BobcatAttack.com - For Fans of Ohio University Sports

Welcome Guest!
Create an Account

site search

about us

advertise with us

help

BobcatAttack.com Message Board

Ohio Football

Topic: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Topic: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Author

Message

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 10:05:29 AM

Dr. David Ridpath, professor in Ohio's revered Sports Administration program is siding with Dr. Richard Vedder and Faculty Senate in the bash on ICA's spending. Funny how Dr. Ridpath had no problems taking a ridiculous "consulting fee" from ICA a couple of years ago. Guy is a lightning rod where ever he is!

http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-32491-athletics-re...

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

HighStreetHooligan
General User

Member Since: 8/9/2010
Post Count: 35

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 10:12:47 AM

guy is a joke... must still be bitter from the stunt he pulled at Marshall

someone who is much more computer inclined than me should do a search on every article he's been "quoted" in... I'll bet $1 9 out of 10 of them are him bashing something (mainly ICA) in one way or another.

John C. Wanamaker
General User

Member Since: 1/2/2005
Post Count: 1,103

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 10:14:52 AM

Did you know the guy was banned by Athens Sandlot for his conduct towards a coach? And he started his tirade with "do you know who I am?". At this time he was teaching Ethics in Sport!

"Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don't know which half."

Ted Thompson
Administrator

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,723

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 10:15:00 AM

He and Vedder just looking to get paid. Not there's anything wrong with that, it's a perfectly acceptable lifestyle.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 10:18:21 AM

That doesn't mean he isn't right. We are throwing millions of dollars per year at an athletics department that generates pennies on the dollar in terms of actual returns on that investment. The current level of athletics spending is simply unsustainable over the long-term without a significant increase in booster donations. But it's not just us, it's the same at 95% of non-BCS schools. The current system is horribly broken nationwide, and desperately needs to be fixed.

I realize it isn't a popular viewpoint here, and that most will just choose to shoot the messenger. But for all the talk around here of bringing corporate sector sensibilities to the university, the first place any experienced CEO would look to cut the budget is athletics. It is a financial black hole at a school the level of OU.

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 10:27:28 AM by Flomo-genized

BobcatSports
General User

Member Since: 2/2/2006
Post Count: 1,094

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 10:51:37 AM

This could be easily solved if we could just get Purdue on the home schedule.

Athens Block
General User

Member Since: 7/15/2010
Post Count: 201

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:00:10 AM

The median household income in Southeast Ohio is $27K a year... The average salary for a full professor at Ohio University is $100k... Forgive me if I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for a group of people making 4 times as much as the community around them.... Nevermind that $100K is more than all but 3 employees in the entire Athletic Department...

Ridpath says that the coaches are making too much? Which coaches? Groce and Solich are the only ones making more than the average professor....

By all means let's pay our faculty more... a 25% increase over the last 8 years surely isn't good enough for a group of people who have the ultimate job security and can't be fired...

http://www.ohio.edu/instres/factbook/facsal_aaup.html

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:16:28 AM

You are distorting the numbers. The average professor at Ohio University does not make $100K per year. That number was only eclipsed by the average full professor, and even that is no longer the case according to your own link. When you factor in non-tenure track instructors, and tenure-track/tenured assistant and associate professors (i.e., the significant majority of all professors on campus), the average salary number drops quite a bit.

But the greater problem with that argument is that it assumes that the reasonable salary for a coach is in some way connected to the average professor's salary. That in turn misrepresents the purpose of the university in the first place. The fundamental purpose of the school is not to sponsor middling athletic programs that spend significantly more revenue than they generate. The purpose is to educate students. Therefore, until such time as any of our athletics programs actually make money, the professors should earn more than the coaches. And the fact that they do does not mean that our coaches are not overpaid in comparison to the revenue that they actually generate for the university.

Ted Thompson
Administrator

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,723

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:28:56 AM

Flomo-genized wrote:

Coaches and professors should make what the market will bear, full stop. If a professor wants to make more money, than they need to have a skill-set that will allow them to be paid more. Same as the coaches.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,062

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:37:41 AM

Flomo-genized wrote:

The current level of athletics spending is simply unsustainable over the long-term without a significant increase in booster donations.

I disagree. Athletics spending is easily sustainable. Even without a significant increase in booster donations. This is just a question of priorities.

Also, Vedder and Ridpath are just the academy protecting the academy.

I've yet to hear any faculty member come forward to talk about shrinking the academic size of OU. And, my understanding is OU is way too big on the academic side. I hear we have more programs than Ohio State. (Think about that for a second.) I've heard people say OU should have as much as 100 less programs than it has right now. 100 less. (I have no statistics, just what I hear from credible sources from time to time.)

