Dave in Green

We all have a tendency to mix facts and opinions to some degree. I have a different perspective from the average bear after being trained and experienced as a professional journalist, where tough editors beat you over the head about clearly separating facts and opinions. But as much as I try to keep them separate in my posts I'm not always 100% clear to everyone. One difficulty we face on a forum like this is that we start out assuming that we all have something in common as Zips fans so we can be relaxed and comfortable in saying whatever we want. Then when differences of opinion break out we're suddenly challenged on every adjective we post and we have to slow down and make sure we're posting exactly what we want to say.

Great example of an opinion from someone already familiar with the A-Roo logo. I can respect opinions from that viewpoint just as I could from those who've never seen the A-Roo and would see a V with a flying bat. Now for some indisputable facts from the UA website: And in the current Athletics Brand Guide it shows the familar A-Roo as the primary logo and other versions of the A-Roo and the stylized Z as secondary logos. My opinion is that the Athletics Brand Guide is going to be revised with the current primary A-Roo logo moved to a secondary logo and the current secondary Z logo moved to the primary logo. But who knows? The ABJ could blow this up into a big story and thousands could march on campus in protest.

And if you turn your head 180 degrees the A-Roo becomes a V with a flying bat.

One of the great things about forums is that everyone is free to express their own opinions. Discussions can be interesting when they bring out various points that others may not have thought of or otherwise be aware of. While some factual data is presented, opinions by definition are largely subjective, so discussions typically do not result in someone "proving" something beyond a reasonable doubt and everyone else changing their minds. Again, we've had evidence presented here that UA adopted the A-Roo and Z branding at the same time around 2003 or earlier. For the past 12 or more years they've both been used in varying degrees, with the Z being used more frequently in recent years. Some prefer one over the other and some like them equally. Personally, I like the Z a little more because a single stylized letter is simpler and cleaner whereas the A-Roo is more cluttered. No one outside of Akron really knows what animal is represented without being told. As long as Zippy is the team mascot, I don't think there's any danger of the A-Roo completely disappearing. But for the general public the clean and simple stylized Z will be more easily recognized by more people and associated with the University of Akron Zips. That's the way I see it. But I also appreciate that others see it differently and have different preferences, and I read every dissenting post looking for new data that might make me consider changing my opinion.

Uh oh.

If Coach Dambrot wants to play Villanova and Arkansas back-to-back on the road, it means he thinks he has a pretty good team next season. He would not schedule that tough if he thought his players weren't up for it.

The law of averages in a tightly compressed time frame.

LosAngelesZipFan, again I really appreciate your viewpoint as someone who interfaces with higher education executives on a professional level. Your points about ASU are interesting and pertinent to the UA discussion. As someone with experience in rolling out corporate business plans to the public, I'd like to address your point that the rollout of the polytechnic concept at UA appears not to be well planned. The reality is that we don't know what the rollout plan would have been because the polytechnic plan itself never had a chance to be fully formulated. To summarize what actually happened, the process that was put in motion to develop a future identity and direction for UA was still in its internal discussion stages with various constituencies within the university. A self-identified UA faculty member short-circuited the internal process by prematurely going public on this forum with the claim that UA's President had an idea to rename the university. That started a commotion here that was picked up by the media and helped stir up public protests. I think it's fair to say that all of the above resulted in UA being forced to answer questions about a plan that had not yet been fully developed. With no firm plan yet in place, it was entirely predictable that there would not be adequate answers to all the public questions.

ZippyRulz, there's lots of meat in that article. I was about to post the same quote you just did and comment that if everyone thought that becoming a polytechnic university would accomplish for UA what's described in those quotes that there'd be much less opposition. UA needs to research more data like this and share it with the public.

Fell apart at the end.

Drama in the bottom of the 9th.

Surprised it hasn't been mentioned that Craig Eubanks and Jimond Ivey were teammates at Glenville, so the Zips coaching staff would have scouted Craig pretty thoroughly before he went the juco route and must think he's in the same general talent range as Jimond.

A-zip, I think we all need to try to be a little more patient with each other. Sometimes some of us get a little frustrated when we see others apparently jumping to conclusions and sounding overly alarmist. On the other hand others may get frustrated with what they perceive as a lack of concern about a serious matter. We should try to remember that we share the common goal of wanting the best for UA. We need to try to talk these issues through and not get distracted into bickering with each other over minor differences of opinion, which only raises everyone's frustration level. That document you linked to is pretty interesting and well worth reading.

