GP1

Please stop making sense. If they University isn't getting what they want out of the current Dean of Students, it's time to find another Dean of Students, not create another position on top of a current position. Universities have gone insane with the creation of positions for the sake of creating positions. It's the "building process" exercised in a different way. If VA Tech and A & M can afford this position on top of a Dean of Students, good for them. UofA's books are in the red....and not by a little bit. They need to learn to do more with less.

I do find it interesting. It ties into my concern over the general direction of public higher education in this country. The priorities are becoming disjointed and unusual in a way that I don't think is good for the country. I think the chase for the almighty dollar has put many schools in a position where they do things against their best interest. Since they are doing things against their best interest, they are acting against the public's interest as they are public institutions. The goal of public universities used to be to do great research and educate people in a forward looking manner. Now, it seems as if funneling in more students (even if that means they sit in front of a computer and take classes that way) and churning out degrees is the goal. Not sure how devaluing a college diploma is good for the country. On the other hand, we have an American public that believes the key to success is getting a college diploma. It helps get someone in the door, but is not the key. The key to success is the same as it has been forever...hard work and performance. Americans have become an odd bunch. We expect a lot out of our government, such as public universities, but we don't want to pay for them in the form of higher taxes. Therefore, university presidents are stuck chasing dollars any way they can. Seems like the new president sees this company he was on the board of as a method of chasing dollars where there are none. One of the myths I think people on this board were operating under was if Tressel was president, people in Columbus would bow down and shell out millions to UofA closing the debt. That was never going to be the case. Why? The State of Ohio is as busted as a Daytona stripper. There is no money, so in order to make the balance sheet right, more revenue has to be brought in via other channels or cuts have to be made....probably both. So, where is UofA in the big picture? We live in a society where the trend is fewer people attending college and UofA is in line with that trend of fewer students enrolling (people who actually sign up for classes and pay for them). We are not getting the money we need from the State to pay for the ever bloating campus. Ohioans do not want to pay more taxes for universities and their bloating footprints. So, the solution for increased revenue is to increase tuition and student fees, which are putting our young generation in a crippling state of debt coming out of school in the form of student loans. This is a terrible solution for the country. Another option is to slash programs and staff at UofA to try and bridge the difference. Another solution is to increase the student population. Sounds good, but UofA isn't immune from the national trend and enrollment will decline so they will set up Mickey Mouse on line programs in order to churn out diplomas and generate fees making my college degree less valuable...Terrible solution for the country. From the resume of the new President, this is probably going to happen sooner rather than later. I'm not sure if the cuts will be a bad thing for UofA or the general public because cuts made in the right Departments can eliminate worthless majors that don't really produce a productive citizen. I would not want to be the President of any university under these macro conditions. The financial bubble in the form of future financial liabilities for the public universities is a huge problem in this country. American public universities are in big trouble and we are a public university. UofA will not be immune from the problems.

This is a all really good stuff Dave. Thanks for posting.

I actually thought it all was a farce and a bit of a put on for show. I really thought Tressel was as close to a lock as one could get. How else could anyone look at a guy with Tressel's shallow resume and not see the same thing? The new president has a lot of work in front of him. I can't say I would root for him, but I will say I expect him to do a good job and wish him luck at it.

Fantastic post. The resume comparison was right on. The only thing that got Tressel as far as he did was his name. The resume was a joke. Shame on the incompetents who allowed him to get as far as he did and risking national embarrassment for UofA.

Permanently? Or as a stopping point on their way to the Big East?

Maybe desperate people do desperate things. Akron is not desperate. We have a solid foundation of professors producing well educated people. One more thing. If little Jimmy felt under appreciated after Akron rolled out the red carpet for him, made him head of the Encouraging Department and threw an unusually large sum of money at him for Akron standards, then that's just too damn bad. He shouldn't let the door hit him in the ass on the way out. Maybe some of our Trustees who thought he was a good idea should get the Hell out as well.