So, whatever the Board and Execs want to prioritize will remain. What they don't want to make a priority will go away.

Barring some suprising group decision on football from OU, Miami, BG, and Kent, we'll be playing division I football and spending at least what we are now for a long time.

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 11:38:46 AM by Ohio69

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

Athens Block
General User

Member Since: 7/15/2010
Post Count: 201

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:39:01 AM

Flomo-genized wrote:

I said Full professor... i meant to say it in the second statement but didn't...

You're really going to give me crap for rounding $99,249 up to $100k?

As far as the education aspect... Head Coaches are educators as well... to say they aren't teaching the kids who are playing for them is ridiculous. Learning isn't confined to a test tube in Clippinger or a spreadsheet in Copeland...

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:39:56 AM

Ted Thompson wrote:

I agree. The problem is that we have elected to compete in a market for athletic coaches that our revenues simply do not justify or support. This is what the professors are ultimately complaining about, the fact that we have thrown our hat into the Division I athletics ring, without any actual discussion of the costs and benefits accompanying that decision, and without any realistic hope of ever being in a position to generate revenues competitive with the majority of Division I teams (i.e., those in BCS Conferences).

Ted Thompson
Administrator

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,723

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:46:10 AM

Flomo-genized wrote:

A CEO would focus first on where the dollars are going and not the cents. Over time, they get to the cents as well. Most all CEO's will becnhmark their areas of spend vs. the competitors. The Ohio CEO would find they were in line in that regard.

Look, I'm all in favor of holding people's feet to the fire on Athletics spending. If Ohio has a budget shortfall in athletics, maybe it needs to add another money game in football. If alumni think it's valuable, they should be pay for it by starting a $20M endowment that could offset 5% (and hopefully grow it to more) of annual operating budget. Former student-athletes should be given the opportunity to secure the long-term viability of the sports they participated in (the roughly 800 living former footballers should be able to endow a $400K to $500K scholarship each year. It's a long build but over the course of time you will have funded the delta between the FCS/FBS argument). State lawmakers should be lobbied so that the Ohio MAC schools can benefit from a de facto tax in the same way Ohio St. benefits from the Big 10 network tax. Communities should invest more in these types of activities which in turn tey can benefit from.

At the end of the day, I look at people's incentives. The faculty senate is looking to create a shining object to distract people from taking a closer look at them. Or, maybe they feel they'll get some of the dollars if they can eliminate athletics (and then the arts and whatever other services they can go after). Vedder, to his credit I guess, has been much of university spending (construction, athletics and otherwise). He's found a niche that gets him in the press a lot which allows him to make more money through books and studies.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:48:41 AM

Ohio69 wrote:

Flomo-genized wrote:

The current level of athletics spending is simply unsustainable over the long-term without a significant increase in booster donations.

I disagree. Athletics spending is easily sustainable. Even without a significant increase in booster donations. This is just a question of priorities.

Sure, if you prioritize throwing away millions of dollars per year on athletic programs few current or former students care about, and from which the university derives little to no documentable benefits, then by all means it is sustainable. But in any world where decisions are made on a rational basis, then no, it is not sustainable.

Yes OU offers too many programs, and yes the faculty have vested interests in focusing on athletics spending rather than narrowing the number of programs offered. But that doesn't mean that the current athletics funding is justified. We should be looking at both areas. However, cutting academic programs is a long-term fix, and will do little to cure short-term budget shortfalls.

Look, I love OU athletics as much as anyone. And in a perfect world I'd support unlimited athletics spending. But we don't live in a perfect world. It is extremely hard to justify imposing a $500 per year tax on our students to fund athletics, especially when most of them don't care about our athletic teams. The actual value realized from these athletics expenditures simply do not justify the cost.

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 12:17:21 PM by Flomo-genized

Ted Thompson
Administrator

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,723

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:50:32 AM

Flomo-genized wrote:

Ted Thompson wrote:

I disagree. I think university Boards and Presidents realize there is a value and are comfortable where that fits in their budget. Is it hard to quantify? You bet. No different that than the value of a new Baker Center vs. the old Baker Center. Or which and how many majors to offer. Or how much money you want to spend maintainng campus grounds.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,062

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 11:51:37 AM

Flomo-genized wrote:

This is what the professors are ultimately complaining about, the fact that we have thrown our hat into the Division I athletics ring, without any actual discussion of the costs and benefits accompanying that decision, and without any realistic hope of ever being in a position to generate revenues competitive with the majority of Division I teams (i.e., those in BCS Conferences).

