Balsy

This is no surprise to me. We have legitimate things worth the legislature's attention such as the under funded public education system, public roads and water systems that are in dire need of upgrade/repair, zero regulation regarding fracking, earthquakes caused by fracking, horrible oversight of companies/people responsible for chemicals that are dumped into the Ohio River (Ohio's greatest natural resource (water)), a need to update how 911 gets it's funding, 911 system upgrades, response to potentially devastating Asian-carp migrating up the Ohio River...the list goes on and on of serious issues that need to be addressed...and we're spending time on getting "Hang On Sloopy" as the official rock song of Ohio. You've got to be kidding me. But at the same point doesn't surprise me.

I agree with that. I don't think the Browns will take QB at #4. I don't know what it is, but I don't like Manziel. I don't like his style of play; though it is exciting. I know everyone is all the rave of Johnny Manziel, I'm not. I like QBs with a chip on their shoulder.

Thanks for posting Ada Zip. I think it's also a very good representation of what a lot of people here in Ohio think as well.

Thanks for the Info. Good to know our student body actually wants a PhD too, the last two student presidents were definitely the best UA has to offer (and I'm being very serious when I say that). Die-hard Akron, Die-hard Zips. But Define "local TV station"...because Akron has 5 that I know of, probably another one I'm not aware of.

Scarborough or Tressel? If you're saying Scarborough, I'm not sure why you're so against getting someone who is liked by your student body and faculty. Seems like a huge win, especially after you (the board) making him a finalist because you believe he's qualified to do the job. Faculty and Students are not stupid...and to not use their consultation is asinine. It's also not using all the resources available to you. Your students and faculty are some of the best resources you have, and if you don't trust them to be able to make informed, well guided decisions, then there is something seriously wrong with your university.

New Uniform official announcement?

I think the points that are most important to address are: 1. The Perception of a tax, and 2. The impact it has on actual families (which is tied to #1). I'm going to make a hypothetical presentation here with a few figures I researched to paint a general picture (so please don't cruify me DiG ...this is only a rough representation). Research conducted by a New York Broker estimated that the average American spends about 81.2% of their income on food, housing and other consumer products/services/expenses. After eliminating things that don't have sales tax levied on it (food for example) it puts the % around 49.2 on goods that have a sales tax. Assuming this is an accurate portrayal of what most Americans spend, I think it's also safe to assume that the majority of that is spent in the county in which they live. The 2010 census estimates Summit County's average household income to be about $47,926. With 49.2% assumption above, that would put $23,579 per household income that sales tax would be applicable to. So the 0.0025 would be about $58.94 a year. Now looking at it that way (as a Zips fan) I think it's a done deal, especially if that includes a few public service improvements as well. But I'm not sure people in Summit County would agree with me.

1. There's a problem with this question: it assumes (or acts as if) this was one of the main arguments levied against why JT should not be president. Those of us who have brought it up have also mentioned the lack of leadership experience that it entails. 2-years of at a job, that was specifically designed to bring the person to a university, with (originally) a very nebulous job description. There is a level of experience inherent that comes with getting a PhD in a discipline. For example: there's a reason a Biological research organization would primarily want a PhD for top positions: in order to get the PhD, in guarantees a level of interaction within the discipline that the job requires. Firm understanding and experience of other research organizations, grant procedures (and experience) etc....There are always exceptions to the rule; but those exceptions require rather extensive, specific experience. But to be frank, the burden of proof lies with those claiming Tressel would be a good President. We're rejecting that claim. 2. Leader is such a nebulous term, that can take on almost any meaning someone may want to put to it; and it doesn't accurately describe the responsibilities of a leader. So yes? No? I don't know, define leader. 3. In what? Football? Sure, I can agree to that. Anything else other than that is the burden of his supporters to prove. 4. This question is a fallacy. It's an appeal to authority. Just because he did a good job, or is an authority himself on education, doesn't mean his pick will be good. Or that he is a good elevator of his succession, etc.

And those changes are due to JT? No.

Vice President of Strategic Engagement was a position that did not exist before Jim Tressel was hired to fill it at the University of Akron. Spare me the "it's equally absurd" bit, because it's not absurd at all. A position was created, specifically for Tressel to bring him to Akron. This position wasn't announced beforehand, there was no list of candidates for the position its pretty clear. I may be young, but I've worked with enough businesses and entities to know that if you really want someone, you will simply create a position for them. I know you're all about evidence DiG, I respect that. I really do, because I'm a natural skeptic as well. However; saying JT's position was created just for him...and that there is a nebulous job description (note I do not say "no measurable performance parameters" because there is the one that is very nebulous) is not absurd in the slightest.

Which is why that should be disturbing. Performance as...whatever title he has...seriously? Seriously...THE BEST CANDIDATE!? That's why it should be disturbing. To everyone. 2-years of performance...at a made up position, specifically made up to bring him to UA, with a rather nebulous job description. Yeah, sounds like a very serious search.

