Balsy

Drop Rifle. I'd say go for Golf too...but apparently we have to maintain that for 16. I'm just trying to think utility here. Does UA get ANY utility fielding a Rifle team? At least with golf theres a lot of local courses (more cost effective? i have no idea if that's true or not...)

So I guess the question becomes what sports could Akron get rid of? (we have to keep in mind title IX) Men's Sports: M. Soccer Football M. Basketball Golf Rifle Track and Field Crosscountry Women's Sports: W. Soccer W. Basketball Softball Tennis Rifle Golf Track and Field Crosscountry Realistically Akron could probably only single out M and W Golf and M and W Rifle...

Bingo. Especially when that $1 Billion is strapping students with roughly $3600 of unnecessary student Debt, resorts to the cutting of basic educational programs/resources in order to maintain etc. The only problem is that some of these schools have already made the hefty investment (us new football stadium, BG new basketball Arena, Kent new training facilitiy...etc). Each of those investments, and the debt they carry, would be pissed down the toilet. Any action is almost going to have to be legislative in order to enact change. The chance of that happening is about 0%. (1) Ohio doesn't have the political moxie to legislate that kind of change. (2) Money. College athletics makes a lot of money for a lot of people. There is more political initiative to maintain the status quo then there is to change it. Each athletic director makes a healthy 6-figure salary, as does the top brass of the MAC conference (of which a legislative action in the state would all but destroy the MAC). I'm kinda pessimistic about it honestly, because I don't see it changing. Ever.

JD Brookheart was still the head coach when Infocision Stadium opened. The stadium opened 2009, his he was fired at the conclusion of the season.

Why not? What do we have to lose? I like the look of him. Wish we could see him in the Spring Game.

So David Blatt? Someone get him on the phone...

Which is exactly the point. A lot of people on this forum are trying to justify this spending as a warranted, tangible benefit to The University of Akron. Bullshit. It isn't. I love the Zips, but I'm not willing to have someone tell me that with a straight face. But, to be open an transparent, I'm part of the problem. I consume Zips athletics and are probably helping to perpetuate the justification of the absurd spending.

Considering public schools are owned and regulated by the community, that falls under socialist doctrine yes, albeit democratic socialism. As are public libraries, public roads, public utilities, the military, NASA, NOAA, etc. Building roads from Akron to rural areas? Socialism. Putting Electricity in the most rural areas of the country that wouldn't have had it otherwise (for economic gain or otherwise) because it's too expensive? Socialism. Putting a man on the moon? Socialism. Thanks for bringing your cold-war paranoia to the table for discussion.

sure they are. My mother has a wonderful story about the University of Tennessee. When she was there, there was a dorm attached to Neyland Stadium (still there today I believe) that was known as the "Athlete Only" dorm to everyone on campus, where steak and other very rich foods were served regularly but not available to the rest of the student body. I believe she recalls the dorm being "available" on paper to any student, but was absurdly expensive for the time, and strangely always full so it never had any openings. If you want to believe that it's somehow better today that in was in the 1970s when it comes to the corruption in NCAA D-I athletics, be my guest. I'm not.

I'd probably let ZipsNation decide the name, or something like that. Older folk know the Zips legends better than I do. Or perhaps "ZipsNation Arena" kinda like the sound of that. Now about winning the $500-powerball....

I always enjoy mes102 posts. Good stuff. Out of likes.

Thanks for that rational contribution.

Oh totally understand that, which of course is part of the problem of "keeping up with the joneses". When are Universities going to wake up to it? I know I may seem like a walking contradiction to a lot of people here. I'm the biggest supporter of Terry Bowden. So I guess I'm trying to be as transparent as I can; I absolutely love the Zips, but I can't necessarily justifiy...or allow decision makers to justify...these decisions without being extremely critical of them. It is the people who care about something most that need to be the most critical of it. I've also been disillusioned a bit. When is enough, enough?

Oh Bernie. If only...

Yup. And because of the fanatic mentality, you're never going to be able to reign in back in. Just look at people on this forum going from $600,000 a year for a basketball coach to $250,000 a year...

If I ever win the over $500-powerball, I will personally finance the building of a new stadium for the Akron Zips basketball team.

For once (maybe twice now) you and I agree on something! Let's take it while we can get it Keener!

It isn't. Even using your example: $300,000 Lost in Revenue from all those things. With previous coach you paid $600,000, pay the next one $250,000 (saving $350,000). Um now you're in the hole $50,000, as opposed to in the whole $300,000 with a successful coach. The University would probably be better off taking that $50,000 a year and play powerball. At least that way they might actually gain money as opposed to constantly pissing it down the toilet and spouting bullshit about some magical benefit that it has for the University (which it verifiably and observationally does not). I made this graph for the attendance thread I started. Yes, the Trend is upward after all this success that we've had. But even this raw data disproves your contention We went to the NCAAA tournament in 2009, 2010 we had a DECREASE. There are years we had an increase of the average 200-300 people. Assuming $10 a person...300 increase per game...16 home games...a $48,000 increase in revenue. I mean, compared to what you pee down the drain on the program, that's not a justifiable reason IMHO. It's bullshit clear and simple. But someone's gotta justify it right! Culture of Resume-Building. It literally doesn't add up for a school like Akron. To be a successful program (20+ wins a season) we pee hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars down the drain that IS NOT recouped due to increased student enrollment (which hasn't increased) or Season ticket holder sales/donations etc. If you simply cut the damn program you're actually better off financially, like that's objectively true. The University SUBSIDISES the program because it doesn't raise enough on it's own. That's objective fact, and objective fact for most mid-major universities. So those defending the spending jump to arguments over "exposure!" and "increased applications" things that aren't monetarily quantifiable in reality. They avoid assigning $ amounts or talking any financial numbers because they know how bad it looks. If you added up the $100s of millions of dollars that Universities get in subsidies (student fees) in order to support programs that can't support themselves on their own...I HIGHLY doubt that you can find $100s of millions of dollars of actual benefit. I like college athletics. I love the Zips. But don't pee on my shoes and tell me it's raining. College athletics is a shell game of smoke-and-mirrors where a lot of people make a lot of money, and must spew bullshit in order to justify the system. I personally don't care for bullshit and call it out whenever I encounter it. Net Gain my ass. Sorry I don't agree with the people who make the "net gain" argument to justify their own positions.

