Dave in Green

I don't think anyone realistically expects true high-profile teams to visit the JAR. Most fans would be happy with more medium-profile teams. It's the 200+ RPI teams most would rather see fewer of, especially the high-200 and 300+ RPI teams.

Ty's on the VerbalCommits.com list for the Zips.

Do we really need a new thread for this when it's already being discussed in several other threads?

It's pretty easy to bookmark it yourself in your browser and go right back to it at a later date.

On your first point above, the individual percentages I've seen referenced have all been above 50%. The OU contract, signed in 2008, was for 80%. I've also seen 70% referenced. The rate appears to be negotiable and some may be lower than that. On your second point, a lot of the pushback against Academic Partnerships deals has come from concerned faculty at most universities. One thing you can say about Randy Best is that he's no dummy. He's a very clever businessman as evidenced by the hundreds of millions of dollars his businesses are raking in. His latest move as documented in Inside Higher Ed is so clever it will bring tears to your eyes: That's right, Randy Best aims to gain the support of faculty the old-fashioned way -- cold hard cash in the form of rebates, kickbacks or however they refer to them in the higher education enabler business world. It does make you wonder if cash may not have quietly been used to create other converts in the past.

To put this thread on a positive footing, UAB has found a way to come back out of the wilderness and just announced when it will be reinstating FBS football: UAB to reinstate football for 2017 season

More Online Classes, Less Research Could that be a future newspaper headline about UA? It was used in the Dallas Observer about another university with an oblique connection to UA. The full headline was: The Proposed Future of UNT-Dallas: More Online Classes, Less Research. The connection to UA is that one of the people leading the charge in the University of North Texas System was previously Dr. Scarborough's most vocal ally in pushing the plan for the University of Toledo to cut a deal with Higher Ed Holdings (aka Academic Partnerships). At UT, Provost Rosemary Haggett angered faculty by blaming them in a widely circulated e-mail for lack of cooperation that killed the Academic Partnerships deal, which faculty angrily denied, as all documented in this Inside Higher Ed story. It wasn't long after this that Haggett left UT for a new job offer at UNT in Dallas to serve as Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Student Success. Oddly enough her new office happened to be located less than a half mile away from the Dallas corporate headquarters of Randy Best's many companies, including Academic Partnerships. She must have felt right at home at UNT, which was also in the process of angering its faculty as documented in this Dallas Observer story entitled The UNT-Dallas Faculty Really, Really Doesn't Trust the School's Leaders. The New University Model mentioned in the above story, which has similarities to some of Dr. Scarborough's announced plans for UA, was developed by Bain & Company in a pro bono partnership with UNT, which created a new Office of Innovation/Strategy to implement Bain's plan and named Haggett to head the new department. UNT faculty wasn't buying into the Bain/UNT plan any more than UT faculty bought into the Scarborough/Haggett plan, according to the Dallas Observer story entitled Faculty Panel Pans Bain's Vision For UNT-Dallas. The Dallas Observer story referenced in the first paragraph says the plan calls for a heavy emphasis on online courses, less research and degree programs that "won't be determined by some Socratic ideal of education but by what job opportunities are available in the Dallas area." We already know about Dr. Scarborough's plans to hook up UA with Academic Partnerships for the online part. But what about research? UA is recognized as a research university. What happens if research is reduced at a research university? Are there any signs of that happening at UA?

Pretty good, indeed!

With 8 of 10 eliminated after 5.60, it's down to Shawn and an Argentinian whose best all-time jump is 5.71 set 9 years ago.

Half of the field (5 of 10) already out after 5.40. Shawn will be trying for 5.60 on his next jump.

CK is right that this is a subset of the same speculative conversation and doesn't belong in the Football forum, which should be reserved for the current program and past accomplishments on the field. I'm willing to engage in reasonable conversation on just about any subject. But even I get bored when it gets repetitive as it once did with the building process thing.

One of the supposed benefits of the online courses provided to universities by Academic Partnerships and similar for-profit providers is reduced costs for students. But a September investigative report by The Dallas Morning News revealed just the opposite in the University of Texas System, as documented in the story's headline and lead paragraphs: Most college classes cost more online than on campus There are a lot of fine details in the story, so it's worth a read in full. But the newspaper was stonewalled when trying to get details of the university contracts with providers, and it's fair to ask if the same thing would happen at UA:

You're right, "if everything went Akron's way" is a blanket statement that covers it all. It's the hope that every sports fan begins every season with for their team.

Ah, I missed the guaranteed berth for the best of the Group of Five. But your scenario above is also incorrect. The Zips could have their miracle season and still not be the highest-ranked, non-P5 team if another non-P5 team had a similar miracle season and ended up higher in the polls. The Zips would have a chance but it wouldn't be guaranteed. It would all come down to voters in the polls, who would likely remember what happened the last time a MAC team went to a major bowl.

