LosAngelesZipFan

Well that sorted of chilled the conversation... but highly entertaining. I still would love to get thoughts from anyone on the idea of UA and Can't adopting a policy of "competing locally but collaborating everywhere else". The schools remain independent and competitive in the core market, but look for ways to work together outside of Ohio. One idea: create a "meta-university" that combines the best of both schools into a virtual institution that gets marketed to global students/constituents, basically an abstraction of the best of both. Take polymers, politics, and i/o pysch from UA and Liquid Crystals and, well, fashion (?) from Can't. Add in all the business programs from both and maybe UA's engineering school and maybe Can't's architecture school. These programs are still resident with each school, but for international students they are combined to form "NEOU Global Institute". The goal is to get 15,000 international students paying double the current non-resident surcharge. [sidebar: did you all realize that UA is now a bit more expensive to attend than Can't...this could explain enrollment dropping http://www.uakron.edu/finaid/cost-of-attendance/ http://www.Can't.edu/tuition]. These 15K students, all international and looking to partake in the best programs that Akron and Can't can offer, would generate something like $420 million in tuition revenue. This new institute would be attractive because its programs are all excellent. The goal of the NEOU Global Institute would be to make NEO more economically vibrant by bringing in young, international talent that hopefully would stay in NEO, open businesses, etc. The presence of this type of talent would be draw for businesses since one of the biggest issues businesses face in the future is matching work-ready talent for critical jobs. Working together, UA and Can't would be able to have a global network of offices and recruiters, since they are splitting the costs. NEO-U would have a global reach that neither UA nor Can't would be able to attain on its own. The start up funding for this would come from Knight and other foundations in the Akron area as well as local corporations. The start up costs wouldn't be unsurmountable because it's really just a marketing construct, not a whole new school, that is being created. Doing this would result in UA and Can't aligning their course of instruction so it would be fully inter-operable. It would prepare the institutions for a full merger if that becomes desirable or necessary in the future, while preserving their independence today.

Well, this thread certainly went off into an interesting direction... OU aside, I am interested in understanding Jupitertoos POV on where/why/how UA went awry under Dr. P, who I thought most people really liked. I am definitely disturbed that alot of key indicators-- like enrollment-- are down when the goal was for them to actually be up dramatically at this point after the Landscape for Learning projects. I think the goal was to be on course to be about 35K in main campus enrollment. It is definitely true that Can't (and OU) are up in enrollment. We aren't. Why? And yes, any combo of Akron and Can't would be a merger of equals, not UA absorbing Can't. But, my point is that this is far better than UA getting absorbed into CSU. Does anyone know how close that came to happening under Fingerhut?

Fantastic graphic Keener...now we know what is funding the OU endowment. Zipomatic is spot on with the pyramid. It is just reality that OSU as a land grant school centered in the capital is going to be nearly impossible to displace as the flagship. Whatever. But logically there should be a "near flagships" aligned with the population/economic sectors in the north and south. UC has done that in the south. The illogical presence of 4 disconnected, uncoordinated, rancorously related public universities in the north has prevented the formation of a "near flagship" in NEO. I think this is exactly what Fingerhut was thinking a few years back and, at least the way it played out in the media, he was pushing to fold UA into CSU as a starting point but then backed off when he realized UA was much more than what he had thought or what its reputation was. That coverage is what really got me going on the UA-Can't merger because I figured it was the best chance to have this eventual consolidation happen with UA as beneficiary-- be proactive and bold, propose something big and game changing, create momentum to dictate the future rather than have it dictated to us. I really appreciate what you have added to the discussion Zipomatic and am thoroughly entertained by the your OU vitriol. BTW, the one quibble I would have on your description of the UC system is that almost all the UC schools are very high quality. Berkley and UCLA are, depending on the source, the best public universities in the country, but UCSD, USCB, UCI, UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz are all top school 50ish schools as well. For what it's worth, the California system includes 2 well-regarded polytechnics-- Cal Poly.

