, you have people like LC who never paid student fees at Ohio University. Does that mean he's free-riding?

The university puts out a product that results in at least one benefit: publicity. There are plenty of schools that choose not to earn publicity via sports. Nothing wrong with that model either. If I were terribly offended by the sports fee, I'd stop paying it and go somewhere else.

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 25  of 160 Posts
Jump to Page:  1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Basketball' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             







Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties