Balsy

You're joking right? After we won the national championship in 2010 everything with soccer has had the A-Roo logo inside of the blue oval, with one star over it on just about everything involving the program, including the on the field jerseys. The warmups have THAT logo too. It's also on the bags and everything else related to the team. When I was flying to New York a couple of weeks ago I saw one of the coaches in the Akron-Canton Airport. How did I know he was a soccer coach? Because he was wearing A-Roo in blue oval with a star over it gear, with a bag that matched. If you went to the basketball game where all the soccer alumni came you recieved this poster with the very logo I'm talking about on the bottom. Now, I'm not saying that I hate the Z logo...I just think it's asinine to completely eliminate the A-Roo. My coffee cup in front of me as I type this, has a giant A-Roo on it. Half my gear has the A-Roo on it. Moving A was very obviously dated. It looked like it was from the 80's. The A-Roo doesn't look dated at all. We should not be in the business of eliminating logos. Find new and interesting ways to encorporate them. A couple of years ago the new Rowdies shirt had a Z logo with the A-Roo Logo superimposed inside it. That was a really cool, modern shirt that utilized two of our unique logos. I liked it. Athletics should be creative, not lazy. Changing from A-Roo to Z is lazy.

Where should I start? 1x National Championship (M. soccer) 1x NCAA Tournament Runnerup (M. Soccer) 1x MAC Championship, first ever (football) 1x MAC Championship, first ever (W. Basketball) 3x MAC Championships (M. Basketball) 11x MAC Championships (M. Soccer) 14x NCAA Tournament Appearances (M. soccer) + Just about every other major achievement of UA athletics What have we accomplished with the Z as a centerpiece: Lost just about every nationally televised game with the "Z" in both Basketball and Football that I can remember. The arguement of rebranding athletics, just like the arguement for rebranding UA, falls flat on it's face.

I do care LZip. Kep the A-Roo, stop trying to fix what isn't broken.

We better win a national championship with the Z...or another football MAC Championship...or it'll be useless.

No, gosh darnit Dave, it's a vast conspiracy alright!? But seriously...Akron has a much bigger identity problem than I thought it did.

The AD (to his credit) responded to my email I sent him about the A-Roo and how it is seemingly disappearing from athletics. I specifically asked him if it is being eliminated. Here's his response: Make of it what you will.

Note when I said "you're a moron" it was directed at a person who would choose a school in that manner, not you individually. But for every 1 example that would make Akron sound larger, there is one (if not many more) examples of making UA sound like a smaller BFE school. Here's the problem with you analogy a-zip: education is not a business. It should not be a business. It should not opperate as a business. It does not work on the same principal of a business. And all these business minded people who have entered into education because it makes governors happy to say "we have welcomed business into education", are the problem. What may be good for business, is not necessarily good for education. That's the fallacy here. Not to mentioned it hasn't been demonstrated in any measurable manner in a peer reviewed process. That's the difference (or should be the difference) between education and business. Education SHOULD be based on what works, not throwing darts at a dartboard on what might work. Read the two articles I posted on the most successful education systems in the world. We KNOW without a doubt what works in education. Of course it doesn't work in a business model...because education's not a business. And it's not supposed to be. I'm not disagreeing with the financial difficulties faced by universities, I do not agree with you on the solution. The soultion is NOT "rebranding" yourself and painting yourself into a niched corner, especially when that rebranding hasn't even been demonstrated to be effective or to have a significant, measurable impact. I don't care what guys like Mark Cuban and Bill Gates think about the future of education. For starters, they have a personal vested interest in blasting public education. They have invested heavily in private schools, and programs designed so siphon public education funds into private hands. Mark Cuban and Bill Gates are also non-educators. They don't know the first thing about an education system. Why is this important? Because the best, most successful schools in the world are run by educators. Why is that significant? Because educators, you know the people who dedicate their lives to it, know what their doing. There's a disdain for educators in the US and THAT's more the problem in the US than anything else. Lastly Mark Cuban and Bill Gates, or anyone for that matter, are not authorities on anything. Just because they think, believe, feel anything... is irrelavent to whether or not it is true or not, or will work or not. Their opinions are only as good as the data, information and peer reviewed substance they have to back it up.