To refine this thought a bit, what if Akron and Can't adopted a "compete in the neighborhood, but cooperate everywhere else" mindset. They remain separate, but look for ways to JV to benefit NEO. For example, UA and Can't create a joint "international institute" that was then jointly marketed abroad to attract international students in large numbers to attend UA and Can't. It's almost a "meta-university", an overlay on both schools. The goal is to get, say, 15,000 students from around the world each paying double the standard tuition surcharge (or whatever). This would be a great influx of young talent to NEO-- driven, entrepreneurial, young people with fresh perspectives. Maybe a special immigration program can be created to keep them in NEO. Not saying this is a new idea-- many public universities have been doing this over the past 20 years and it really helps them boost revenue. Both UA and Can't have programs for attracting international students, but neither is known for this. The idea of this joint international institute would be to create something that goes beyond what either could do individually. Let's say each current spends $5 million on these international programs. Together, the have $10 million to spend. But they are currently spending it building 2 brands. Instead of an Akron advertisement and a Can't advertisement appearing in The Times of India--meaning 2 different media and creative agencies, 2 different marketing departments, etc-- there is one team creating awareness around one brand. Massing media spend behind a single brand is much more effective. There is one recruiting office in Hyderabad instead of 2-- one person, instead of 2. Much more efficient. Could this "compete in neighborhood, cooperate everywhere else" idea be applied in other areas? A joint tech transfer office in Silicon Valley that develops relationships with VCs and tech community to raise the profile the LCI and the polymer expertise. A joint DC office to get defense dept funding. Just a little Sunday morning brainstorming...

In an earlier post I had laid out my admittedly "Monday morning QB" rollout which was centered on the notion of not even using the word but rather focusing on the attributes of a polytechnic. I agree the administration got surprised when the gun went off half cocked (I didn't realize it was here that this happened though). I agree with the premise of this evolution of UA's positioning, but to be meaningful this has to be more than just a descriptor added to the logo-- "Ohio's Polytechnic". It has to be something that the entire University organizes itself around and there is real change as a result of this focus. Otherwise, it's "just" marketing. I agree things got off to a premature start-- the discussion kind of got out of their control and everyone was focused on name changes, etc., but the timing of all this was just a few weeks before the City Club speech so it's not like the cat got out of the bag 9 months before the messaging was supposed to be ready. My point has been that I wish the admin would have focused on the idea and attributes of a polytechnic, turned that into strategic guidance, rolled that out over the next year, and only then start to communicate the word itself. Some research on the word itself would most likely have indicated that most people don't get it and many would equate it to "tech school". Rather than elevating and differentiating UA, the word diminished and confused. Valid point on Newton...gravity was not a passing fad.

I haven't met Scarborough yet. Had spent a little time with Proenza. My ASU project is the first I've had in higher ed. My observations are based on doing a deep dive into the space the last few months. None of what what I have been opining about is driven by any thought of getting a project of some sort. I think it'd be great if everything was about the students, but clearly it's not. UA spending $20 million on football annually or $60 million on a stadium is not intended to yield much for the students other than hopefully something to cheer about, a richer collegiate experience, and ultimately higher awareness that adds to the value of the degree. The choices of how to use endowment funding is about advancing the institution...and of course every administrator would say that they are making decisions that, in the end advance the student in some way. And your example isn't extreme, it's reality. Harvard has a $35 billion endowment. But, those schools only admit a small percentage of applicants so its not a matter of would you rather be x or y. The reality is how does a school like UA or Can't, with limited access to resources, get to the next level in the current environment because the vast majority of students won't be going to Harvard. Boy I sure hope the strategy is more thoughtful than the marketing roll out has been! I've said I like the idea of polytech as an organizing principle-- I really do think its consistent with the very reasons I went to UA in the first place. But call me dubious that an approach from 18th century France is going to yield the kind of change we probably need...

