LosAngelesZipFan

First off, this is a really good discussion-- one which has to happen more publicly and openly. To respond to some of LZips questions on what is sparking all this. Something has indeed changed over the past 20 years-- the inflation rate for college has outstripped basically every other sector including healthcare. States once provided most of a university's budget but that's now down to like 10%. This isn't just an Ohio thing; it's happening every place. As Zach linked above, there has been hints of this happening for quite a while. It appears that Scarborough is looking for a way to respond to this, and I am glad he is at least attempting to be proactive. My concern is that just changing the name, let alone just adding a tag line, doesn't mean much of anything. Again, this is not an issue unique to UA or Ohio-- every state is grappling with the costs of higher ed. It is a massive national issue because students are coming out with huge debt loads (total college debt passed credit card debt about 5 years ago), essentially crippling millennials who are not able to buy houses, new cars, etc., at the same rate as prior generations. At the same time, universities have been on a building binge (obviously including UA), engaged in a ruinous arms race in sports, and greatly expanded highly paid administrative positions while shifting as much instruction work to part time faculty as possible. And all of this is happening when the idea of going some place to be educated-- the very notion of a university being a separate place in the world and a specific time of life-- is increasingly being replaced with digital learning (online programs and MOOCs) as well as the sense that learning will have to be an ongoing "lifestyle" since we will all have multiple careers because of the pace of job change, longevity, and lack of retirement savings. If you are a university with a large and/or wealthy alumni base that is motivated to give buckets of money, you can thrive. Everyone else is in trouble. UA has actually lost momentum over the past few years-- enrollment has decreased even while Can't and Ohio has increased. This is causing a troubling reduction in revenue, which is I think one of the main reasons the board picked a CFO to be president. We need a very clear-eyed assessment of where UA stands, which I think he is doing. There is no doubt there are pockets of strengths and real excellence at UA, but overall it is not held in high regard. Schools like UA, Can't, BG, etc.-- lightly regarded schools that probably do alot better job than their rankings, but that are heavily invested in burning large sums on money on Div 1 sports in an attempt to "stay in the game" vs the land-grant/BCS schools-- are the ones that are in serious trouble in the immediate future. The path forward is very challenging-- declining enrollment leads to tuition increases to cover the shortfall leading to further decline in enrollment, meanwhile athletics expenditures increase as things like athlete supplemental payments happen, and the professionalization of college sports means that a place like Ohio has a single "pro" college team and then lots of minor league teams. If you're a kid in Ashtabula, do you root for and support the local minor league teams or for the pro team. I think the re-branding is wholly inadequate to the challenge and in fact comes with a ton of potential baggage-- I can totally see how someone might see this as essentially equating to trade school, which is why I hope they are doing some serious research on this. The reality is that a poorly thought out rebrand could make matters worse and actually accelerate a downward spiral.

It's really just a silly exercise in tag lines at this point... and as the UW Stout example indicates, it is not a "big idea". Even if this is basically a "oh shit, I got caught on what I really wanted to do (re-name) and am now offering up as a "re-brand" moment, it points out a few important things: 1) Scarborough has clearly been told in no uncertain terms that the current model for Akron, Can't, BG, Toledo, etc. etc is unsustainable and undesirable from a state perspective...meaning, change will happen either by choice or by fiat from Columbus. 2) UA is in a really bad position in this overall argument with poor brand recognition despite having the only top ranked program (polymer) in the state. 3) UA and Can't basically split the natural "power base" that would nurture a single university in the area-- and if both try to argue to maintain status quo, they will both end up being absorbed into or by something else. 4) Akron is in danger of essentially losing its one truly differentiating asset-- if UA gets absorbed into something else, with its executive core someplace else, Akron will no longer be home to a major university, but rather home to a branch campus of some other university. This should become an immediate and potent rallying cry for what is still a significant business center. The blocker? That Can't is here as well. The answer-- combine or at least confederate the 2 schools and turn this into a truly community-wide rallying cry to support these institutions. 5) 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. The whole polytechnic thing is veeerrry small ball, akin to futzing with the logo. it's only meaningful if it is just the beginning of a more aggressive program to drive the future, not be driven by it.