This article is a little OT, and deals more with primary + secondary education and not university educations...but I think it's important to the discussion of modern education, and the current drama we see unfolding in the US education system. Here's an article that looks at the US university system when compared to the rest of the World. You'll see Finland in the Top 3, which has a very similar philosophy in higher education as they do in public primary + secondary education. Huh, I wonder if they're having "rebranding" movements in Austrian universities.

The problem with the education system is less about the education system and more about the people and the increasing amount of non-education people whom are charged with running education, that's the problem. A name change and rebranding really isn't fixing the educational woes. I'll answer your last question with another question: If you were from outside the state, why would you choose Akron "Ohio's Polytechnique" over any other state's polytechnique? You choose a school to go to in another state because it has the research/graduate level research opportunities you're looking for. If you're picking a graduate school because it has the name "Polytechnique" in it, well...you're a moron. The whole rebranding idea is absolutely asinine (to quote myself from the ABJ), until Dr. Scarborough releases actual studies with definite conclussions, I will continue to say as much. When asked what research backs up Dr. Scarborough's claims he said "it's proprietary". Bullshit. If it's real research with reliable data, it wouldn't be afraid of peer review...of criticism. It'd be published in journals and there'd be no need to hide behind "proprietary". It has bullshit written all over it. No, I don't think he wants what's best for UA. His lack of transparency, lack of interest in the student body and alumni is alarming. He's already jumped ship numerous times in his career, and a major state university rebranding as a polytechnique makes for a wonderful resume builder in a resume initiative building culture. And no major state university will go belly up, I promise you that. The contention that most universities are going to be gone in 50 years is a crock of crap. It's overly hyperbolic, and built on a plethera of assumptions and fallacies.

A rumor is going around the NoNameChangeAkron facebook that a corner of the stadium has sunk 3-ft. That sounds like a wild accusation to throw around, because that'd would be awful news if it were true. Anyone know if there is any validity to that?

Here is an article that Dr. Scarborough mentioned in his speech. I won't offer much commentary on it other than perhaps this will give a little context to UA's "rebranding". I believe this article to be a rather hyperbolic, pro-MOOC opinion piece. I find it a little academic curious for Dr. Scarborough to be playing into the hyperbole himself by mentioning it at all. Note: This article was published in 2012. A year later, several studies were published that seem to challenge a lot of the claims made by writer. Here's it from UP. For those interested, here is an excellent response made to the MOOC "revolution of education" arguement, in a much more articulate manner than I could present here. You might ask why I am focused on MOOCs with this post...I think it's an important point of interest for this discussion because Dr. Scarborough was very much involved with the attempt to get large, graduate level MOOCs started at Toledo while he was CFO, and it was a very controversial move. He also made many references throughout his speech yesterday that hinted to a focus on integrating MOOCs as a part of UA's future educational ventures.

I agree with that dave. I was just trying to point out that the single greatest impacter of attendance from season-to-season appears to be the Can't game. The other 2,000 lost in average attendance is probably a mixture of awful opponents and weekday games.

No, I didn't. The Can't game's attendance is around 18,000-20,000 reported attendance just about every year we have it. When you have only 6 games, that tends to skew the average attendance quite considerably. Especially considering the game we have instead of Can't, is the likes of UMass or EMU....with an attendance of like 9000. Have Can't on the schedule vs EMU or UMass would impact the average a great deal, which is one of the reasons there's a "drop" in attendance. Evidence (stars indicate when Can't game is at Akron). These are season average attendance: *2007 16355 (Can't game itself 21827) 2008 13481 *2009 17382 (Can't game itself 20802) 2010 10193 *2011 15741 (Can't game itself 19889) 2012 9275 *2013 17850 (Can't game itself 20239) 2014 9170 What I'm saying part of the drop in attendance is directly connect to the fact that the Can't game wasn't held in Akron. It's just a fact that our "average" attendance drops or raises because of that game alone.