Sorry to answer my own post, but one way to potentially change the game would be to dramatically increase the number international students paying very high tuition rates. I don't think UA could do this alone, but a combo of UA and Can't might be able to attract that. Maybe create an combined "international U"?

More great points and discussion... Endowments are used for much more than assisting students-- its a pool of money for strategic initiatives, attracting professors, expanding into new areas, etc. The bigger the overall endowment, the more resources available to do these things. I think it is interesting to look at it on a per student basis, but that's not generally how it is tracked-- it is usually about the overall size of the endowment. Bigger is better. And yes bigger per student is better as well. I think the point that z-o-m was making was Can't had a lower per student endowment which would a reason not to consider a merger. In a world of unlimited choices, I might agree. But the size of Can't's endowment (insert Dix Stadium joke here) is not really relevant to considering the logic of a merger. The key drivers are the proximity of the institutions serving the same, static region-- and by being static means it is in essence shrinking in importance as other regions grow-- such that neither can grow much in relation to the other. The relative positions of Akron and Can't by almost any measure is practically the same as it was in 1985-- neither has access to the resources to really grow beyond current state because they are supported by, and therefore competing for, the exact same set of limited resources. One university with these resources would have to be better than 2 splitting them. One chemistry department with the best professors from each. One football team with the best from each. One set of administrators, etc. It's really just a matter of focusing the resources in the most efficient way. Z-o-m's point about the flagship is spot on-- I don't think a combined U initially competes as a flagship of Ohio. But I do think it competes very well with Cincy and in time, with success, and assuming NEO would see it as its university---the way Cincy sees UC-- then more resources would get generated from a very large alumni base. I think the list of attributes you mention are interesting, but my bias is still to go for scale as the best way to get to more impact on society and that quality can come with scale. To say it has to be choice of one or the other is, in my estimation, a very false choice. But beyond that, how can UA change the perception of what it is? It doesn't have and cannot find the resources to dramatically change it's position in the world. Adding 'polytech' isnt going to do that. Marketing isn't going to do that. I really don't know what other game-changer options are available. And I don't think that status quo can be sustained, or is even desirable, for another 20 years. I have to admit that I did think the campus investment of the early Proenza years would yield something tangible in terms of enrollment, endowment, etc. It doesn't appear that it has. Would love to hear if anyone can think of a different game changer for UA, short of an alum hitting it huge with an IPO and then donating a couple billion to UA. USC has dramatically improved its reputation over the last 20 years, but that has largely come as a result of raising more money than all but a couple of universities consistently for the last 5 or 10 years-- Harvard and Stanford levels; $5,6,7 billion. It would take a massive inflow of dollars for UA to dramatically alter its ranking (which again I don't think reflects actual quality).

I won't argue the data-- just reporting what Pres. Crow has said on different occasions. What I have really enjoyed about working with the team at ASU is that they are driven to innovate and change the model to serve society. Elite private universities have something like 1% of college students-- about the amount that would fit in Michigan Stadium. We are country of 350 million people on the way to 450 million in our lifetimes. If we are moving towards a future where more and more jobs require higher education of some sort, the answer is not going to be found in elites or in public universities chasing elite status. As parents, we are obsessed with rankings and terrified that if our kids don't go to an elite school, they will be economically hobbled. But the data doesn't support that fear. ASU is basically an open enrollment institution (88% acceptance rate) but Crow has also noted that their admission standards are the same as what UCLA's was in the 1950's. Is open enrollment and large size by definition inversely-related to quality? If you went to UA and believe you had a quality education, your answer has to be no. Here is a great discussion on all this, with Crow and Frank Bruni (Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be): http://www.zocalopublicsquare.org/category/events/video-archive/?postId=59446 The larger social point is that something has to change-- we have to figure out how to provide high quality educational outcomes that prepare millions of people for the jobs of the future, and do so far more efficiently than we have done on in the past. I think institutional scale can be a big enabler in that, and the conclusion I reached 20+ years ago after graduation from UA was that we probably couldn't grow organically to that scale given the presence of the other public universities in NEO, each competing for a slice of a static pie of students, attention, and support. Nothing has altered this since I left UA in 1989-- YSU, CSU, Can't, and Akron have all built buildings and evolved, but none have the ability to dramatically alter their scale or perceived quality, either in the absolute or in relation to each other. In his City Club speech, Scarborough identified all the key factors that lead to a conclusion that this status quo may very well not be supportable for another 20 years-- that these 4 universities operating in the same way is an increasingly unlikely scenario because the state will probably force change, because it can't afford not to. He then delivered a not very innovative solution and certainly not one that has ignited the larger communities' interest/passion. What I hope this branding discussion evolves into is real innovative thinking about the role UA plays, in NEO and beyond.