Skip-- I think the window of opportunity for us to emerge organically as the "U Cincy of the north" has effectively closed unless there is a massively effective donation push that happens-- like hundreds of millions of incremental funding. It is a historical anomaly to have two large state U's 12 miles apart. Never made sense in the first place. It has kept either Akron or Can't from getting bigger and/or better. Athletically, when we made the decision to go into the MAC ('92?), we essentially gave up any dream of becoming dominant, at least athletically. So, we can shake our fists at the sky and try to hold on to something that will change-- has to change-- or we can try to make the best of it. I would rather be connected to something vibrant and emerging than irrelevant and waning. I'll root for the Zips in whatever form they exist-- and then will root for whatever has come next. A NEO U would make all the sense in the world-- and it could be a big 10 caliber school, athletically and academically. Let the Akron and Can't campuses continue to compete...intramurally. But let this new, world class organization compete with the OSU's of the world. Something has to happen to shake things up...current state is not sustainable... the cool part would be this kind of bold action might actually stir enough interest to re-direct some of the OSU obsession to this new institution.

I hope they do some research on whether "polytech" means anything to anyone-- otherwise you are attaching a meaningless/confusing descriptor onto a entity that is already unbranded, which really isn't a branding solution. This ultimately feels very much like a band-aid. The underlying dynamics are creating issue that a tag line won't fix. If the directive is coming from the state that there are 3 acceptably branded universities that have the state's commitment to survive, then we need to really think about what we have to do to keep what we all love in place in some form or fashion. Note the 3 universities (OSU, MU, and UC) are all in central or southern Ohio. Given the NEO population and economic base, it is beyond logical to determine that NEO needs a comprehensive state u as well. The only logical answer: combine Akron, Can't, YSU and CSU into a single university system-- one that in its combined state would be larger than OSU. I have argued this in other posts quite a bit, but the writing is clearly on the wall now. The reason I have floated it in the past was so that UA would get ahead of the curve and drive the change, rather than end up being sucked into it. If UA and Can't combined, it would then be the core that YSU and CSU would fold into. If UA waits on this, then more than likely the political heft of Cleveland will consolidate all this into a university based in Cleveland. I've been doing a ton of work on the higher ed system over the past few months, helping Arizona State create a national movement around its "New American University Model", which in large measure is why Starbucks chose them for their college achievement program. The current higher ed model is not sustainable and massive change is going to come, hitting universities like UA first and hardest. Akron can either deal with this proactively and strategically, positioning itself for what comes next or it can be caught flat-footed and victimized by what is going to happen. I think the churn around this "re-branding" is much ado about deck chair re-arranging.

Great article except for the 'Akron U'

De-emphasize... or perhaps work together? Something has to change... unsustainable situation right now...

I guess another way to look at it is this. The fees are in essence a special purpose tax on a specific activity-- kind of like taxing cigarettes. But instead of dissuading an activity that costs society-- a sin tax-- this is actually a tax on one of the most productive things society can encourage which is getting a college degree. $60M a year, growing each year in an effort to stay "in the game"...that is a large chunk of money in an economy the size of NEO. BTW, think about what $60M would fund if it were servicing debt-- you could fund billions of dollars in long-lasting capital improvements. I'm just saying this level of subsidy is forcing kids who are trying to do the best thing for themselves, and by extension the community, to shoulder a large extra burden in pursuit of what appears to be an increasingly evanescent dream. How much is too much? Is a competitive MAC football team worth $1 billion in investment over 20 years? $500 million? $100 million? UA has probably invested something like $130 million on football since the jump to 1A. To what end? Even if we were in the position of dominating our conference, which clearly we are not, what would that be yielding for us as the MAC goes from irrelevant to whatever is beyond irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that more the same will yield a different result. And there is strong reason to believe that more of the same may not even be possible as costs explode (which they will as the new playoff increases funding to power schools and direct payments to athletes happen). It just seems like we are at a point in time when we need to think radically different.

When you look at this data, the two words that leap to mind are "unsustainable" and "ridiculous". I can't help but look at this from an overall NEO perspective, aggregating what UA, Can't, CSU and YSU are spending. All are public universities whose students come from the area. In aggregate, these students are being burdened with about $60 million a year subsidizing sports (UA and Can't $42M of that total). Basically, the public college students of NEO are paying to build an Infocision Stadium each and every year. I don't see how this is at all sustainable. When UA jumped to 1-A, the disparity with the top tier schools was massive. Now, that difference is an order of magnitude larger than that. With this playoff set up and the advent of direct payments, the gap will not only grow larger, it will grow even faster. UA and MAC schools will face a choice-- exhaust themselves financially or get off the hamster wheel by dropping down (or out altogether like UAB). Our other option, because of geography, is confederating UA and Can't in some way, which in some other threads I have made the argument for at least studying. To me, these numbers-- the sheer size of them-- not only begs that question, but demands a serious look at anything that might alter the collective trajectory.

