Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
zip81

Smaller, Leaner athletic program...

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, jupitertoo said:

And yet the Force never made a profit.  Papering the house with free tix is not a long-term marketing strategy.  Bart Wolstein bitched about the losses for years.  I have a friend who worked at a high level in the organization - their ultimate plan for profitability was through their Force soccer/fitness centers, and that didn't pan out. Wolstein pulled the plug at the height of their popularity because the losses were rising.

On a side note, I know a guy who played for the Force. He was the soccer coach for the local high school here in South Carolina and I think he still might be..

 

Anyhow, if the goal of college athletics is profitability, they should close every program with the exception of around 20. G5 schools need to examine exactly how much taxpayer dollars they are willing to spend on college athletics (I think we are at an acceptable level). They then need to provide such an awesome experience in the form of good football, clean stadiums, clean bathrooms, clean parking lots, good food/beer at a time convenient for the taxpayers to attend that the taxpayers will find it acceptable to put some of their tax dollars into college athletics. If that means giving tax payers free GA tickets to something they are already paying for, then so be it. Then, here comes a crazy idea, maybe they can cut back on some of the endless stories about budget deficits and mix in some PR related to the awesome public service the kids engage in around NE Ohio. What they need to do really isn't difficult to do.

 

In and effort to win an award in the category of "Best Use Of Language In A Rant Against Stupidity", I present the following. If college athletics is the "business" everyone claims it to be, it would have been shuttered years ago. It is closer to "monkey business" than actual "business". It's complete nonsense to look at it as a business. The only actual business going on comes from those making money off of it outside of the universities (television networks, beer companies, etc.) and if they completely destroy G5 athletics, they will shift their business elsewhere. I rest my case and hope the judges will look favorably on my submission for "Best Use of Language In A Rant Against Stupidity".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GP1 said:

G5 schools need to examine exactly how much taxpayer dollars they are willing to spend on college athletics (I think we are at an acceptable level).


And bring the student fees more inline with al the other fees they pay, whether they use what they’re paying for or not. I listed all the fees I paid that I never took advantage of as a commuter student. I’m sure all students have a long list as well.

 

You brought up the JAR. I see what you’re saying. Compare the JAR to high school gyms like Moeller, or even some of the newer D1public school gyms. Not good. But with everything going on, I think we’re stuck with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spin said:


And bring the student fees more inline with al the other fees they pay, whether they use what they’re paying for or not. I listed all the fees I paid that I never took advantage of as a commuter student. I’m sure all students have a long list as well.

Better yet, interrupt the steady drip of negative stories about finances that are driving new students away and bringing down enrollment.  G5 schools have a revenue problem driven by declining in enrollment. The expenses of college athletics would be reduced if they could get this under control.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2020 at 10:39 AM, GP1 said:

Better yet, interrupt the steady drip of negative stories about finances that are driving new students away and bringing down enrollment.  G5 schools have a revenue problem driven by declining in enrollment. The expenses of college athletics would be reduced if they could get this under control.

 

It sure sounds like you think increasing enrollment would reduce athletic expenses which makes no sense.

I guess this could be true if, for example, suppliers agreed to provide athletic equipment at a lower cost as enrollment increases occur, or if coaches agreed to lower salaries tied to enrollment increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LZIp said:

Thanks for the link. 

 

Trying to put myself in someone else's shoes here. If you were an employee in the athletic department of one of these schools, what evidence is there that the current conditions will change by next year?  At what point do you leave for another job in order to provide for your family? At what point do you leave to go somewhere where they will let you do your job? If it turns out that on November 4th, everything returns to normal magically, how peed of are you to the point you will leave the conference just to avoid further exploitation?

 

I don't think the Big Ten or PAC 12 clearly thought through their decisions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zipmeister said:

 

It sure sounds like you think increasing enrollment would reduce athletic expenses which makes no sense.

I guess this could be true if, for example, suppliers agreed to provide athletic equipment at a lower cost as enrollment increases occur, or if coaches agreed to lower salaries tied to enrollment increases.

