Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...

Topic:  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
Author
Message
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/21/2014 1:35:19 PM 
L.C. wrote:
Note that it says "no student shall incur..", not "no parent shall incur...". I take this to mean they don't want their students graduating deep in debt, but if they feel that the parent can afford to pay, the parent should pay.


I wondered if they were trying this type of weasel wording. It's interesting that that same thought occurred to you. It's a sad day when the country's flagship educational institution resorts to this kind of word trickery that would even make a snake oil salesman blush. Well, maybe not, but you get the point.

Last Edited: 12/21/2014 1:36:33 PM by OhioCatFan

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,486

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/21/2014 2:06:38 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
L.C. wrote:
Note that it says "no student shall incur..", not "no parent shall incur...". I take this to mean they don't want their students graduating deep in debt, but if they feel that the parent can afford to pay, the parent should pay.


I wondered if they were trying this type of weasel wording. It's interesting that that same thought occurred to you. It's a sad day when the country's flagship educational institution resorts to this kind of word trickery that would even make a snake oil salesman blush. Well, maybe not, but you get the point.


Browse their site, their aid packages are very simple! Family income below $125,000 = $0 out of pocket, and the scale slides up 20% of Harvard students pay $0, and the average out of pocket is $12k a year, which is lower than the cost of out of pocket for Ohio University of the average student.
Back to Top
  
JSF
General User



Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,345

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/21/2014 10:30:34 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
D.A. wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
D.A. wrote:
. . . with the desired result being that no student incurs out of pocket expenses to attend Harvard) . . .


hmm . . . what are you talking about? If my daughter had gone to Harvard we would have had to take a second mortgage out on the house. She was smart enough to get an academic scholarship from Michigan Engineering, but at Harvard she was from too affluent a background to receive a need-based award. At Northwestern we were actually told by an admissions officer that we could look into their second mortgage program.

+1 to L.C.'s post above


I'm simply restating what they state on the home page of their financial aid website. I clearly do not have first hand knowledge of their actual practice of making good against that. There is a big graphic in the middle of their home page I linked to above stating "100% of our students can graduate debt free." If that is BS, then so be it.


My information is back in 2000, so maybe things have changed, but my first reaction is that it is B.S. Thanks for clarifying where you got the information and that you were simply reporting a source's information and not making a statement of known fact. I guess I failed to understand the attribution in the original post.


I want to say a new president came in with this mission sometime in the last 10 years. So I think your daughter had bad timing.

"Loyalty to a hometown or city is fleeting and interchangeable, but college is a stamp of identity."- Kyle Whelliston, One Beautiful Season.

My blog about depression and mental illness: https://bit.ly/3buGXH8

Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,016

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/22/2014 10:04:58 AM 
JSF wrote:
. . . So I think your daughter had bad timing.
That's certainly a possibility, but things worked OK for her at Michigan and then at UC-Berkeley for graduate school. Note that she kept the same school colors! ;-)

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,486

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/22/2014 9:51:10 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
JSF wrote:
. . . So I think your daughter had bad timing.
That's certainly a possibility, but things worked OK for her at Michigan and then at UC-Berkeley for graduate school. Note that she kept the same school colors! ;-)


+1

At the end of the day, that's all that matters!
Back to Top
  
Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 2,993

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/23/2014 8:40:42 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
Browse their site, their aid packages are very simple! Family income below $125,000 = $0 out of pocket, and the scale slides up 20% of Harvard students pay $0, and the average out of pocket is $12k a year, which is lower than the cost of out of pocket for Ohio University of the average student.


With Harvard's endowment a reported 36 billion, I wonder why they charge at all.

Probably want to make sure there is still an incentive to perform and graduate, eh?

Can somebody hit a pull up jumper for me?.....

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,024

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/23/2014 9:44:16 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
OhioCatFan wrote:
L.C. wrote:
Note that it says "no student shall incur..", not "no parent shall incur...". I take this to mean they don't want their students graduating deep in debt, but if they feel that the parent can afford to pay, the parent should pay.