Are you sure this discussion has not taken place? My guess is those in charge of the university have this discussion frequently. And, athletics continues to survive.

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

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 12:03:52 PM

Ted Thompson wrote:

I guess it depends on what you view as the competition. If by the competition you mean MAC schools, then yes our spend is probably roughly in line. But if you look at our competition as Division I schools generally, or even just all non-BCS FBS conferences, then we are out of line, because a significantly higher percentage of our athletics budget is subsidized by the university than most other Division I schools.

In any event, the best CEOs don't just blindly follow their competitors, but instead try to find inefficiencies that they can exploit. If the only defense of our current athletics spending model that we can muster is that everyone else is doing the same thing, then that isn't a very good rationale for continuing down the current path.

We should be documenting the actual, tangible benefits that athletics provides to the rest of the university. For instance, let's survey incoming freshmen to determine what percentage of them viewed our athletics department as a factor in their decision to enroll. Or at a more micro level, how many of them watched last year's Pizza Bowl. Similarly, a survey of alumni could be conducted to determine how many of them follow OU sports after graduation, and how important they believe it is to continue those programs. Then we could start to have a rational discussion about the value that athletics provides to the university.

Ted Thompson wrote:

Look, I'm all in favor of holding people's feet to the fire on Athletics spending. If Ohio has a budget shortfall in athletics, maybe it needs to add another money game in football. If alumni think it's valuable, they should be pay for it by starting a $20M endowment that could offset 5% (and hopefully grow it to more) of annual operating budget. Former student-athletes should be given the opportunity to secure the long-term viability of the sports they participated in (the roughly 800 living former footballers should be able to endow a $400K to $500K scholarship each year. It's a long build but over the course of time you will have funded the delta between the FCS/FBS argument). State lawmakers should be lobbied so that the Ohio MAC schools can benefit from a de facto tax in the same way Ohio St. benefits from the Big 10 network tax. Communities should invest more in these types of activities which in turn tey can benefit from.

I agree here as well. Why aren't we taking these steps? The cynic in me suspects its because we know that alumni support isn't anywhere at the level it needs to be in order to accomplish what you propose, but perhaps it is a failure of leadership. In any case, if we could do something like this, it would provide a starting point for defending the athletics department. That doesn't mean that it'll shut up all of the faculty, but then at least you'd have some reasonable defenses for the spending. Right now the only defense we can offer is that everyone else is doing it, which isn't exactly true for the reasons discussed above, and in any event largely irrelevant for determining the rationality of the present course.

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 12:10:25 PM

Ohio69 wrote:

Flomo-genized wrote:

Are you sure this discussion has not taken place? My guess is those in charge of the university have this discussion frequently. And, athletics continues to survive.

Sure, behind closed doors by people who have vested interests in maintaining the status quo. You realize that the upper administration and trustees enjoy their expenses paid trips to road games, bowl games, and NCAA tournament games, right? That is one of the perks of the job.

Look, if the current athletics spending model is rational then the administration should be making that case. Put the numbers out there once and for all about the benefits that the university receives. It shouldn't be hard to do, assuming that they've compiled the data for their internal deliberations. The problem is that they can't do it, because the current Division I athletics model at universities of our level simply doesn't make sense. Otherwise, they would have made the case publicly years ago.

So color me skeptical of claims that the current course of action is rational, for reasons that never see the light of day.

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 12:11:55 PM by Flomo-genized

Ted Thompson
Administrator

Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,723

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 12:26:45 PM

Flomo-genized wrote:

Ted Thompson wrote:

I think the benefits are more numerous than that which you've tried to limit them. It is hard to figure what part of your branding spend can tip the scales in your favor or give you mindshare. Is there are a larger student group on campus than the O Zone? But if you're going to go down the path of ROI, then ROI needs to be proved on everything. What's the ROI on each major that's offered? What's the ROI on each professor? On each administrator? Of building a new Baker Center vs. keeping the old one? If those things are done, I'll feel really good about how Athletics spending fares. Especially when a large chunk of that spending (scholarships) is on the university itself. Bottom line is: if Athletics budgets make it through this so-called "Great Recession" then I think the outlook is solid for the future. But as I said earlier, I'm all for looking to for ways to do things better and making folks put more money where their mouth is.

Follow Ohio Football recruiting on the BobcatAttack.com football recruiting database.

Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,062

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 12:42:58 PM

Flomo-genized wrote:

I knew my post would get a quick response.