Some interesting points zip-o-matic. I wasn't trying to conflate what ASU has been doing with my frequently floated idea of merging UA and Can't. Two different things, but ASU's is instructive in a couple of ways. All the rankings are based on exclusion-- who you don't let in. What ASU has done the past decade is tried to remain inclusive while also driving quality. The reality is that the rankings won't ever totally reflect the quality as long as they are based on exclusion. It's definitely not a 'diploma mill', has some top tier programs (see recent Fast Company for their ebola work or their work on the Mars explorer, etc.), and as their president says, the honors school has a better student quality profile and is larger than his prior school Columbia, but because it's inside a much larger U, doesn't get recognized. Frankly, I put more weight in Starbucks (and soon Whole Foods) choosing them than the exclusion-based rankings, which I don't think mean much of anything and in the end are terribly distorting. I know I got a great education at UA regardless of where it is ranked. I don't agree that looking at endowment per student is the right metric-- it is the size of the endowment that matters (stop snickering) and a combined UA-Can't-YSU-CSU would be close to $600M (for comparison Miami is $570M). That larger size and scale does attract more stature and attention, particularly if you can't, or choose not to play, the "exclusion" game. The trajectory of ASU-- evidenced by the increase in funded research there or the validation by Starbucks-- demonstrates that scales doesn't have to come at the cost of quality. I think your last paragraph is correct-- it probably shouldn't have been this way in the first place. I was thinking earlier about how ridiculously short-sighted it was to create NEOUCOM and then stick in Rootstown. It should have been built between UA and Akron City, incorporating City. I don't agree it's too late to change it and ultimately benefit from creating a larger-than-UC like institution. One of NEO's huge issues has been it's lack of regional thinking and planning. A combination of these institutions would directly address this, creating something that actually unified the region. It stands to reason that doing that would likely unlock more support from the people and businesses in the region.

I take it, Zen, that you aren't a marketing guy... I'm sure you've heard the phrase "lipstick on a pig". That's the essence of marketing-- how do you take whatever you've got and make it as interesting, attractive, and sellable as possible, even though everyone knows it's just a pig. So, now Can't is refreshing its brand. YSU and CSU will each be spending to do that as well to keep up. Between the 4 of them, there will have been $500K+ spent on marketing consultants just for positioning, mostly against each other. Then each will develop their campaigns, which will be another $750K across the 4. Then they will create advertising and buy media. I'll bet the annual cost of these 4 schools competing with each other is at least $10-15 million. What if that money had gone into scholarships or in keeping tuition down or in hiring better faculty or in aligning resources against kids that are likely to drop out in their first year? A bunch of foundations need to get together and fund a NEO view of this-- get Knight, Gund, etc. foundations to create a NEO higher ed strategy and really analyze the potential of each U, individually and collectively, and make a reco on how best to propel NEO, in the context of higher ed in general and Ohio in particular.