I wondered if they were trying this type of weasel wording. It's interesting that that same thought occurred to you. It's a sad day when the country's flagship educational institution resorts to this kind of word trickery that would even make a snake oil salesman blush. Well, maybe not, but you get the point.


Browse their site, their aid packages are very simple! Family income below $125,000 = $0 out of pocket, and the scale slides up 20% of Harvard students pay $0, and the average out of pocket is $12k a year, which is lower than the cost of out of pocket for Ohio University of the average student.


https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid/how-aid-works/f...
Back to Top
  
The Optimist
General User



Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,553

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/23/2014 10:28:55 AM 
Does not surprise me they hand out aid left and right. Isn't Harvard's endowment absolutely massive?

Last Edited: 12/23/2014 10:29:09 AM by The Optimist

I've seen crazier things happen.

Back to Top
  
Recovering Journalist
General User

Member Since: 8/17/2010
Location: Cleveland, OH
Post Count: 1,839

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/24/2014 9:59:37 AM 
The Optimist wrote:
Does not surprise me they hand out aid left and right. Isn't Harvard's endowment absolutely massive?


Harvard's endowment is so massive that people are starting to question why one would donate to the university, and why they retain tax-exempt status.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/take-away-ha...
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,486

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/25/2014 10:15:33 AM 

I'm sure the author of this article would also question the large land ownership of Ohio University in Athens, and propose that our $25 Million spent on athletics would be better served in other ways. Sounds like this guy talks to Vedder.
Back to Top
  
perimeterpost
General User



Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/30/2014 5:20:31 AM 
Quote:
Contrast the UAB experience to Ohio University, where we have some experience. Like UAB, it has a so-so football team (6-6 record) and considers a game with 15,000 attending to be pretty typical, despite its stadium capacity of 24,000.


How can some of you read this article and say "well, its hard to argue with the facts"? THESE facts are dubious and blatantly deceitful. You can't used ONE season as proof of mediocrity, especially when that one season is below a 10 year average. UAB hasn't had a winning record since 2004, they've only been a program since 1991, the differences between the two are numerous and significant.

And since when is 15K "pretty typical" for attendance at Peden? Why don't they mention the steady growth in attendance year over year since investments have been made in the program, why not mention ticket REVENUE reached a record high for the second year in a row???


Quote:
The crowding out of academic needs to support sports has come at a high reputational cost – OU has fallen 13 spots in the U.S. News national university listing over the past five years.


and what is the variable for this less than scientific poll anyways? 13 spots one way or the other over 5 years doesn't sound like a lot to me. Are we to believe that moving from 135 to 122 would be a significant indicator of academic success by the university? c'mon.


I could go on, but what's the point. If these worthless hacks wanted to actually do some good for the academic side of the university they would lay out the case for the criminal distribution of revenue that gives their beloved OSU a piece of 70% of the pie while OU gets a slice from the 27% piece for playing in the same league. Fair distribution of league revenue would benefit for our university greatly.

Last Edited: 12/30/2014 5:22:48 AM by perimeterpost

MY STATE. MY TEAM.
Back to Top
  
Mike Johnson
General User



Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,707

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/30/2014 11:00:32 AM 
perimeterpost wrote:
Quote:
Contrast the UAB experience to Ohio University, where we have some experience. Like UAB, it has a so-so football team (6-6 record) and considers a game with 15,000 attending to be pretty typical, despite its stadium capacity of 24,000.


How can some of you read this article and say "well, its hard to argue with the facts"? THESE facts are dubious and blatantly deceitful. You can't used ONE season as proof of mediocrity, especially when that one season is below a 10 year average. UAB hasn't had a winning record since 2004, they've only been a program since 1991, the differences between the two are numerous and significant.