Unless you have a designed study you cannot say x = y. But dude seriously use your head for a moment, the bottom of this conversation is that people SAY because more students apply therefore the spending is justified. I'm arguing that this is garbage justification. The impact it has is negligible at best, if at all. 3-cherry-picked cases that don't actually show the connection they claim, totally justifies what 347 programs spend each year. If you want to make the claim that success in college athletics = "large" increases in enrollment, teachers and donations, you need to define each one of those criteria; success, "large" increases, etc... and then analyze ALL 347 programs (or perhaps for Akron all Mid-majors). Cherry-picking over a 15-year span, picking three three-year instances where your claim was true, isn't proof. It isn't scientific. The claim is noise until it supports itself. Cherry-picking isn't proof.

The comment made by someone who can't think of a substantive response to a criticism levied against him. Ironically I sit here drinking coffee from my Akron Zips "Z" mug typing this.

That's exactly why I said, besides a few isolated cases, mostly that are the top percentile. Theres what 347 D-I basketball programs? The article cherry-picks 3, 4 schools that fit the mold of a Cinderella story...it does not represent the reality, and that's the bullshit I"m calling out. I mean objectively looking at the article you should be skeptical of the claim. Dr. Robert Baker says himself admitted that there isn't statistical proof (evidence) to support the correlation, which makes any claim to the correlation nothing more than noise. And Dr. Baker isn't without bias, he's the director of sports management at George Mason, he's not some independent researcher with a defined set of criteria doing a study. He has something to gain by making the claim, which is justification for the spending. I mean even looking at the graphs presented there, they DONT support the claim. They cherry pick the attendance over a three-year span and make a claim to it, which isn't scientific. You need to show the trend over many years, preferably decades, to see how significant/insignificant the rise is. And that in upon itself is without a debate about the validity of more students applying from in-state/out-of-state because of exposure = justification of the spending. I don't believe it does. Assign a dollar amount to every student, and assess it to the outgoing dollars spent (which they don't do in the article, nor Dr. Baker discusses). I guarantee other than the top 100th percentile of schools, the cost will out weight the gain. People use those examples as justification for spending millions upon millions of dollars, gambling at the chance of becoming a Cinderella Story. Might be better off going to a casino. I love the Zips but I am not willing to compromise reality and rationality because of it.

I don't think a decision like that would be made at all. Title IV and all. Blatantly cutting back on a woman's sport to feed the Men's sport kinda feels like a violation to me. Bullshit. Having a 20+ win Akron team hasn't attracted a single student, a single teacher or a single benefactor. Sorry, but I'm calling bullshit. I'm tired of people in education (as someone who works in education) spouting crap like that. It's unsubstantiated, and is a decision made on less than the reality. The private sector is also riddled with illogical garbage like that as well. Usually so someone can use it as justification to make a decision that personally benefits themselves, that they will never have to face the repercussions of making. Attracts students? Bullshit. That might work for isolated circumstances related to the 100th percentile of colleges, but not the majority. Certainly not a school like Akron. Attract Teachers? If you want to attract better teachers focus on: pay, benefits, research $. Benefactors? Maybe...as in new alumni becoming benefactors after graduation. But winning doesn't do that...CULTURE does. After all this success, has Akron had a drastic change in Culture? I haven't seen it in the 8 years I've been a Zips fan. I'm not trying to be a negative-nancy, but a comment like that is just asinine. Like seriously, we're never going to win the game of "Keeping Up With The Jonses". We've already lost it, we're already very far behind. But Universities will continue to throw money down the toilet chasing garbage logic like this.

I'm now willing to admit this openly, I physically went to only one game this year. One. And I live in Akron. Why did I only go to one? Because I have watched watched the slow downhill loss of momentum for four years. The program has been stagnant. I'm really sad to see Dambrot go...he's the only Basketball Coach I've known since I've been a Zip. I had hoped at one point that he'd be here forever and become that legend that every big program at some point seems to have. Hopefully in Dambrot moving on it will re-energize my interest in Zips basketball. NOT because Dambrot is no longer here, but instead because there is nothing new to see. What's the point of the third most consecutive 20-win seasons if you lose to a team that was under 20 wins (18-13) in the regular season?

This is a great idea Keener way to go! 1. Dalton Williams 2. Cody Grice 3. Jatavis Brown 4. Justin March 5. Zach Paul 6. Connor Hundley 7. DeAndre Scott 8. Jawon Chisholm 9. Maquelo Suel 10. Robert Stein Williams, Paul, Suel, Chisholm, Stein I thought were all critical to the Zips in the Bowden Era. Both on making Zips football more bearable to watch, but also putting the Zips in situations to win games. Grice, Brown, Scott and March were leaders who got this team to new heights on defense relatively quickly. Honorable Mention: Tommy Woodson. The book has yet to be finished on him, and so I hold him off the list. Hopefully this season he will rise to #1 on the list after taking the program to unreached heights.

I love this idea! But from personal experience...Zips Athletics Department has been downright hostile towards student reporters, not open to issuing passes, credentials etc. They rare every issued them to my photographers or writers when I went through all the proper channels. Which is asinine, because they issue them to Hustlebelt. Go figure. Hopefully things have changed.