Balsy, agreed on the issue that lack of transparency is a breeding ground for misinterpretation. I'm hearing different views on UA's general transparency under Dr. Scarborough. On the one hand some say he's gone out of his way to meet with various constituencies, seek their input and be open about his planning process. On the other hand some say he hasn't discussed as much with them as they'd like. Realistically a CEO never discusses every issue with every constituency. So I still don't believe I have sufficient data to make a blanket assessment. The single polytechnic issue may be emotional to many, but it doesn't totally define the transparency of the organization. There are competitive issues in every organization that require some degree of confidentiality. Some believe there shouldn't be competitive issues between fellow public institutions of higher learning. But in fact state legislatures are encouraging competition among public universities by tying funding to each university's performance. That makes competitive edges in performance important for each university to develop, and it appears UA believes the polytechnic thing to be a competitive advantage. Obviously you never get a 100% buy-in on anything. But it does appear that there's a consensus at the higher levels of UA that this is a sound plan to help ensure UA's future. I'm certainly keeping my ears open to learn if there is any dissent about the plan from those who are familiar with all the details.

Yep, my parents named me after a great American diplomat who they admired. I need to be more aware of how easy it is for people to misinterpret some things I say, and I apologize for my part in this misunderstanding. As for not taking strong stances, I actually do on issues where I have good knowledge of the whole situation. I've found over the years that strong stances can be misguided when taken without access to all the facts, especially if they're built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Anyway, glad we got this straightened out as I think we're not too far apart on many issues. Back to Dr. Scarborough, my hope is that his history with cost-cutting and privatization is out of necessity rather than preference. That is, I hope that he's a strong believer in public education who's had to explore more cost-cutting and privatization because the politicians keep reducing the amount of financial support for public higher education. Certainly in his Cleveland speech he came across as a true believer in the importance of public education. But in the absence of adequate public funding he would be remiss if he didn't explore all other options to make up for the shortfall in government support. As more facts come out I reserve the right to become more opinionated on the subject.

Very astute observation. Public education can't survive without adequate public funding, which is slowly being cut back with encouragement for more privatization. The politicians who are making these decisions are elected officials, so either the majority of voters is in favor of this or voters just aren't paying enough attention to what's going on. Where are the protests in Columbus?

Once again, lots of erroneous assumptions. While everyone else was focused on Jim Tressel's perceived flaws, some to the point of obsession, I took the time to check the background of the other leading candidate (Dr. Scarborough), who no one here seemed to know a thing about. I reported what I found with links for others to check and draw their own conclusions. That hardly makes me a fan or not a fan of either candidate, both of whom appeared to have strengths and weaknesses in different areas. You've never seen me say as some have on these forums that if my guy doesn't get the office I'm going to stop supporting UA or if the guy in office does something I don't like I'm going to stop supporting UA. Those are characteristics of fanaticism. I'm just a former news reporter who tries to look at every situation from all angles, especially the angles others are ignoring. I saw Dr. Scarborough's financial background as a major strength but was concerned about his reputation for cost-cutting and privatization. No one else here appeared to be concerned about that at the time. Where you get the idea that I now support everything Dr. Scarborough is doing and dismiss what Jim Tressel has to say is beyond me. Maybe you're just misinterpreting my appreciation for the irony of the protests against Jim Tressel turning into the protests against Dr. Scarborough. Neither one of them was ever going to please all the people all the time. Anyway, all this protesting is taking me on a nostalgia trip back to the '60s.

I see from the last meeting minutes that the Department of Associate Studies changed its name to the Department of Applied General and Technical Studies, and despite the implied polytechnicity in this move there were apparently no news stories or protests generated in response.

LZip, there's no debate about the meaning of "fan boy." It's a dismissive, insulting term when used in the context of a discussion among people whose opinions may differ from yours but are no less thoughtful and valid. Inappropriately tossing that term around is symptomatic of a lack of respect, and those who show no respect for the opinions of others are not likely to receive much respect in return. It's a shallow pseudo-debate strategy to exaggerate and misrepresent other people's positions to try to bolster one's own. An example is the claim that I never had anything good to say about Dr. Scarborough when, in fact, I simply reported out on my serious and objective search for background information on him. The gist of my findings was that he had a sound financial background but that he'd been involved in controversial cost-cutting and privatization issues at other universities which were reported on various news sites and forums. In fact I tried to emphasize the potential positive aspects for UA of Dr. Scarborough's financial background in this post. Personally, I think that you and others who I may not always agree with nonetheless present some valid points that help educate me and influence my thinking. Can we agree to have civil discussions where we treat different viewpoints with the same respect that we expect to receive from others and stay away from the misrepresentation and false labeling of other people's positions that cheapens it into a pissing contest?

Words of wisdom that deserve to stand on their own.

Those few selective quotes define a "fan boy?" I may have gotten my education at a polytechnic university, but I learned enough about the English language to know what ain't right. After you've done your own search on the definition of "fan boy," you might want to read this before randomly tossing that term around again on this forum.

I'm not. I like your focus on the issues as opposed to trying to pin labels on people. Never get discouraged.

You are mistaken.

Let's see if I have this right. The A-Roo and the Z have both been used since about 2003 (12 years). In the past there was more emphasis on the A-Roo but in recent years the emphasis has shifted more to the Z. Some prefer one, some prefer the other and some have no preference. Is that about the extent of what we've learned on this edition of Zips Family Feud?

So who's backing YSU President Tressel's position on this issue over UA President Scarborough's?