And since when is 15K "pretty typical" for attendance at Peden? Why don't they mention the steady growth in attendance year over year since investments have been made in the program, why not mention ticket REVENUE reached a record high for the second year in a row???


Quote:
The crowding out of academic needs to support sports has come at a high reputational cost – OU has fallen 13 spots in the U.S. News national university listing over the past five years.


and what is the variable for this less than scientific poll anyways? 13 spots one way or the other over 5 years doesn't sound like a lot to me. Are we to believe that moving from 135 to 122 would be a significant indicator of academic success by the university? c'mon.


I could go on, but what's the point. If these worthless hacks wanted to actually do some good for the academic side of the university they would lay out the case for the criminal distribution of revenue that gives their beloved OSU a piece of 70% of the pie while OU gets a slice from the 27% piece for playing in the same league. Fair distribution of league revenue would benefit for our university greatly.


Agree. BUT, Ohio Athletics would earn more credibility if it released actual dollar figures and season ticket numbers instead of talking in terms of "record highs" or "doubling" or "50 percent increase" and so on.

I understand why Athletics avoids transparency but in doing so it is undermining credibility.

http://www.facebook.com/mikejohnson.author

Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,024

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/30/2014 9:45:58 PM 
Mike Johnson wrote:
perimeterpost wrote:
Quote:
Contrast the UAB experience to Ohio University, where we have some experience. Like UAB, it has a so-so football team (6-6 record) and considers a game with 15,000 attending to be pretty typical, despite its stadium capacity of 24,000.


How can some of you read this article and say "well, its hard to argue with the facts"? THESE facts are dubious and blatantly deceitful. You can't used ONE season as proof of mediocrity, especially when that one season is below a 10 year average. UAB hasn't had a winning record since 2004, they've only been a program since 1991, the differences between the two are numerous and significant.

And since when is 15K "pretty typical" for attendance at Peden? Why don't they mention the steady growth in attendance year over year since investments have been made in the program, why not mention ticket REVENUE reached a record high for the second year in a row???


Quote:
The crowding out of academic needs to support sports has come at a high reputational cost – OU has fallen 13 spots in the U.S. News national university listing over the past five years.


and what is the variable for this less than scientific poll anyways? 13 spots one way or the other over 5 years doesn't sound like a lot to me. Are we to believe that moving from 135 to 122 would be a significant indicator of academic success by the university? c'mon.


I could go on, but what's the point. If these worthless hacks wanted to actually do some good for the academic side of the university they would lay out the case for the criminal distribution of revenue that gives their beloved OSU a piece of 70% of the pie while OU gets a slice from the 27% piece for playing in the same league. Fair distribution of league revenue would benefit for our university greatly.


Agree. BUT, Ohio Athletics would earn more credibility if it released actual dollar figures and season ticket numbers instead of talking in terms of "record highs" or "doubling" or "50 percent increase" and so on.

I understand why Athletics avoids transparency but in doing so it is undermining credibility.


5864
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 9,486

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/31/2014 12:34:29 AM 
Mike Johnson wrote:
perimeterpost wrote:
Quote:
Contrast the UAB experience to Ohio University, where we have some experience. Like UAB, it has a so-so football team (6-6 record) and considers a game with 15,000 attending to be pretty typical, despite its stadium capacity of 24,000.


How can some of you read this article and say "well, its hard to argue with the facts"? THESE facts are dubious and blatantly deceitful. You can't used ONE season as proof of mediocrity, especially when that one season is below a 10 year average. UAB hasn't had a winning record since 2004, they've only been a program since 1991, the differences between the two are numerous and significant.

And since when is 15K "pretty typical" for attendance at Peden? Why don't they mention the steady growth in attendance year over year since investments have been made in the program, why not mention ticket REVENUE reached a record high for the second year in a row???