My biggest regret was who they chose to be the coach to open the thing with. Yeeesh. After having walked around a bit, I do wish that they would have made it soccer compatible instead of building a separate facility. Lots of soccer teams play in football stadiums on artificial turf. I took my kids by some of the houses my group of guys lived in over the years... does the city do any maintenance on anything? I have daughters-- no way would I let me them go to UA if I was seeing those neighborhoods for the first time. The city should be making the whole area around campus as shiny as a new penny, and instead it looks like the backlot that The Wire was shot on. Also amazing to me how desolate Exchange is... made me wish plasma alliance was still open. How did the University Park Alliance screw the pooch on all this stuff so badly?

Had my first chance to be on campus since Info was built. Amazing to see it-- got some great shots of the kids running down on the field. Was really disappointed to see lots of chunks of concrete missing-- on the edgings around ramps, etc. It looked a bit shabby in parts which was disappointing considering how new it is. I realize the harsh winter causes this, particularly where a metal stanchion hits the concrete. I get that this is hard to maintain, but don't we have a corrosion program? Polytech the shit out of that...

Agreed Lzip-- that's exactly the point. The strategic direction makes sense, but "polytechnic" as a term really doesn't help anything.

Yeah, i agree that "best laid plans" can get horked up by leaks, etc. But clearly they had a plan to, at minimum, add the term as a descriptor-- "Ohio's Polytechnic". My assertion is that this should only have come after aligning the strategy and structure of UA around this organizing principle. After that had been accomplished over a couple of years operationally, then you could have looked at whether/how to use the term "polytechnic". A better/Monday morning QB roll out would have been: Early 2015: Major address by Scarborough early in the year to discuss his strategic direction. He talks about all the elements of a "polytechnic". He specifically calls out the benefits of one and how that maps to UA's past and future. Those are the key attributes he will build on for his strategy. Balance of 2015 and 2016: Consistent roll out of news about UA securing industry partnerships across Ohio and the US (globally if possible). Degrees are changed to add in an experiential component. Service and volunteering become credit opportunities, or maybe even a requirement for graduation. Every major arts organization in NEO should be partnered with (including all the Cleveland institutions). Every major employer in NEO should be tied in. Nurture opportunities for global experience, particularly in China, India, Brazil, and sub-saharan Africa. Early 2016: NEO's universities hold a public summit and discussion, each carving out a unique way to serve NEO. UA's is based on the polytech criteria. Q1/2: 2016: Research the term in NEO-- is anyone getting it? Use the data to drive a set of branding decisions such as should we re-name? Should the term polytechnic be used at all? Has the term been infused with any meaning/relevancy over the prior 16 months of public discussion by UA? Fall 2016: Roll out refreshed branding based on research-- everything on the table, from name to tagline to logo, but decisions are informed by the data.

It's really about the word "polytechnic" and the way they have gone about introducing it-- re-naming vs re-branding vs strategic statement. They let the conversation go off into a distracting places instead of saying "here's why this makes sense and here's how we are now changing everything to reflect this" (examples: you can go to lots of places to study the theory of political science or you can come to Akron and learn the theory and apply it as an undergrad in the Bliss; you can go get an engineering degree some place or you can come to Akron and get that degree plus real world experience applying it, etc.). It's not that there isn't quality liberal arts programs, it's that everything has a bias to the application of theory into the context of the real world. Strategy has to happen from the 'inside-out' (what are our core competencies and capabilities) and the 'outside-in' (what's the market need). Using 'polytech' makes sense from the inside-out-- it's consistent with what we have always been about. The fail is in the other side of the equation-- no one in the market is saying that Ohio is missing a 'polytech' because no one knows what that is. The word itself is a distractor because "the market" doesn't equate it to "great education with practical outcomes in mind".