In the fantasy season of the Zips beating Oklahoma and Pitt and convincingly winning every other regular season and MAC championship game, they would be highly ranked and a candidate for any bowl game outside of the Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Sugar Bowl or any bowl game that isn't locked into non-MAC conference opponents. Just glancing at the list of next season's bowl games, I'd say the top possibility would be the Jan. 1 Fiesta Bowl (At-Large vs. At-Large). Reality check: Fiesta Bowl representatives would look at the average attendance at Zips games, politely excuse themselves and quickly choose the top two opponents who would likely bring large numbers of fans to Glendale, AZ, as would all the other top bowl game reps.

There's our Zips football marketing campaign to grow attendance: Come experience the nicest, most immaculate bathrooms in college football.

Who knew that Colorado State-Pueblo beat Minnesota State-Mankato for last season's D-II national championship? Imagine the news coverage of the Zips in the midst of those playoffs being mentioned in the same breath with the likes of Slippery Rock and Lenoir-Rhyne. Nostalgic fans could always watch reruns of the Zips win over Pitt last season and remember what it was like to pull the occasional upset over a big-name team.

On bathrooms alone, the new stadium should be drawing triple the attendance of the Rubber Bowl.

The best thing to have on one's resume is success. If a few universities were to become more successful overall by cutting back on athletics spending, those who make those decisions would have stronger resumes and be in more demand. So far I haven't seen any signs of that happening.

Do you have any examples of universities that have drastically cut their athletic programs in order to channel more funding into academics and/or reduce costs to students? It would be interesting to know how this affects academic standing, enrollment, donor support, overall university image with the general public, etc. It seems logical to assume that if there were obvious overall positive benefits to be had that at least one university would have tried this and documented the results. Of course if any universities have tried it and not seen positive results, that would tend to make other universities reluctant to try that strategy. If there are no documented results, then it remains purely theoretical.

You are making assumptions. If the reporter was doing his/her job, the reporter would have specifically asked if the merger talk was going beyond functions and services to full university mergers. Any spokesperson worth their salary would reply to the effect that full merger talks were completely off the table. As I pointed out before, off the table means not currently being discussed, not that it would never be discussed. A good reporter might then ask if that meant full merger would never be on the table, and a good spokesperson would answer that's speculative. Been there, done that. So, when was the last time that Ohio university presidents were under such financial pressure that their fiscal diligence caused them to get together and discuss unprecedented cost-sharing measures? Not that that's a bad thing. In fact I think it's a very good thing. On the other hand, denying that there's a problem is not going to make it go away.

Off the table means that it's not currently being discussed, not that it will never be discussed.

See post #30 in this thread.

So now we know from this Chronicle of Higher Education story that a contract with Texas-based Academic Partnerships is already being negotiated. Dr. Scarborough tried to make this happen at the University of Toledo and UT decided they could provide this service from internal resources rather than sending millions of dollars off to Texas. Exactly what expertise did UT have that allowed them to do this that UA lacks? Beyond that, why does Dr. Scarborough try to cut deals with Texas mega-millionaire Randy Best every place he goes? We know that Dr. Scarborough was once on the board of directors of one of Best's many companies. We know that Dr. Scarborough worked within the University of Texas System, which has heavy ties with Best. We know that at DePaul Dr. Scarborough was responsible for the sale of DePaul's Barat College to Best, who let all the staff go, sold all the properties and kept only one thing -- a valid accreditation from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, which is key to acquiring the government aid that often pays for students’ college degrees. We know what Dr. Scarborough tried to do with Best at UT and now we know what he's trying to do at UA. What's the pattern here? One article about Randy Best had the following quote: Is it the cult of personality that motivates Dr. Scarborough to be an evangelist for Best's companies wherever he goes or do Best's companies truly provide best-in-class services at the right price? It doesn't take much research to discover that opinions are highly mixed. It makes an interesting read when it's happening elsewhere. But now it's happening at the University of Akron, and that's too close to home to be classified as mere entertainment. The UA Board of Trustees has a big responsibility here. Are they going to rubber stamp Dr. Scarborough's deal with Randy Best or are they going to perform their responsibility of due diligence on approving contracts? Will they benchmark the performance of UT's internal solution against OU's 20-year contract with Academic Partnerships to see how they compare? Will they check in with Wright State to see if things have improved over their abysmal start with Academic Partnerships? As an Ohio citizen and taxpayer, I know that I don't want a chunk of my taxpayer money going to some mega-millionaire in Texas if there's a better solution right here in Ohio. Overall we are talking about millions of dollars every year going from Akron, Ohio, to a corporate account in Texas based on ... exactly what?

As Paul Harvey used to say, now you know the rest of the story.