Quote:
The crowding out of academic needs to support sports has come at a high reputational cost – OU has fallen 13 spots in the U.S. News national university listing over the past five years.


and what is the variable for this less than scientific poll anyways? 13 spots one way or the other over 5 years doesn't sound like a lot to me. Are we to believe that moving from 135 to 122 would be a significant indicator of academic success by the university? c'mon.


I could go on, but what's the point. If these worthless hacks wanted to actually do some good for the academic side of the university they would lay out the case for the criminal distribution of revenue that gives their beloved OSU a piece of 70% of the pie while OU gets a slice from the 27% piece for playing in the same league. Fair distribution of league revenue would benefit for our university greatly.


Agree. BUT, Ohio Athletics would earn more credibility if it released actual dollar figures and season ticket numbers instead of talking in terms of "record highs" or "doubling" or "50 percent increase" and so on.

I understand why Athletics avoids transparency but in doing so it is undermining credibility.


+1
Back to Top
  
perimeterpost
General User



Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/31/2014 3:23:30 AM 
Mike Johnson wrote:
Agree. BUT, Ohio Athletics would earn more credibility if it released actual dollar figures and season ticket numbers instead of talking in terms of "record highs" or "doubling" or "50 percent increase" and so on.

I understand why Athletics avoids transparency but in doing so it is undermining credibility.


The credibility issue lies with the authors. There's a way to frame their argument that is truthful but they chose not to go that route in the name of self-righteousness. Again, the better argument is to show OU football on its merits, and then point out the disparity between the Ohio States of the world. Then you could maybe begin to have an honest conversation about what is the driver of these inequities and what reasonable responses should be considered.

Instead they chose to go with the lazy and intellectually dishonest theses of "you suck, you should quit". Its garbage.

MY STATE. MY TEAM.
Back to Top
  
D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 12/31/2014 9:30:03 AM 
perimeterpost wrote:
Quote:
Contrast the UAB experience to Ohio University, where we have some experience. Like UAB, it has a so-so football team (6-6 record) and considers a game with 15,000 attending to be pretty typical, despite its stadium capacity of 24,000.


How can some of you read this article and say "well, its hard to argue with the facts"? THESE facts are dubious and blatantly deceitful. You can't used ONE season as proof of mediocrity, especially when that one season is below a 10 year average. UAB hasn't had a winning record since 2004, they've only been a program since 1991, the differences between the two are numerous and significant.

And since when is 15K "pretty typical" for attendance at Peden? Why don't they mention the steady growth in attendance year over year since investments have been made in the program, why not mention ticket REVENUE reached a record high for the second year in a row???


Quote:
The crowding out of academic needs to support sports has come at a high reputational cost – OU has fallen 13 spots in the U.S. News national university listing over the past five years.


and what is the variable for this less than scientific poll anyways? 13 spots one way or the other over 5 years doesn't sound like a lot to me. Are we to believe that moving from 135 to 122 would be a significant indicator of academic success by the university? c'mon.


I could go on, but what's the point. If these worthless hacks wanted to actually do some good for the academic side of the university they would lay out the case for the criminal distribution of revenue that gives their beloved OSU a piece of 70% of the pie while OU gets a slice from the 27% piece for playing in the same league. Fair distribution of league revenue would benefit for our university greatly.


The problem with the "reputational cost" is that it in no way correlates to the funds directed from the student fee to athletics, as student fee monies by statute cannot be spent on the academic mission. To state as much would be to assume that money originally directed to the academic mission have been directed to athletics, which is simply not true. That is the problem I have with hacks that create red herrings to fit their argument. If you prey on the misinformation or lack of education of your audience to take your statements as fact, then it is easy to create a groundswell of support for a den of lies.

The Few, The Proud, The Bobcats!

And for the record, I hate tOSU, and Ricordati and Torgerson are DB's.

"This isn't just another walkover from the MAC." Kirk Herbstreit, another DB, on College Football Gameday
Back to Top
  
Paul Graham
General User



Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 1:41:51 AM 
Trying to correlate athletic spending/prioritization to academic reputation derived from a subjective ranking is clearly a lost cause. The authors would be wise to avoid that angle.