You sum my opinion up. If memory serves me correct, Dr. Proenza was a bit of a nobody at the time of his arrival at Akron and think he would get an "A" for his performance.

Are you assuming Tressel will be there long enough to warm his seat? His seat was lukewarm at best at Akron.

One of the cuts the new President should make. A complete farce from the beginning.

Good post. There will be and should be some cuts. Made in the right places, the University should greatly benefit. There also needs to be a realignment of priorities away from the building process and towards better research and education. Best of luck to the new President.

The Ianello offense was more creative.

Very few any longer. Cathodes are becoming increasingly hard to find.

The little impact it has, it really isn't worth mentioning. See my nine links earlier in this thread.

A tweet to announce you are going to send a tweet to announce that you are going to announce something?

This is why I've never understood the fascination people have with driving two hours to an outlet mall to save $.50 on a pair of underwear. It just doesn't make sense to me. On the surface, the .25% tax is a small amount. However, the tax burden in Ohio is disproportionately higher as a measurement of average income. (Overall tax burden comparison.) It isn't just this tax, but all of the other taxes the average Ohioan is required to pay. It becomes death by a thousand cuts. Again, I don't live there anymore, but it would chap my butt if I was still living in Akron while paying a high city income tax and then have another tax on top of it. Someone mentioned earlier that UofA did a horrible job of rolling out this idea. I agree. They didn't do a good job of controlling the message by taking a complex document and explaining it in a way that the majority of people could understand.

I agree with Dave. Nobody is excusing them. They are just pretending they never happened.

The results are still unclear. It's a great thing Akron is steering people to community colleges. However, enrollment at Akron has declined. The question still remains, is it about applications or a better student population with an opportunity to graduate? Generating applications doesn't seem that difficult. Generating good students applying and then showing up for their freshman year seems to be the real task and the result we should be measuring. Most people believe more is better. "Tressel got more people to apply; therefore, he is doing a good job." I believe better is better even if it results in fewer units. Using a sports analogy, the MAC would be a better conference if it only had 10 good teams in lieu of some of the rum dums we have circling the drain at the bottom. We've polluted our league with the likes of UMASS and Temple over the years. I don't have a problem with a decline in the UofA student population as long as the quality of student increases. If UofA allows 5% fewer students and increases student quality and graduation rate, that's better than increasing the student population 5% while quality and graduation rates decline. Better students create better graduates who land better jobs and have more $ to donate to UofA. That's a long term winning direction. In the end, the quality of the MAC means more than the amount of teams in the league. In the end, the quality of UofA graduates means more than the number of students in the school. Akron wants more students and better students. That's a great goal; however, there has been a decline in the student population. They don't seem to be getting both. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. However, if the measurement for Tressel is he will get more students and better students, that doesn't seem to be working out either at least on the enrollment portion of the measurement. Has anyone asked any of the candidates, "If student enrollment continues to decline, how do you plan on maintaining a high quality of education?" The trend is in declining enrollment. Enrollment at most schools, including Akron, is happening RIGHT NOW. Not a decade from now, right now it's happening and it may not be able to be stopped. This is the trend the next president should be planning for. This article should be of concern to us and many at schools who have gone through a huge "building process" over the past couple of decades. Specifically, the trend from 1997 to recently has been rapid growth of universities. Many schools, including Akron, have geared up for the growth and many saw the growth coming before 1997. Now that the "building process" is over, the trend has changed to the negative. Ooops. Now what? Some believe Tressel can solve all problems. I believe the national trend is too great for a guy with his background to be able to solve, if there is even a solution in the way the "building process" people want. We live in a much different world than in 1997. The new president needs to understand that and function in a way that shows an understanding of the changes in the next 10 years. Better comes before more.

This is an absolutely fantastic argument in favor of the arena. Why don't more make it? Worse, who do so many flat out lie about the impact of an arena on a region? Thank you for your honesty ziptrumpet87!