I give them way more credit than this. And, I think we way overestimate the number of board members who actually go to these things. But hey, I could be wrong.

Anyway, just feel like saying I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on this topic and debating and etc. No animosity here from me. Just a good debate. Too bad there aren't cold beers involved....

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 12:43:24 PM by Ohio69

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

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 12:51:38 PM

Ted Thompson wrote:

Admittedly the potential benefits are broader than what I outlined as a potential survey, but that was just off the top of my head. And I admit that in some cases they may be hard to fully capture, quantatively. But we aren't even trying. And that is a root cause of some of the current backlash on campus. Professors are, by and large, rational folks. If you claim that something is beneficial, they expect to see some proof that what you claim is true.

From an institutional perspective, I wouldn't be too concerned with the size of the OZone versus other student groups on campus. Those students are, for the most part, going to remain students with or without the OZone. Rather, I would be interested in seeing what percentage of students overall attend sporting events, and with what frequency, when deciding whether to continue to subsidize athletics disproportionately with student fees. I'd also be interested in seeing how many incoming freshmen were aware of our Pizza Bowl game, and for how many it factored in any way in their decision to attend Ohio University, so that I can make a more informed decision this winter about whether the benefits of a Humanitarian Bowl or Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl appearance outweigh the significant costs.

Ted Thompson wrote:

But if you're going to go down the path of ROI, then ROI needs to be proved on everything. What's the ROI on each major that's offered? What's the ROI on each professor? On each administrator? Of building a new Baker Center vs. keeping the old one?

I don't entirely agree. I think that ROI is more relevant to tangential university functions (like athletics) than it is to core university functions like academics. There are some things that well rounded universities should support even if they don't make a profit off of them. Athletics is one of those, in my mind, but not necessarily at the Division I level. Nevertheless, if we elect to cut some majors and programs, that is effectively what we'd be doing, cutting the ones that offer the lowest ROI?

In this budget climate, everything should be up for debate. The problem is that the administration has pretty much taken athletics off the table, without any justification.

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 12:58:21 PM by Flomo-genized

Flomo-genized
General User

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

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 12:53:42 PM

Ohio69 wrote:

Anyway, just feel like saying I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on this topic and debating and etc. No animosity here from me. Just a good debate. Too bad there aren't cold beers involved....

Same here. Ultimately, we're all motivated by a desire to see what's best for Ohio University. The difference is just in the details.

DublinCat
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 236

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 1:12:47 PM

The school is going to be featured on National Television six hours over the next four weeks. In addition the school name scrolls across the bottom of the screen nationally on ABC, NBC/ND, CBS/ClarkK and all the sports channels. I am not sure what this is worth, but I have noticed a lot more people know the difference between Ohio University and Ohio State since coach Solich has arrived in town.

As a rural non commuter University, Ohio better do all the advertising it can to compete with all the less expensive big city commuter schools that seem to be growing at record pace. The elder professor probably does not care since they are likely to get paid with or without students to teach. The younger ones should be concerned.

OU87

Casper71
General User

Member Since: 12/1/2006
Post Count: 3,090

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 2:45:55 PM

Wow, if we are going to use a corporate business model why not have faculty in the class room 40 hours per week...hahaha! Oh, I forgot, they are doing "student advising and counseling" and "administrative" work in addition to teaching and that is how they get to 40 hours...hahaha.

L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,498

Status: Offline

RE: Sports Administration siding with Faculty Senate on ICA spending!

Posted: 11/1/2010 3:15:03 PM

Sometimes I wonder why Colleges have sports programs at all. I think it all goes back to a day when it was believed that in order to have a sound mind, it was good to have a sound body, and physical education of some form or other was the order of the day for everyone. Then they needed someone to compete against, and it slowly evolved into what we have today. It is worth noting that for-profit Universities never have sports programs of any kind. Perhaps the human species has evolved to the point that video games and watching professional sports provides all the exercise we really need, and we can do away with the quaint notion that physical exercise is good for us?

I know that my time in College would have been vastly different without athletics, whether we are talking about participating, or as a fan. Thus, it isn't all bad. The problem doesn't have an easy solution, though. It isn't just FBS schools that have financial issues; FCS schools have every bit as many budget issues, and the same funding plan generally of assessing quarterly student fees to pay for it.

Last Edited: 11/1/2010 3:16:07 PM by L.C.

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

Showing Replies:	1 - 25 of 95 Posts
Jump to Page:	1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 Next >

View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics

There are 180 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com

179 Guests
1 Registered User:
	bobcat28

There are no other users looking at this page.