That said, it's a sad state of affairs when the burden of proof is on the academics to show that operating a football program (at an institution of higher learning) that is yearly millions in the red is a bad idea. Particularly given the rising cost of higher Ed.

It's a dumb idea. Period. No reasonable person can argue that any of this is sensible. And asking the students for 17(?)M per year to keep the thing afloat is unsustainable and arguably immoral.
Back to Top
  
perimeterpost
General User



Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 3:48:23 AM 
Paul Graham wrote:
Trying to correlate athletic spending/prioritization to academic reputation derived from a subjective ranking is clearly a lost cause. The authors would be wise to avoid that angle.

That said, it's a sad state of affairs when the burden of proof is on the academics to show that operating a football program (at an institution of higher learning) that is yearly millions in the red is a bad idea. Particularly given the rising cost of higher Ed.

It's a dumb idea. Period. No reasonable person can argue that any of this is sensible. And asking the students for 17(?)M per year to keep the thing afloat is unsustainable and arguably immoral.


Ever heard of a soft drink called Coca Cola? Last year Coca Cola spent $3,266,000,000.00 on advertising a product the world is already familiar with. Why? Isn't that a dumb idea? Wouldn't any reasonable person argue that this isn't sensible? Pushing that cost down to the consumer is arguably immoral, isn't it?

Like it or not an FBS football team is the single most effective way to advertise your educational institution to the largest number of potential students. There's plenty of data to show the correlation between the rise in the success and exposure of OU's football program over recent years and the rise in applications and attendance of incoming students.

Or maybe Ohio has had record setting numbers of applications and admissions the last couple of years because word got out that McCracken Hall was getting a $32 million renovation. College athletics should be viewed as an investment, not as a profit stream. Its ROI is whats important, not its ability to turn a profit.

MY STATE. MY TEAM.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,069

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 4:27:22 AM 
Looking at the full $17m fee is just a wrong number, period. Of the $17m, how much would it be reduced if there were no football? UAB will provide a case study that may or may not answer that. Football has substantial costs, but also produces a fair amount of revenue from money games, from TV, from the conference, from ticket sales, from concessions, etc, unlike most sports. How much football loses depends in part on whether you also charge football for the cost of the additional 4-5 women's sports which must be sponsored to offset it from a Title IX basis.

My guesses are:
1. If UAB drops an offsetting 4-5 women's sports (with 85 scholarships total), too, they may save $5m or so.
2. If they drop only football, perhaps they will save $1-2m.
3. If they add back other men's sports to stay in compliance with Title IX rather than cutting women's sports, their overall costs will rise, probably by $3m or so, not fall.

For me, therefore, the correct number that should be used with regard to the "cost of football" is probably the $1-2m number, the actual savings from dropping football, without any other changes. Even then, to save that, and to keep all other things the same, UAB will have to:
1. Add 85 additional students that pay the full tuition so that they actually have the same Overall revenue, but not the "cost" of the scholarships
2. replace any walkons that leave with other students that actually pay
3. Maintain sufficient affirmative action so as not to see an overall shift in the demographics of the student base, and do it without incurring additional costs

What would have to be done in order to save the full $17 million? I presume that every sport would have to be eliminated, including all varsity, club, and intermural sports. I presume that in addition all athletic facilities would have to be sold off and/or converted to other uses so that they no longer required maintenance.

Note that I'm not saying that $1-2 million is the correct number; it's just a guess. I'm certainly open to some serious effort to ascertain the actual number. What I'm not open to is seriously considering the arguments of anyone who uses the $17m number, because it's ludicrously off, and anyone that uses it is obviously not making a serious effort to address the issue at all.