Maybe this is true. I don't know. You say it is true. What makes it true? BTW, I'm so disconnected from UofA that I wrote to letters to potential students for The Roo Crew this year. I like the idea of trying to attract better students so much I took time out of my day to do this. When I see applications are up 50%, it becomes a red flag. It's the kind of statistic that makes me think the University is peeing on our collective leg and telling us it is raining. An applicant does not equal a good student. A good student equals a good student. I want good students applying and accepting openings at UofA. The University has thrown this 50% number out there to help convince us Tressel is the right guy for the job. To me, it is a shallow result unless the quality of those accepting openings shows improvement. It smells funny because it doesn't go to substance. If there is substance behind it in terms of better students accepting spots at UofA, the University should release it to the public as they make this important decision. Good measuring, in my opinion would be: What is the average SAT score of the universe of applicants compared to the past three years? If this number is up, it shows his strategy is on its way to working. If not, it shows they are padding the numbers and creating an illusion. What is the average SAT score of commitments (kids who actually attend a class in the fall) to UofA compared to the past three years? This is the real substance. If it is up, it shows good execution of strategy and a check mark in the positive column for Tressel. If it is down, it shows poor execution of strategy. My biggest concern about Tressel isn't his proven slipperiness. Dave in Green is right in that he comes from a sleazy world and is proven part of it. University Presidents have become just as sleazy as the Athletic Directors they employ and encourage. Tressel will fit right in. It's his questionable ability to show meaningful results as an administrator. Leadership? What makes him a great leader of adults? He is a very good leader of stupid jocks, but does that type of simplistic leadership may not translate well into an environment of adults with brains? Results? I'm waiting to see some depth in those results. I'm totally open minded about this. Someone show me a meaningful result that directly points to the quality of student coming in the Class of 2018 is better.

@wadszip, I like your enthusiasm, but time will prove me correct because it always does in urban environments. Keep building the high rise apartments. There is one in uptown Charlotte that is 40 stories tall, completed five years ago and is less than 50% capacity. Cleveland Schools are broken beyond repair and young couples will continue to flee Cleveland once they decide to start families. Young families have been fleeing urban areas since the 1950s when the WWII generation settled the suburbs in Buicks (the Civil War generation settled the west in horse drawn wagons, on dirt trails while being attacked by native americans, but that's an entire other topic as to why the Civil War generation was actually The Greatest Generation..They just didn't have Tom Brokaw cheerleading for them.). That isn't going to change in Cleveland. I just want to have an honest conversation about the real impact a new arena would have on Akron. There will be some positive, but not enough to cover the costs of maintaining the arena. The people in favor of it for these reasons should stop lying about it. There is too much evidence out there showing it is in fact not true (see NINE articles below, I could have linked to 100 of them). I would much rather prefer honesty because I want the new arena too. I don't care if it can ever pay for itself because the tax payers of Ohio are so stupid they will put another tax on themselves to pay for it. Since I don't live in Ohio, this doesn't impact me. I could respect the honesty of someone who argued, "I want a new arena. I know the finances are unsupportable and I don't care if it bankrupts the University, The City of Akron or Summit Count...or all three. I'm sick of sitting in the JAR and I want others to pay for my comfort." Article 1 Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 Article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9

This in and of itself doesn't influence my decision. What would influence me is if the quality of student entering UofA is better than before. Not only is Tressel part of the admissions process, but he is also head of the Encouraging Department. The development and expansion of this department tells me they may be letting in less qualified students in order to collect student fees to fund the "building process". This is a morally bankrupt way to run a university, but then again, with the influence of Athletic Directors on schools across the country, it should be no surprise universities are becoming progressively morally bankrupt. If striving for excellence is generating applications, then I guess Tressel is the guy. If striving for excellence is improving the quality of student so the school produces better graduates, it remains to be seen if Tressel is the guy. Until we know the quality of applicants, we don't really know if they are striving for application numbers or quality. Surely, a university needs to be more than striving for applications.