So for anyone that read the topic on consolidating Akron and Can't in some way, this is why I keep bringing this up (hazarding beating a dead horse, so my apologies in advance). Between UA and Can't, there is enough budget for ONE good football program and ONE good basketball program. And by good, I mean programs that can consistently compete for championships in a conference superior to the MAC. The types of programs that would consistently draw 30K+ to football and 8K to basketball, garner national attention, and get the people of NEO out of scarlet and gray crap. Alone, neither Akron nor Can't have the resources to transcend the MAC in basketball and football. Nor do they have the resources to transcend where they currently are academically. We are competing for a medium sized pie of people (Northeast Ohio), diffusing the attention and support of that pie, and also facing overwhelming competition for attention and support with Ohio State. Neither school can breakthrough in any meaningful, sustained way. But...if we worked together, something magical would happen. Overnight, a combined UA-Can't would be one of the biggest schools in the country, with a really large alumni base, and absolute dominance of the NEO geography because of the combined branch campus systems. We would have several world class academic programs, particularly of note the synergistic polymer and liquid crystal programs. Athletically, we would have the money to have a decently funded football and basketball program, as well as several stand out programs like soccer, baseball, and golf. I spent the first half of my life making fun of Can't State people including my Dad and brother, and ex-girlfriend. I was born at Akron City and lived in Can't until I was 10. I get the rivalry, I really do. And I would have heart for it still if it really meant anything to a large number of people...but the reality is that it doesn't. A few thousand folks, maybe 10 or 15,000, really deeply care. That's not enough passion and interest to obstruct all the benefits that would come from combining. I truly believe that this type of news would unleash a ton of excitement and interest in the community. Yes, there would be arguing and gnashing of teeth. And some on this board would foreswear their allegiance. But, I bet that in a few years, when we are competing on a whole other level (imagine a team that consistently ranked in football and winning NCAA games in basketball), and there is a consistent flow of high quality teams into Akron, and when the next generation of students comes through experiencing a completely transformed formed university that competes with any in the country/world...I bet any hurt feelings would be quickly forgotten. Imagine if you had a university that was an approximation of Ohio State in terms of size, scope, renown, and success, suddenly dropped into the middle of NEO, of NEO, for NEO. I'm telling ya', when the initial discomfort faded and all the little administrative things are worked out, it would be, well, transformational for the area. I said it earlier, UAB is the canary in the coal mine. What we are doing is unsustainable. There will have to be a big change, a bold new idea/approach. And, returning now to this specific thread, it's the only we will ever have enough resources and excitement to sufficiently support both football and basketball programs. We know where we are now, after decades for investment and effort. It's about to get exponentially harder as direct payments to players starts happen. The sports side of these universities is a business. These are brands. And all business and brand logic points to a merger.

I think there is something more at work here than just winning or the way the team plays. Yes, there would more butts in seats if we were consistently a championship caliber team and were fun to watch. But, I would bet that this would be a 20% lift in attendance, lifting us from "wtf" to "that sucks", not the doubling or tripling of our average which would be needed to really fill our beautiful newish stadium. I think our consistently championship caliber, mostly fun to watch basketball team demonstrates this. But clearly it's not just UA. All the MAC is facing this as Northern Illinois shows. The landscape of college football has changed. It's paradoxical, really, that even as ESPN has given programs like Akron's more TV time and exposure, and thus more ways to feel like a top tier program, the actual fan interest in that product seems to have waned. I think the 'professionalization' of top tier college sports has created such a disparity between the (formerly) BCS programs and everyone else, that it is harder to entice fans to go to an Akron (or other MAC school) game. I think it is easier now to follow a bigger school closely because of the internets, ESPN, the Big Ten channel, etc. It's like Ohio State is a black hole, and the rest of the state is caught in it's gravitational pull. And this is all going to get much worse as payment to players starts to happen. A school like Ohio State or USC has hundreds of multi-millionaires giving the football program huge support, on top of huge TV money from their conferences, their ticket sales, etc. I just saw one figure that said OSU pulls in over $7M per game in ticket sales alone, which I think is more than half of the annual Zips football budget. We just don't have the scale to compete with that. A few weeks back I met with Arizona State's marketing team, and one topic of discussion was the challenge they were having in getting local alums to their football games. That's a school with 80,000 students and a massive alumni base in the immediate area (something like 400K alum within 20 minutes of the stadium), challenging for the PAC 12 title and ranked in the top 20 nationally. UAB shutting their program is foreshadowing. College football played at our level is on an unsustainable course. Winning would be very helpful. A wide open, fun offense would be great. But just like we had hoped a brand new stadium would dramatically improve the attractiveness of the program, these things are probably only going to improve things at the margins. That won't be enough to help us compete with a tier of programs that are jumping into hyper drive.