Last Edited: 1/1/2015 8:38:19 AM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
OUs LONG Driver
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Copley, OH
Post Count: 653

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 8:46:12 AM 
UAB currently only has 5 men's sports. The NCAA requires 6 to remain a Division 1 member. The firm that helped them in their process recommended they add Men's Track and Cross Country. I don't believe that's been made official yet.
Back to Top
  
Paul Graham
General User



Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 10:01:45 AM 
perimeterpost wrote:
Paul Graham wrote:
Trying to correlate athletic spending/prioritization to academic reputation derived from a subjective ranking is clearly a lost cause. The authors would be wise to avoid that angle.

That said, it's a sad state of affairs when the burden of proof is on the academics to show that operating a football program (at an institution of higher learning) that is yearly millions in the red is a bad idea. Particularly given the rising cost of higher Ed.

It's a dumb idea. Period. No reasonable person can argue that any of this is sensible. And asking the students for 17(?)M per year to keep the thing afloat is unsustainable and arguably immoral.


Like it or not an FBS football team is the single most effective way to advertise your educational institution to the largest number of potential students. There's plenty of data to show the correlation between the rise in the success and exposure of OU's football program over recent years and the rise in applications and attendance of incoming students.


Go prove that. I'd love to see the data. Miami makes a nice case study as they dont seem to be suffering one bit due to poor performance of their football/Bball teams. They also tout record numbers of applications, best incoming class, etc... Was Miami doing substantially better in the late 90s/early oughts when their sports teams were getting national attention? Almost certainly not.
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 562

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 10:20:57 AM 
Paul Graham wrote:
perimeterpost wrote:
Paul Graham wrote:
Trying to correlate athletic spending/prioritization to academic reputation derived from a subjective ranking is clearly a lost cause. The authors would be wise to avoid that angle.

That said, it's a sad state of affairs when the burden of proof is on the academics to show that operating a football program (at an institution of higher learning) that is yearly millions in the red is a bad idea. Particularly given the rising cost of higher Ed.

It's a dumb idea. Period. No reasonable person can argue that any of this is sensible. And asking the students for 17(?)M per year to keep the thing afloat is unsustainable and arguably immoral.


Like it or not an FBS football team is the single most effective way to advertise your educational institution to the largest number of potential students. There's plenty of data to show the correlation between the rise in the success and exposure of OU's football program over recent years and the rise in applications and attendance of incoming students.


Go prove that. I'd love to see the data. Miami makes a nice case study as they dont seem to be suffering one bit due to poor performance of their football/Bball teams. They also tout record numbers of applications, best incoming class, etc... Was Miami doing substantially better in the late 90s/early oughts when their sports teams were getting national attention? Almost certainly not.


Great post. For me the best comparison is always Minnesota and Alabama. The former has been a joke in football for half a century and the last time they were briefly relevant in basketball it fell apart in a massive NCAA scandal. Yet by absolutely any metric, Minnesota is not even in the same league as Alabama academically--undergraduate rankings, undergraduate admissions, graduate department rankings, National Academy faculty, endowment, annual research funding. Minnesota absolutely blows Alabama out of the water. So it would seem that having such an overwhelming emphasis on football hasn't really created much of a university to be proud of down in Tuscaloosa.

And as I've shown time after time with data, any so-called Flutie effect on Ohio admissions has been only in quantity not quality of applicants, as Ohio's freshman classes have largely been stagnant in terms of class rank and test scores and never mind the argument that those quantity increases coincided with a slight echo of the baby boom as high school graduates in Ohio steadily increased for a few years, but are now set to decline in coming years.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,069

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 10:35:05 AM 
Paul Graham wrote:
Go prove that. I'd love to see the data. ...

Proving the value of specific advertising is always, and has always been, difficult. One problem is that no one ever advertises their "product" in only a single way, so it's difficult to tell what effect came from what cause. How much of Miami's strength came from sports success? How much from promoting themselves as "preppy"?

Another problem is questions concerning the longevity of advertising. If sports success does promote more applicants, is it only for one year? Or does the effect last longer? Is Miami still benefiting from successes of a decade ago?

