skip-zip

a-zip...If people are being negative about the decision UA has made to take this path, we are in the overwhelming majority at this point. The students and alums (donors) of this University are their customers. They don't like it. When companies make decisions that their customers don't like, it's not a good thing. I think I see that you may be applauding the fact that they've simply made a move. I think what you are missing is the fact that these kinds of things are always ongoing. I'd be upset if my alma mater was not continually making moves to makes themselves "great". Everyone else is doing the same thing. But, the only reason this became such a big story is because the "name change" possibility got out to the public.

a-zip... 1) Ken+ saying that they are going to "distinguish themselves" to make themselves "great", just like Akron is doing, does not mean that they are following our path. The people at any major University should be spending 365 days a year trying to improve their position. This shouldn't be a surprise. 2) You say that if the new direction for UA is successful, people will accept it? What would define "success"? Survival? For how long? 20-30 years from now? Would people recognize it when it happens? Is it still "successful" if we gain in some areas, and other areas are left behind. Would any part of the success even be measurable in the next several years? Lots of questions.

Yes, certainly a tough sell. But for more than one reason. Even if a fair amount of people ever understand it well enough, that still doesn't mean that they are going to accept it.

Which doesn't mean that I will stop giving my opinion, both professionally and personally, about how I feel in regards to it's potential effectiveness. I deal with people every day who are convinced that their business is on the right path. And I wish I had a nickel for every failed marketing strategy I've witnessed. Dave, let me also add that we may not know for a very long time how this will turn out, in terms of saving the U of A. Maybe we'll never even know if this strategy was the largest contributor to my alma mater's success or failure. But for right now, they still need to deal with the short-term backlash. An overwhelming student/alum population who are against the change, a group of degree recipients over decades who feel alienated by what is perceived as a change in focus away from their obtained education type, current students/parents who are paying bills and appear to be in a "what the heck is this all about" mode, and what appears to be a very long learning curve for everyone to even grasp all of the details and meaning of the proposed change.

Yes, I love the idea of 4 games again on Thursday also.

Some good stuff in your post, Zen. Whether it makes the press or not, positioning yourself for greater success is an ongoing process for any organization. But, it doesn't mean that a selected path is a good one.

I agree 100% about the unbalanced schedule. As far as the tournament format, I can't believe it took this long for someone to come to their senses about having some teams play 5 games while others were playing 2 games. Give some advantage to the top teams. But, that format was ridiculous.

I'm going to create a CT logo for Alabama, representing the two first letters of their UNIQUE nickname also. Then I am going to ask people if they can guess who that symbol represents. I'll wager that it would be almost nobody.

Every time I'm in the loges, I wonder whether I'd feel any more detached from the action if I were in the Goodyear Blimp. Seriously. Maybe the large club level being between the loges and the upper reserved area adds to that "separating" feeling. Who knows.

The city of Cleveland has the highest number of OSWho alums of any city in the country, outside of Cowlumbus. A good fact to know for those who harp about not being able to get the fans up by the lake to come to Akron football games, when the Browns are doing poorly.

It makes me sad to think that the NEW feeling of Infocision is gone. Besides the scattered nature of the tailgating, I'll always be disappointed that the stadium was not built so that all of the fans could be on the same level (bowl-like), and that they put all of the club seats and suites all the way at the top. I'm sure, in both cases, that the available space may have limited that.

There's many interesting things in that article, ZippyRulz, including a provost from Cal Poly talking about how nobody can even agree on the meaning of "Polytechnic", which surely will make "educating" about the new terminology even easier. So, if I have this right, we're making a change that's also being made for the supposed benefits, just like Washington State Tri-Cities, and other references to Wisconsin-Stout. Relatively insignificant and unknown branch schools. I can certainly understand how a school with an enrollment of 1,400 that's only been around since 1989 can take the risk of being pigeonholed. But, why us? I think the new motto should maybe be: The University of Akron - The Washington State Tri-Cities of the East.

