Jump to content

UAZipster0305

Members
  • Content Count

    2,290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

UAZipster0305 last won the day on July 23 2018

UAZipster0305 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

140 Excellent

About UAZipster0305

  • Rank
    Zips Junkie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting and timely topic. I'll bite. The argument can be made that Athletics is almost exclusively funded by students as a result of a general service fee assessed directly to them. Students already get in free for their contribution. Am I missing something? How are state taxes directly paying for athletics rather than supporting university academics based on credit hours? Do coaches have equity in a state retirement system? I honestly don't know, but if coaches do get vested for retirement, perhaps going forward they should be excluded?
  2. Wow, Scarborough was taken off the list! You'd think that UA would be doing everything they could to get rid of him. He must have BoT or political connections. And it is far past time for Proenza to voluntarily take a more modest salary. While some of his decisions as President have not played out well, I always respected him for being a good leader and having an ambition for UA. Some of those decisions with regard to specific buildings look far too over the top in hindsight, but at the time I don't think they were obviously wrong. For my respect of Proenza to continue, he will need to show continued leadership by sacrificing half or more of his current salary.
  3. Thanks. I only read it once. As with many of you, things have been very out of the ordinary on my end.
  4. Thank you. Not sure that was clear in the press release.
  5. I support all of these things. The problem is, it costs the average student who doesn't participate $1500 / year, and they get little to no personal benefit. These are values of sports in general that anyone who participated at the high school level should already have. If our athletes were not on scholarship and coaches weren't making six figures, I'd feel differently. The objection I have is that academics and research are sacrificed for athletics that benefit <1% of the student population. Something had to give.
  6. Golf and cross-country have roughly the same number per sport, per gender though.
  7. The loss of men's golf, men's cross-country, and women's golf is about as good as the UA community could have expected. Though I feel for the individuals who are affected, historically bad decision making led us to a course that was already unsustainable. I wonder though, why not cut both men and women's cross-country OR men's and women's golf rather than one gender from each sport? And how in the world do those 3 programs cost $4.4 million per year?! In general, I feel that Dr. Miller's messaging has been favorable, especially relative to what we've been used to through recent history. Let's hope he chooses to not renew Williams' contract next year and that the academic changes will be equally as reasonable. I wrote to him to advocate for some specifics related to the latter.
  8. This has been mentioned here in the forums before. It is intentionally misleading and convoluted for the sake of supporting flawed logic. That $1 million + could have been applied to other expenses such as reducing the debt on the Info or better supporting the Athletics Department as a whole. Instead, it was burned to pay a coach 2 years not to coach and replace him with a guy who needed bought out at his old job in spite of being mediocre at best there. What a waste! If I were a student paying fees to support athletics, I'd be pissed! No wonder enrollment has been sagging. The UA community deserves better than this.
  9. We'd be holding on to him for another year then not renewing his contract. And we'd be more than 1 million dollars better off because of it. To a financially strapped university, that's a huge deal. And after next season, we'd set off on a legitimate coaching search early in the season so the new guy would be well positioned to recruit in his first year.
  10. Except it's not just us saying this. It's a member of the national media in a publication that reaches tens of millions of people.
  11. I did. As I said then and is true now, nothing matters besides winning the MACC. And no team wants to see us on their NCAAT bracket. Yes, we've had a rough season, but the talent is still there to go far in the post-season.
  12. Not holding my breath but still hoping he can for the sake of the program and the University. And I say this as someone who supported Bowden coaching out his contract.
  13. We aren't arguing, we're looking for solutions, which is what I wish more of us were doing. If the program is in this shape in 2-3 years, it is in grave danger. Meanwhile, many of us are defending past decisions and hoping or expecting Arth to turn this thing around. Those who are might as well be just praying to the football gods, and that is exactly the kind of thinking that got us in this position for the second time in less than a decade.
  14. Because Bowden was relieved of his duties for the sake of installing our next great coach, Arth. It is therefore impossible to dissociate the two. We are a severely cashed strapped university. The only responsible time to move on from Bowden would have been after his contract expired. And yes, if we had another season or two like the 2018 season, I would have been okay finding a new coach at that time.
×
×
  • Create New...