In the end you probably have to resort to circumstantial evidence rather that proving direct causation. For example, ask what is the average academic rank of P5 teams, what is the average academic rank of G5 teams, and what is the average academic rank of FCS teams? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find that they come in that order. Would that be a coincidence?

Next, look at the question of giving to the general funds of the various schools. No one ever argued against the numbers that I presented a year ago, and two years ago, that showed that schools with football success showed significantly higher rates or growth than those without. The top schools in general fund growth were the super-elite schools, schools so famous that they don't need to be advertised (Harvard, MIT, U. Chicago, etc.). Next came P5 schools. Next came G5 schools that had been successful recently. At the bottom came schools with no Division I football. Is this a coincidence?

OUPride wrote:
Great post. For me the best comparison is always Minnesota and Alabama. ...

I think is the right approach, but a wrong comparison because when you compare schools in totally different geographic areas you get a lot more differences than just football success. What you should be doing is comparing schools in the same general area, but with different levels of success. For example, how does Alabama compare to Mississippi State, two schools in the same conference and area, but with different levels of success? How about compared to Tulane, a school that used to be in the SEC, but which dropped out, and ended up a G5 school? Or, to S. Alabama, a school in the same area that was FCS until recently? (I have no idea what the answer is in such a comparison, but I think it would be a better test data set.)

Last Edited: 1/1/2015 10:43:45 AM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
perimeterpost
General User



Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 3,165

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 12:32:00 PM 
OUPride wrote:
Paul Graham wrote:
perimeterpost wrote:
Paul Graham wrote:
Trying to correlate athletic spending/prioritization to academic reputation derived from a subjective ranking is clearly a lost cause. The authors would be wise to avoid that angle.

That said, it's a sad state of affairs when the burden of proof is on the academics to show that operating a football program (at an institution of higher learning) that is yearly millions in the red is a bad idea. Particularly given the rising cost of higher Ed.

It's a dumb idea. Period. No reasonable person can argue that any of this is sensible. And asking the students for 17(?)M per year to keep the thing afloat is unsustainable and arguably immoral.


Like it or not an FBS football team is the single most effective way to advertise your educational institution to the largest number of potential students. There's plenty of data to show the correlation between the rise in the success and exposure of OU's football program over recent years and the rise in applications and attendance of incoming students.


Go prove that. I'd love to see the data. Miami makes a nice case study as they dont seem to be suffering one bit due to poor performance of their football/Bball teams. They also tout record numbers of applications, best incoming class, etc... Was Miami doing substantially better in the late 90s/early oughts when their sports teams were getting national attention? Almost certainly not.


Great post. For me the best comparison is always Minnesota and Alabama. The former has been a joke in football for half a century and the last time they were briefly relevant in basketball it fell apart in a massive NCAA scandal. Yet by absolutely any metric, Minnesota is not even in the same league as Alabama academically--undergraduate rankings, undergraduate admissions, graduate department rankings, National Academy faculty, endowment, annual research funding. Minnesota absolutely blows Alabama out of the water. So it would seem that having such an overwhelming emphasis on football hasn't really created much of a university to be proud of down in Tuscaloosa.

And as I've shown time after time with data, any so-called Flutie effect on Ohio admissions has been only in quantity not quality of applicants, as Ohio's freshman classes have largely been stagnant in terms of class rank and test scores and never mind the argument that those quantity increases coincided with a slight echo of the baby boom as high school graduates in Ohio steadily increased for a few years, but are now set to decline in coming years.


so now the expectation is that athletics has to get more applicants AND they have to be of a higher quality AND it has to be done while turning a profit? ok.

MY STATE. MY TEAM.
Back to Top
  
D.A.
General User

Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,174

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: Vedder and Hartke strike again...
   Posted: 1/1/2015 2:07:28 PM 
Paul Graham wrote:
That said, it's a sad state of affairs when the burden of proof is on the academics to show that operating a football program (at an institution of higher learning) that is yearly millions in the red is a bad idea. Particularly given the rising cost of higher Ed.