Just getting a chance to catch up on all the discussion here. I spent time this week with Arizona State president Michael Crow. He is really a force of nature and is using his platform as head of the largest University in the country to drive innovation and a whole new approach to higher education, one rooted in inclusion, quality, and student support with the goal of creating lifelong learners. Over 40% of ASU grads are the first in their families to go to college. Something like 85% have jobs within 30 days of graduating. The approach is focused on surrounding students with the support they need to push through obstacles and get their degree. This new approach has been recognized/validated by Starbucks, who chose ASU to be its academic partner in its College Achievement Plan, which will pay for any Sbux employee's undergrad degree. They chose ASU after a 12 month intensive review of practically every online program. There are something like 80 degrees that can be obtained online, fully accredited. Most recently, ASU started offering a fully online Electrical Engineering degree. There are many things that resonate in what I know about UA and what I have learned about ASU. This deep dive on higher education has only reinforced my POV that eventually UA and Can't need to merge, probably as a first step of merging CSU, YSU and NEOUCOM into a 'system'. If this had happened 20 years ago, this NEO U would have been in the position of: being chosen for the Sbux program among the likes of ASUwould be playing in the Big 10 (or if we had been blocked by OSU from joining competing at the same level in a different league or as an indy)and would be a 100K+ enrollment, $1 billion + endowment, top tier research, and globally meaningful institution that would be a real economic engine for NEO bringing in new people, new money, new ideas, new businesses, etc.I totally acknowledge that many wouldn't trade loyalty to UA for this envisioned future institution, but I think it is worth at least the thought exercise to get a better understanding the of trade offs of supporting the status quo. I do think president Scarborough deserves kudos for taking on these big issues early in his tenure. I like that he is providing strategic focus on the key threats and had identified and is pursuing what he views as the opportunity for the U, as an institution and brand. What I remain really concerned about is how this is being executed. Modeling the institution on a "polytech" is a great idea-- it's frankly what we are and have been. We don't have one of the largest and oldest co-op programs by accident. There is a reason that UA didn't have Can't State type protests in 1970 having to do with the type of students we attract and the reason why they are at UA. So, modeling UA fully on a polytech is totally logical-- a ready made, time tested guide to strategy and structure. It's an organizing principle. It does not, however, mean much to the general public so it does not help UA's brand in the near term. So, instead of thinking that adding "polytech" as a descriptor, or worse changing the name of the institution at this point, I wish instead he was saying "a polytech is XYZ-- this is our heritage and our future. It's a powerful idea that will get us to (fill in blank)." and then, instead of adding a confusing, ill-defined, little understood word as a tagline, I wish they were adding a highest level output of a polytech approach-- "thriving beyond theory" or whatever (I'm a strategist not a copywriter). You can use polytech to drive the structure and align around a 'big idea' (even if this particular big idea is 200 years old, big but not so fresh) but instead of announcing it and saying "we need to focus the brand" then completely confuse everyone, spend the next 2 years aligning everything at the school around this-- pushing beyond theory to practice, experience is key, etc. And then, with real proof points of how this new organizing principle is being applied, begin to talk about it and perhaps even consider a name change. This just hasn't been a very well-considered process, at least externally, culminating in the recent letter from the other presidents. We've succeeded in getting these NEO institutions aligned-- unfortunately, it is against us.

Spot on-- and I do give him kudos for at least being proactive and trying to shape the future by carving out a specific and differentiated role for UA in the near term. I also think announcing the dance program funding simultaneously to this public discussion was a pretty clever way to undercut some of the possible criticism. It 'polytech' meant something to anyone, I would on-board and enthusiastic. Unfortunately, it now means explaining 2 things-- what a polytech is and then UA. BTW, anyone that really wants to dig deeper into all this, really good book: Where You Go Is Not Who You’ll Be http://www.frankbrunibooks.com/

transcript here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2082233-scott-scarborough-city-club-speech.html Key thing is saying NEO is somewhat unique in that there isn't a single great U but rather 4 "good" state universities with potential. That's the point... none can really move ahead of the others. Instead, there are 4 universities trapped in stasis. Rebranding is nice. But not a solution. I think he is saying "this is as far as I can go right now...but the real answer is combining..."