As some of the other members mentioned...Can't game was away and in December...on a weekday.

It fits in because it makes press, and calms the public, while other arts programs continue to be downsized/eliminated entirely. Tenured faculty in those fields are also cut. Its obvious who should give up football. Can't. Their stadium is a dump, UA's got Infocision. Infact, probably Akron would be in the position to keep most of the sports teams (basketball, football, soccer, W. Basketball) because they're more successful/have a better field or better location. We'd lose baseball?

I do think this court will look much better on TV. Anyword on upgrades to the broadcasting equipment so that we may have national games at the JAR?

Bingo. Same with me.

ABJ... it's The University of Akron, not the University of Akron. Do they have any copy editors over there who fact-check things? Names are the easiest thing to reference.

But according to that report, this was put together by a 19 year old promotions person. And he said he'll move it if he has to. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

If there supposedly is no difference between the education you get at a university vs a Polytechnique university, why is this even a discussion? (as in, why would the president even suggest rebranding the university of Akron?)

I think this is sending a message to all teams. Cheating, no matter how little it may seem...or how little your personal involvement...will not be tolerated. For once, I applaud the NFL.

You're right. We'd be viewed as less than Can't or YSU. You're also alientating a large portion of your reach by throwing yourself into a corner. A lot of students go to UA because of it's where it is in relation to them, AND because of what it offers.

I am enjoying this conversation too, one of the more productive ones I've seen on the forum in awhile. If you come across that article I'd like to read it, that is very interesting and would be contrary to most of the research I've read about millenials vs other generations. I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong on that point though. I don't necessarily disagree that the goal of a degree is to move into a career within that field. I guess the distinction I want to make is that you have a major to demonstrate to a future employer where your base skills are. If your major is organic chemistry (obviously I'm a science guy, so I'll use science as an example) your major is declaring your skills are in organic chemistry. You'd know the lab equipment, the math, the terminology, the nomenclature, the base reactions...etc. It's impossible to be trained in every possible subsection of organic chemistry, with tens of thousands of possible reactions, each serving a different industry. It is not possible, nor sustainable to outright train a workforce for the job a single employable job. Nothing makes a dance major more "well rounded" than an accounting major. But it's not the major that makes you more well rounded. It's by having options to take classes that you become more well rounded. What if you didn't have the option to take Earth science or environmental? And your only options for science credits were very specific to a type of career? Same with humanaties. I took a history of China class to fullfill a humanaties credit, and it is by far one of the classes I've learned the most from, outside of my focus, because it was something we just aren't exposed to. In a Polytechnique institution, it is entirely possible that humanaties would not be a focus, thus never giving me the opportunity to be exposed to it. That's the distinction. Or at least as I can articulate it.

LibraryMark hit it on the nose. There is a battle going on in education. Education vs work force. Job preparedness vs independent well rounded people. My parents and I have had many discussions about this. Both of my parents are highly educated with several masters degrees. They both graduated in the 70s, my father in accounting and business, my mother in education and science. Back when they were in school, businesses did not hire them expecting they were ready to go from day one. They hired people, then dedicated resources to train those people in for the job that the business wanted them to do. This takes an INVESTMENT on the employee on the part of the business. My dad was extensively trained by the chemical corporations that hired him, that he ended up spending 20 years with. Businesses are doing this less and less. Putting the burden (financially and academically) of having a worker to do the job needed, on the education system...instead of finding someone with the base skills and investing in them. This lack of investment in employees by businesses isn't going unnoticed by the millenials who are now entering the work force. Businesses are having trouble retaining millenials for long periods of time, because millenials don't stay in places that don't value them, or invest in them.