dammit

it was uva we lost the natl championship to on PKs right?

maddening

arrrrgh. Penalty kicks...

crap tied

Total speculation, but I think it didn't happen a few years back because Fingerhut, who was the head of Ohio's university system, had never really set foot on Akron's campus. Dr. P arranged for him to tour UA, quickly rolled out a $500 million campaign, showed a $60 million brand new stadium and transformed campus that doesn't look like a commuter school. I think he decided that there was alot more "there there" than he thought. He talked at the time of moving NEOUCOM to Cleveland, and CSU isn't even really a part of it, so that reveals what he would default to doing. Dr. P said at the time (reported in the Buchtelite) that there was "no status" in the current current quo-- which is to say, things are going to have change eventually because the current situation-- with 4 large-ish, not particularly distinguished universities competing for a shrinking pot of students and resources-- is not a recipe for success. I think it would be great if at least UA, Can't State, and YSU consolidated the back office stuff and truly worked for an integrated academic approach. If that worked well and made more resources available, then the logic of spending tens of millions on separate sports identities would sort itself out over time. I just want UA to be in the driver seat so whatever happens is something good for Akron. What almost happened a few years ago would have made UA a branch of CSU. The status quo is not sustainable which means things can either change for the better for UA or the worse. We can either become the center of a much larger, more capable institution with national/global reach and aspirations or we can eventually become a branch campus of some other institution trying to do that.

Avoiding that Cleveland trap is why it should start with UA-Can't State. Start there, create a center of gravity, and then it will be much more difficult to uproot and relocate to Cleveland if/when CSU get folded in. I do think there is an inevitability element here-- the current model isn't really sustainable and definitely isn't ideal in terms of serving the area. And clearly it is very difficult for schools with this level of support and scale to really compete at the next level up. Because of the proximity of these two schools, I don't think either will ever be able to really ascend. It would be hard if all of NEO was united behind 1 school. Currently there 4 schools competing for this base, all with OSU hanging over their heads. Impossible. In terms of where they play, I think eventually most of that happens in Akron because that is where the most economic impact can happen but perhaps for a time it goes back and forth between campuses. What is going to really suck is when, in the absence of this consolidation happening proactively with our interests in mind, this happens by legislative fiat. That came close to happening a few years back--UA was about to be folded into, and under, CSU for gods sake. Past is prologue. It was a warning. The next economic downturn will force this consolidation, and that will not be good for Akron, I predict. We should act boldly now, create a "big shoulder" university that can really compete at the next level, and that UA and Can't State alums can proudly feel a part of.

Good point on the political dimension that underscores the potential impact of a consolidation. Imagine if essentially all of NEO's state legislators were aligned behind the interests of a UA/Can't State-- call it the NEO University System (or whatever). That would be a potent political block that would be able to secure significantly more funding instead of it being all about Ohio State. Right now, that political support is totally fragmented. In terms of programs, it is more of reason to combine I think. We have engineering and law and organization psych; Can't as architecture. We have world class polymer; they have world class liquid crystals. We could more readily suck in NEOCOM, so then we have a med school. Together, it is truly comprehensive tier 1 school. Apart, we aren't much different than Ball State. And as I said, I really value UA in every way and appreciate my time and accounting degree from there. But I would choose something new, innovative, scaled, and world-class over more of the same. Last night's game only reinforced that to me....*sigh* I loved Dr P's line of "Dream, Dare, Do" a few years back. I think we need to embrace, and demand, something new or nothing will ever change.