Zach, Differentiation is great.....IF it's successful at making you superior to a competitor. The initial perception of "Akron wants to be a Tech school" or "Akron wanted to change their name to Ohio Tech", and the overwhelming negative opinion of the change from students and alums is certainly proof that the "differentiation" is not creating the impression of superiority. How long this will last, or if it can ever be turned in the other direction is the challenge. I've seen in some of the quotes that the Pres. said something about maybe making education about the meaning of "Polytechnic" a first step. That's certainly an indication to me that maybe this was not thought out as thoroughly as it should have been, or that the initial reaction was not what was anticipated. And in my opinion, that makes this decision appear to be a mistake.

What did we expect? These other "Universities" would certainly love if the talk among students in NE Ohio is that Akron is choosing to "downgrade" to a "Tech School" in order to try to attract more students. Again, I am not bothered by the objective, just the path that was chosen.

A couple of people have pointed out that the "Z" (as a stand-alone entity) has been around awhile. Maybe longer than I thought. I'll acknowledge that. But, as the intended primary symbol of the AKRON Athletics? That's the major change. And the amount invested in that previously identity would, in a sense, be left behind. Just my opinion from my particular background. Once again, I personally have taken a liking to it. I'm just pointing out the challenges from a business/marketing/sales standpoint. Like I said....GOOD LUCK !!

ZippyRulz, I don't think one person here is concerned about whether a "Tech" school is offering so many other majors or not.

Here's the deal. Without commenting extensively on branding and marketing, let me just say this. This change is MAJOR. This is not using the "A" in a different fashion, or modernized. This is an entirely new symbol. A school of this size (just like a business of this size) spends TONS of money trying to establish an identity. When you abandon that completely to basically "start over", you are taking an incredible risk and forfeiting everything you have already invested in your previous, long-standing identity. Good Luck.

I think this whole thing takes an even more damaging turn when the ABJ makes a front page story about the backlash from students/alums, and posts pictures of Tweets from the son of the President, who resides in Texas, arguing with UA alums/students on social media in defense of his dad. His son even included a reference to the new name that was to become "Ohio Tech", if an official name change was going to happen. Wonderful. The unfortunate conclusion to all of this, whether we want it or not, is that "Akron is a Tech School" or "Akron wants to be a Tech School" will be the narrative for many years to come.

Dave, I'm with you. I just can't predict how long the "Akron is now a Tech school" idea might last before "education" takes place.

I completely understand going the JC route for it's flexibility to go "wherever" after one year. But, does anyone find it a little odd that a guy who was a good talent, and a pretty fair contributor to a good D-1 program as a RS-Freshman didn't find a home at a much higher level upon his departure? This move just seems like a universe away from what it seems like he was targeting.

Dave, thanks for supplying that quote above. Yes, for about the 5th time, I will state again that the biggest problem is the PERCEPTION that will go along with the change. I see that Dr. Scarborough understands that it will be a challenge to educate people on the meaning of "Polytechnic". But, it will be a large and ongoing one. It won't just be some "initial phase" of the transition. I really think that having that potential "Ohio Tech" name flying around out there for several weeks created an even greater hurdle.

Dave and Balsy....I did the numbers already in post #337 IF the Ken+ game was at home last year, even if you swap it out with the disastrous UMass game, would have only made up roughly 20-25% of the attendance drop off. And please don't tell me that Buffalo instead of BG or Miami would have made up the rest Dave, even in your formula of 6,300 per game drop off in the non-Ken+ years on average, you're still talking about almost a 38,000 difference.

Balsy, Try this, my man. Swap out the 2014 UMass game, in unbearable 18 degree weather. Exchange it with good weather and the possibility of a 20k Ken+ crowd. Perfect scenario, right? But that seemingly ideal switch would still only make up maybe 2k of an 8.6k average drop off.

That answered another question. This is now obviously the day that we are inducting Charlie into the Ring of Honor?

Balsy, we didn't lose 8,600 average per game because Can't was an away game vs. a home game. I think you may have missed that this is a "per game average" figure, and not an 8,600 loss in total attendance.