It's a dumb idea. Period. No reasonable person can argue that any of this is sensible. And asking the students for 17(?)M per year to keep the thing afloat is unsustainable and arguably immoral.


Clearly there are many here such as you who's opinion I respect (although do not agree with) regarding the nature of deficit spending on items within a university budget. I do want to point out that none of us here know how much of a deficit Basketball, or any of the other sports is run at, but I can intuit that they all do run a deficit. So I do want to make the point that football should not continue to be the sole focus of the deficit spending issue, although it is convenient considering the recent UAB decision which can be logically argued was politically motivated, not simply a financial decision. I could argue that it is immoral in a deficit situation that we spend in the middle of the MAC pack on football but choose to spend 50% more than the closest MAC school on hoops.

However, there is a clear correlation to the theme above and an argument of making each individual educational program on campus justify their existence by showing that they cash flow, as it is not a dissimilar notion from ICA. I always hear the same, esoteric rationalization of "yeah, well it is an institution of higher learning, so who cares if each program cash flows?" and "well we are a liberal arts institution, so we have to offer these niche programs, or otherwise we would just be a vocational school!" arguments. Should a Business student be financing the Theatre and Dance programs? Or Photography? Or Pottery?

In both the academic and ICA instances, the answer to both questions is the same: The President and the Board of Trustees are entrusted by the State of Ohio to make these decisions on behalf of the taxpayers. In my case, I choose to let them make those decisions. I don't feel there is a burden of proof for either of the two, however you may disagree. Many here may disagree, and if so you should voice your opinions in the proper forums if you wish to see change.

As it relates to the USNWR ratings, and the example someone else cited recently regarding UC having run up the charts of ratings, clearly UC has been doing substantial deficit spending to prop up their sports programs over the years while also improving their academic mission:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/n.../
And they are pouring tons of money into facilities upgrades:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/17-insanely-expensive-colleg...

As has been pointed out, the ratings are highly variable and unpredictable. Since the USNWR rankings are a gauge of the academic mission of the University, do we feel that each and every administrator, the board, faculty and staff should be called to the mat to explain the trends over the last ten years relative to our perceived peer institutions the same way that ICA is regularly called to task to justify its existence, despite only comprising less than three percent of the University's budget? Or is it easier to continue the red herring and avoid the item of higher gravitas? Is it easier to just point to Rod as the root cause because he is the face of the institution, or is the root issue the State of Ohio continuing to reduce the amount of state support? Hundreds of millions of dollars of deferred maintenance that was allowed to accrue under the Ping and Glidden regimes? Escalating amounts of tenured professors who hung on longer than their contributions proved to be valuable to the academic mission of the University?

In my view, there are far larger fish to fry. But that's just me. As I stated earlier, I don't spend my time worrying about whether or not the present state is sensible, as the significant decline in state support of Ohio universities is far less sensible, and which I feel is a far more morally objectionable issue than how we fund ICA. I live in Massachusetts and the state is significantly INCREASING their support for their institutions of higher learning and they are flying up the rankings as a result. They are also spending tens of millions of dollars annually both locally and regionally on traditional advertising as well as increasing their support of athletics on both the Amherst and Lowell campuses. Why can't Ohio do the same thing, and see all of its institutions benefit?

Last Edited: 1/1/2015 2:17:22 PM by D.A.

The Few, The Proud, The Bobcats!

And for the record, I hate tOSU, and Ricordati and Torgerson are DB's.

"This isn't just another walkover from the MAC." Kirk Herbstreit, another DB, on College Football Gameday
Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  51 - 75  of 83 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 238 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
235 Guests
3 Registered Users:
 Kevin Finnegan, PalmerFest, HeHateMiami
There are no other users looking at this page.




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