Totally agree on the "edifice complex" that has jacked up college costs beyond all reason. My company was part of releasing a film about this-- Ivory Tower. Definitely worth watching. I'm not sure why you think there is a significant qualitative difference between Akron and Can't-- I'd like to think so, but in any way that someone not from our area would evaluate the schools, I don't think that can be substantiated. And further to the point, it is the external perception that matters in this instance. My degree would be worth more if people knew of my school and had a positive impression of it-- I don't think either Akron or Can't rank high in either aspect. More to the point, consolidating would provide a platform to cut costs dramatically. One athletic department-- one football team, one basketbal team etc. Savings from that alone would be like $15 million. Probably easy to save $30 million in consolidating administration and academic programs. You don't need 2 College of Nursing buildings, etc., so you save on the capital expenditure as well. This is probably the only way to significantly cut these budgets. Can't's budget is $638 million for FY 2014 and UA's is around $450 million. (For comparison, UC's is about $1.1 billion, about equal to a combined UA/Can't.) Let's make a conservative assumption that you could find $30 million of costs savings by eliminating redundancies. That is 10x what UA is getting from its endowment. $30 million would almost double what UA gives in scholarships. $30 million is also more that UA generates in student fees. $30 million is 5x what UA pays in debt service that was incurred to pay for the Landscape for Learning and Infocision Stadium. And my gut says that you find significantly more than 3% savings out of a combined $1.1 billion budget when you started consolidating all the operations, administration, etc. Akron was once Buchtel College, then it was a municipal college, then a state university. These 2 universities share/compete for a common geography, talent pool, and resources. That pool is static or shrinking. It is more a historical anomaly that these 2 state schools happened to come into existence this way, than a logical way to serve the best interests of the community. It's a gamechanger, the only one realistically available that would dramatically alter either school's trajectory.

I'm kind of surprised this doesn't appeal to you GP1 given your oft-expressed views on the futility of MAC football. I think that struggle is analogous to struggles of mid-tier universities as a whole. Our whole cohort of schools are struggling to keep above water while the bigger schools sprint away. From a business perspective, this is a classic case where a merger is obvious and critical. There are too many brands serving a non-growth market. Neither Can't nor UA (let alone C- or Y-SU) will ever get into a truly dominant position vs the others-- unless the state forces it at some point. That's what almost happened a couple years ago with Fingerhut. It is really impossible to justify the redundancies of UA and Can't in terms of the areas they serve, administrative costs, athletic subsidies, etc. Given that, I think it would be better for UA to drive this, rather than wait for it to happen to it. As much a Zips fan as I am, I would much rather root for a combined U playing at the same level of Cincy.

Combining UA and Can't State is a fantastic and long overdue concept. There is very little upside for these 2 similar schools to compete for a shrinking base of support and students. By combining, they would create a world-class institution in scope and scale (and hopefully eventually in quality). 60K students on 11 campuses; 350K in alumni; significant endowment; scale in research with several well-established, world-class, complimentary areas (polymers and liquid crystals). Combine Akron, Can't, and NEOUCOM first- start with the strongest, closest, most competitive institutions to show it can work and to create instant momentum/news. Let that start working and gain momentum, and then add in YSU and CSU. If you were designing the Ohio system from scratch, this is what you would do-- tier 1 schools in south, central and ne ohio. Only thing that makes sense. Imagine if they had done this 20 years ago-- think of what an institution of that size and scale could do. Look to Arizona State for a great model. Open to all but very high quality outcomes and globally important research. A combined UA and Can't would be in this: http://www.theuia.org/ . But on their own, they don't merit inclusion so instead they went to OSU. Akron would be the graduate, science, engineering, and business campus. Can't the undergraduate and liberal arts campus. There is already a train connecting them-- upgrade that and run it every 30 minutes. Totally doable. Only thing lacking has been will.

good lord, what horrible clock mgmt. total disarray.

soooo....you have limited time and run Hundley up the middle?

Exactly. One of the things that is really obvious to me over the course of the season is how much a mobile QB that is a genuine run threat would add to things. During the PSU game there were a bunch of opportunities for Pohl to run and pick up major yards, but he clearly had been told not to do it-- I thought so he wouldn't get injured. Then, in the Ohio game, Woodson had an obvious run opportunity at one point but pulled back and threw into coverage. Please, more of that triple threat backfield. Do that until it doesn't work.

I don't understand that call at all-- a pitch to Hundley w the entire BG team stacked on the line? He's not that kind of runner. Terrible play call.