It would increase revenue. Expenses are something else. Coaches shouldn't be held responsible for enrollment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GP1 said:

If it turns out that on November 4th, everything returns to normal magically, how peed of are you to the point you will leave the conference just to avoid further exploitation?

 

I don't think the Big Ten or PAC 12 clearly thought through their decisions. 

Seriously?  Leave your political agenda in a different thread or on a political blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GP1 said:

It would increase revenue. Expenses are something else. Coaches shouldn't be held responsible for enrollment. 

 

I understand increased enrollment would increase university revenue; it's how increasing enrollment would reduce athletic department expenses that giving me trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NWAkron said:

Seriously?  Leave your political agenda in a different thread or on a political blog.

I believe they are all legitimate questions and my guess is a lot of athletic department employees are asking the same questions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Zipmeister said:

 

I understand increased enrollment would increase university revenue; it's how increasing enrollment would reduce athletic department expenses that giving me trouble.

It would increase revenue. Expenses are something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GP1 said:

I believe they are all legitimate questions and my guess is a lot of athletic department employees are asking the same questions. 

There's a thread for COVID discussions-

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately COVID affects everything else...

 

We haven't begun to see the destruction it's going to cause U of A athletics...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spin said:

Unfortunately COVID affects everything else...

 

We haven't begun to see the destruction it's going to cause U of A athletics...

You are 100% correct. To pretend it won't impact decision making of employees is foolish. To leave it out of discussions is whistling past the graveyard. To pretend politicians who head up state universities don't figure politics in their decision making calculus is foolish. It is causing smaller, leaner athletic departments and that is on theme of this topic and can't be ignored.

 

Forget the MAC. Does anyone think that if the state of the coronavirus is the same next year at this time there won't be enormous political pressures on the leaders of midwest states to play college football? The Big Ten is teetering on the verge of giving in this year as we speak. Is it data and science moving them (it should be), or is it political pressure? If the Big Ten doesn't play next year, it will be catastrophic for the league.  Elected officials will lose their jobs over it. There won't be a decent coach or player left at any of the schools, and that includes Ohio State. They too can enjoy their smaller and leaner athletic departments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is pretending it won't have an impact.  It's going to have an impact in every aspect of American life for a while.  Many of us just don't enjoy interjecting political debate into the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll pose this question: If "the science is the science" is really the reason we aren't playing football this year, why is there high school football, why can UCincinnati play football, why can the Browns/Bengals play football, why can all of these Universities have students on campus, why can students go to high school, why can our own football team continue working out, together, and why can the Big 12, SEC, ACC, Sun Belt, CUSA, and AAC, among others, play football this year but we can't? University of Central Arkansas and Austin Peay already showed we can play without spreading. How many students who've contracted COVID-19 since returning to campus have been hospitalized? The answer is none. I'm pissed I can't watch us play this year. I'm not going to claim this is political (and I don't think GP1 was either), but this sure as heck isn't strictly "science". I think claiming the protection of others is the easiest and most logical scapegoat, but that isn't even a part of the B1G playing debate anymore, its myocarditis and those numbers have been recently proven to be grossly exaggerated (not to mention there are doctors who don't see it as that serious) Its more money related than anything IMO.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/penn-state-clarifies-doctors-claim-of-one-third-of-big-ten-athletes-with-myocarditis/ar-BB18GITN?ocid=uxbndlbing

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blue & Gold said:

😂😂

 

Hopefully,  we can find a happy middle ground by time basketball comes around.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, a-zip said:

Is a Zip game at the Info really a threat to spread COVID19? 😕

Akron.png.jpeg

damn.  I miss those days.  Infocision is probably the safest place to be during a pandemic.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, ZZZips said:

I am glad to see that President Miller's Athletic Review Working Group has several long time season ticket holders and Z-Fund donors as members.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/education/2020/09/university-of-akron-launches-group-to-consider-cost-saving-measures-for-athletics.html

 

Isn’t this simply the AD’s responsibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NWAkron said:

Sarcasm?

I count 4 of them. Several others that work for the university that I personally know are strong supporters of athletics. Overall not what I would call an angry mob looking to abolish sports.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...