Sorry, it was covered in PD: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/05/university_of_akron_to_become.html#incart_m-rpt-1

Definitely worth watching his speech: https://www.cityclub.org/events/more-than-harvard-building-a-great-public-university-in-northeast-ohio And an article he mentions: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/02/09/regional-public-colleges-the-middle-children-of-higher-ed-struggle-to-survive/

Just in terms of indicating how "small ball" this is-- and inadequate to the challenge facing regional universities that he identifies in his speech-- is that it wasn't even covered in the city where the speech happened. I'm not against UA sharpening its focus on its tech-- it should be known as a very solid engineering school. I just don't think that is going to be sufficient to really make a difference.

Agreed my POV is based on incomplete info at this point, but I don't think re-brand or re-name changes the key issues UA is facing. And, yeah, I agree there would be a big debate and hopefully protests and all sorts of things by an announcement that UA and Can't are seriously exploring a merger-- it would be fantastic to see actual loyalty and passion demonstrated. I'd love to see all that unleashed, then the merger happen and eventually all that emotion x10 invested in the new U. I don't off hand know of any other big mergers between schools like this, mostly because it flies in the face of all reason to have 2 big state u's so close together in the first place. Certainly it wouldn't pose the same issues that a larger corporate merger presents. What about this idea, just for shits and grins... create a confederation between the two that keeps the identities separate but integrates all the administration and academic program. It basically runs like a University system but with 2 flagship campuses. Sports teams remain separate except football-- the crazy cost, and lack of distinct success of either, justifies having just one.

They would still be basically splitting the NEO market for students, media attention, and financial support. I remember when I was at UA in the late '80s I had a meeting w the guy that led Akron Tomorrow (or whatever it was called-- the group that focused on the Akron area's economic vitality). He got kind of chippy with me when I suggested that the group should really be putting all its oars in the water behind UA because it was the one unmovable economic asset that the city had. He rejected doing that because he felt Can't State was also a critical economic driver for the area. He was not a Can't alum or anything-- he was doing his job to use all the asset in the area to drive things forward as best as possible. The point-- Akron and Can't are nearly indistinguishable as universities sitting in the same geography, splitting a non-growing pool of resources. Instead of all the energy and muscle of NEO behind one thing, it's diffused. If you are Goodyear or whomever, you end up splitting things, not doubling. Neither institution can really move ahead of the other and because the pool of resources is limited and static, the competition hasn't lead to both dramatically changing their trajectories. If you took the best elements of each-- from professors to programs to football players-- you'd have a nice set of quality performers. BTW, the other part of my argument is founded on the idea of driving the big idea. I would love for Scarborough to be the one to say "I hear ya' Kasich-- how about THIS!" The next economic downturn will mandate this magnitude of change because the state won't be able to afford the status quo. Make the hard decision now, proactively, and create something new and amazing...and that still has sports...

From a marketing, brand and business perspective, we have to "think different" and be bold. My oft-suggested combining of Akron and Can't is bold and will instantly create a moment of excitement and re-consideration in the NEO market. These two institutions coming together would rankle some, but for the casual observer, it would be a bold, unifying move that drives the future. Maybe it just starts as a "confederation" of some sort-- the key sports teams stay separate or something (though I think this is an area where there would be tremendous cost savings gained by consolidating) until the next generation has fully acclimated. But the overall institutions operate as one. And with the size, scale, depth, breadth, and reach, it would a truly formidable institution with a powerful economic, population, and political base. The competitive set for this new U would not be other MAC schools-- it would be Ohio State and Michigan and other Big Ten or land grant schools. To repeat from a prior post, NEO needs a major, comprehensive, world-class university. None of the current ones are that on their own, but together could become one. A combined UA and Can't would have 72,000 students, larger than OSU and second in the country only to Arizona State! In one instant, this new U would be in the national conversation. If you later added CSU and YSU (I would recommend establishing the core first so it was in our control), the new U would have around 105,000 students. If you did this and did it emphasizing innovation, inclusion, and quality outcomes (defined as getting through school with as low a debt as possible and getting a good job as well as driving regional economic vitality), it would be an amazing story.