I agree he is going to be the next President because our Board of Trustees took such a lazy approach. We might in fact have a Board of Trustees problem. I'm not going to root for him or against him. I don't root for or against my employees. I expect him to do his job well in the areas that really matter at a university: advancing research and teaching the results of the relevant research of the day. Tressel isn't just an employee of UofA, he is an employee of the State of Ohio. Most of you, I would assume, pay taxes in Ohio in one form or another. That means he is your employee as well. For those who plan on rooting for him, my question is, For how long? What if the guy is a complete disaster? Can we be critical of that or do we have to continue to root for him like the children in the Encouraging Department? I will say this. When this charade is over the Tressel is the President, I will wish him luck. Most people who take job in which they are unqualified for frequently need a lot of luck to succeed, so we should all wish him good luck. He'll need it.

Ah, the illusion vs. reality argument. The reality is, these taxes are never enough to pay for what they say they are going to pay for so more taxes have to be levied in order to pay for the broken promise. Again, I'll restate, there is zero evidence that the construction of stadiums brings in enough revenue to pay for themselves. Numbers are reality and the reality is they don't. The hookers on Prospect Avenue argument. Prostitution is the world oldest profession. The new stadiums didn't eliminate prostitution in Cleveland. They just moved it somewhere else. The girls are conducting business on another street. The restaurant argument. There are a limited amount of people who want to go get drunk in Cleveland on the weekends. They will go somewhere. My guess is the drunks have moved to the stadium area and away from the flats because the Flats ain't what it used to be. The downtown housing argument. This goes on in every city and is going on right now in Charlotte. Downtown housing attracts young people with limited income. As soon as they get older and meet someone they would like to marry and start a family with, they leave for the great white suburbs. The problem Cleveland has is their inability to keep this demographic because they really fill up the public bank accounts with their money. As sad as this sounds, there really is a limit to the number of nights a person can go out drinking. Nobody ever asks about the rest of Cleveland though. My guess is it hasn't gotten any better and has probably gotten worse in the past few years. The City of Cleveland is like the person who owns what looks like a great house because the front of it looks nice, but when you look in the back yard, it is fully of rusted out cars and old tires. More money for stadiums is not what Cleveland needs. Getting back to the Akron arena case. Until I moved away from Akron (I actually lived in the City), I had no idea how bad the tax burden was around NE Ohio. Specifically, Akron and Summit County in general. I now live in a suburb of Charlotte (in SC) and have a much more expensive home than when I lived in Akron and my taxes are lower at every level. All around us, new neighborhoods are being built with accompanying schools, wider roads and good public services. It's funny how a community like this can spend their tax money on things that matter. When the Charlotte Knights wanted to move uptown, they didn't panic and spend a fortune renovating their stadium, they waved goodbye, are in the process of demolishing the stadium and turning it into a transportation park that is already filled when construction is complete. The next part is going to sound like Cleveland. In Charlotte, the City is spending a fortune renovating Bank of America Stadium for an average team in a league that makes billions. The schools in Charlotte/Meck (there is a county school system in Charlotte) are becoming a disaster and communities like mine are seeing the relocation of families out of Charlotte to enjoy better schools and a less crippling tax burden. In the next 15 years, the population of my town is projected to triple. Uptown Charlotte is building one high rise apartment complex after another hoping they can fill them with people who want to go get drunk every night. Keep taxing yourselves for the Browns, Cavs and Indians you idiots. Heap on a tax for Akron as well. I don't live there anymore, what do I care?

You answered Zach's question for me. Thanks. This is not the best group of candidates. Maybe it's normal for a mid major school like Akron, but the field isn't all that great. The guy from Toledo certainly has some baggage, but at least he as been at a high level making hard decisions. Tressel has been at a high level making decisions about the Encouraging Department. There is a huge difference there in the type of experience one would need to face the challenges of solving the "building process" overspending. It seems to me Tressel's strengths center around him being a likable guy and glad handing. He is the feel good candidate. The guy from Toledo seems to be the guy who has made tough decisions and ruffled some feathers along the way. He is the prick candidate. Right now, UofA may need a prick to straighten some things out.