So What I'm getting from you Hilltopper, older-people who are not attending the U anymore, and were likely somewhat OSU honks at some point (I remember hearing a lot from former Alumni presidents about getting JT to coach here) have a different opinion of the current students/younger-folk, on who should be the leader for their University. I think this is an important distinction to bring up because I think it's important to engage the young alumni/current students on this issue because they are what turn into supporting alumni and part of the Akron-Community. We should be focused on getting the best candidate for the job, not just someone that everyone likes...or that donors and previous alumni like...etc. I mean, I cannot believe anyone can seriously say that they believe this "search" (and I use that term lightly because I'm not an idiot, clearly this was JT's job from the getgo) was good and fruitful for the university. If what we all suspect is true...that this was JT's job from the get-go...we should be extremely concerned. Supporters can spout how the trustees are "honestly, and sincerely making hard decisions" all they want...because I don't see that. School-Boards, Boards of Trustees make terrible decisions all the time and stand behind that same argument. What supports whether or not they actually did their due-diligence, is in the evidence of the search. This search bleeds nothing but a sham to prop up JT, which is troubling.

Of course...right now we're dealing with anecdotes...so we're obviously not proving anything (but they're interesting for discussion). My experience has been just the opposite Hilltopper...granted I believe our circles might be different. Most of the recent-and soon to be grads, honors students and a good portion of the science departments I was a part of, thought it was absurd. Now this was the students not the faculty of course. Of course I doubt faculty would say anything bad about their probably soon-to-be-president if asked publicly. Those members I know personally don't think its a good idea.

@Skip +1. Sales taxes also disproportionately affect poor/lower-middle/middle class people than they do anyone else. Because when you spend next to all of your personal income on services and items (which you pay sales tax on) you're paying more of your income on those taxes. It makes perfect sense why the good voters would hate sales tax.

I'm not sure where your underlying disdain for faculty comes from...I would expect faculty to have some sort of clue about how administration works, because they have to work within the system that may be administered badly. I come from a family of educators (or faculty you might call them), some of which were administrators themselves later. Faculty absolutely can and often do have a very good idea about how things "really work". In fact, its rather easy to see when administration is going badly. There's a festering disconnect between administration and faculty at UA which is not good.

You could just as easily be describing JT, however everything about him just doesn't feel wrong? The bottom line here is: This just about has to be the WORST group of candidates that we could have.

I think you're gravely underestimating just how many people think hiring JT is a bad idea. And I respectably disagree. The laughter IS going to last a very, very long time. "Laughter" is important...its a reflection on public opinion. And note, when I talk about people expressing their belief about what a joke it is that JT is a finalist (or Einstein forbid, president) its not from forums...its from talking to actual people, most of which aren't UA grads. Even if they believe he is the right candidate, I guess we can't fault them. But if that is the case we should re-asses the process of how trustees are appointed. If they are really willing to believe that JT is the BEST candidate to do the job, or was the best candidate that they could find, then there is something seriously wrong with the board of trustees. It's just compete and utter incompetence.

If what you say is true, we should be extremely worried that 2/3 candidates are extremely weak; absolutely terrible ideas.

.......................................................................

I've been having the dream in my head of an undefeated regular season under Terry Bowden. Perhaps with Pohl as a senior QB and fantastic RB Thomas (with a host of supporting backs)?

I couldn't agree more GP1.

I'll contest that one. I bet you can find quite a few people with as many connections to state legislators as James Tressel has. I can make a list in my head right now of people I know who would have a massive network of connections with state legislators, and all of them you would never have heard of and were never coach of State Ohio University. But you seriously think because JT was head football coach at State Ohio, that they would gladly bend their ear for him? How many times as football coach did he go roam the halls of the statehouse...or the Riffe center...I'm going to say not often if none at all. Even with that said; you're assuming the state legislature is worth a damn, or capable of listening to anyone past themselves, or their own personal political agendas. I mean, if I were a state legislator and were approached by the newly selected, former (disgraced) coach of State Ohio football, I would quickly begin looking into reevaluating the process of appointing University Trustees.

@GP1. Toledo guy is my pick too.

No. Coming from the "circle" of "academia" (I kinda like the ring that has...), he could have a PhD or three, and I still wouldn't want him. And yes it's not about having the two letters before your name, or the three letters after your name. It's the mindset, and the way that you approach the world that is important. More importantly: moral character. You can have a PhD and lack moral character. You can have moral character and lack a PhD. I'll answer your question with another question: Are you saying that the person he is today is the right person? Regardless of PhD or not. What we're trying to say is that we don't think he is. Not because he's got a title, but because we think it's a really, really, really bad idea. No experience. Questionable moral clarity. Potentially his hire making us the laughingstock of the Ohio University system.

Yeah...she seems as clueless as iCoach was. I know you're going to stand by your husband/family at all costs...but you can't say with a straight face that iCoach is a good coach who inherited a terrible situation. That's what defines a "good" or even "decent" coach...is their ability to rise to the challenge and turn a program around. iCoach = not a good coach. Bowden = good coach.