9100 Attendance

[LZIp]

I wonder if some of you who post on this board are even fans of Zips ATHLETICS.

[Spin]

The point is….the information in those article paints a pretty harsh reality for the future of college athletics. The previous administration had that information, right? They took that information and felt it was a wise decision to build that stadium for $65M when we had never even approached 30,000 in attendance. We all agree renovating the Rubber Bowls did not make sense. The question is…..was it a smart decision to continue to pursue D1 football when your community does not support ANY of your programs. For schools like ODU (who is planning a new stadium) it is a different story because they sell out their existing stadium. This isn't the FIELD OF DREAMS movie.

Dr. SS got rid of TW for a start right?!? Isn't that something we can ALL agree should have been done years ago?!?! To me, he has addressed the MAJOR issue pretty quickly. If you are expecting in depth information on the other plans, be prepared to be disappointed. I wouldn't expect any major announcements until a new AD is in place.

Since you never bring it up, do you believe that an aggressive professional marketing campaign would not/could not raise attendance figures to respectable numbers?

All I hear is "we don't" and "we can't". While slobbering over every word the "forward thinking" SS says. What class did you take at the University of Akron that taught you "we can't" is forward thinking? This "Lets Cut Football" defeatist attitude makes me sick.

And if you dislike college athletics so much, and they're such a waste, why do you chose to discuss them with college sports fans?

[Spin]

So, it seems, students are being asked to pay the price for whose entertainment exactly?"

Again, students pay for a LOT of recreational programs that few take part in. If we're going to start hatcheting sports programs to fit your needs, and to save student fees, then lets padlock the bowling alley and the theater. Work out facility? Shut down. Clubs and organizations? Gone. Where do we stop?

This whole concept that college athletics somehow suddenly needs to break even is a big part of what's wrong with college athletics. Other schools invest lots of money into their sports programs hoping it will do for them what Ohio State's investment did for tOSU. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant when you talk about cutting athletic programs. They were never intended to make money for the school. The fact that some universities use them as marketing tools does not change that fact.

[zip-O-matic]

)

Again, how much of tOSU's growth is a direct result of the football program? And why is that not a good investment?

You do know that OSU was in the AAU two decades before (1916) they ever became a major force in college football (1930s). And even if your argument was accurate, it was nearly a century ago that schools made those big investments in college football. What has been the ROI of playing catch up. We sink 20M in subsidies into the athletic department, yet we are farther removed from the big time schools than we have ever been. Everyone likes to point to Boise, but for all their success they still lose money and the university is still an academic backwater. All their football success has brought them is football success. Nothing else.

I love college football, but schools like Akron have to find a way to do it within their means. Let me ask you a question, do you believe that the athletic subsidy per student should equal 10% of their tuition? Do you think we should be pumping an amount of financial resources into a money losing athletic department that is equal to more than twice what our entire endowment disburses to the university every year?

Schools are going to need to reign in the madness before state legislatures and harsh economic realities force them to. It's as simple as that. Ask the average student and their parents what they would rather have. A struggling athletic department that falls further and further behind the P5 schools ever year or that extra thousand dollars a year back in their pockets?

[a-zip]

Since you never bring it up, do you believe that an aggressive professional marketing campaign would not/could not raise attendance figures to respectable numbers?

All I hear is "we don't" and "we can't". While slobbering over every word the "forward thinking" SS says. What class did you take at the University of Akron that taught you "we can't" is forward thinking? This "Lets Cut Football" defeatist attitude makes me sick.

And if you dislike college athletics so much, and they're such a waste, why do you chose to discuss them with college sports fans?

Spin, if an aggressive marketing campaign is all it took to get people into the Rubber Bowl or Infocision….why hasn't it been done? There has been marketing, we have an amazing charismatic coach who is out promoting, we give away scholarships, we have a winning basketball team….nobody seems to care. I played for the Zips during a time when we probably had the highest attendance ever and we were division 1AA, making the move to D1. It still used to piss me off when we would come out of the locker room and you could hear people having conversations in the stands because of how small the crowd was.

The last game at the Info had announced attendance of 5,400, we opened the season with 9,100!!!! Anybody at the last game would tell you there were not that many people at the game. I played in front of more people in high school.

Once again, do not misrepresent what SS has said or what I have said. Neither one of have EVER said "Lets cut football". What I have been saying for decades (warning against) is that if some of you people in NEO don't get your asses to support Zips football and basketball, you are going to lose it. I have warned against losing TB and KD……everybody says "NO WAY a-zip they are here to stay". BULLSHIT, they are too good to go down on a sinking ship. I DONT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN but it is inevitable if the trend continues. We can't keep pumping money into athletics!! While you folks put blinders on I am simply stating reality and you don't want to hear it. I firmly believe if people would have shown up to support, we would have won more games at home, we would have better recruits, we wouldn't be in as bad of a financial mess and more than likely we would be further ahead on getting a new basketball arena. Instead we are being embarrassed by articles being written about having the worst attendance in college football.

I am more pissed at the previous administration for building the Info and then sitting on their asses. Seriously, I think they watched "Field of Dreams" too many times….."build it and they will come seemed to be their marketing strategy. Now, SS is taking the blame when the previous administration were the ones that did not whack TW and try to stop the bleeding.

The classes I took taught me about supply and demand. They taught me about running a business. They taught me about making sound/responsible business decisions. They taught me about ROI. They did teach me about marketing too but part of successful marketing begins with having a product people want. The defeatist attitude lies right in Akron…..if cuts have to be made Joe Akron will have to look no further than the mirror to find someone to blame.

[Captain Kangaroo]

Off he goes...

[Zipgrad01]

Not a popular opinion, but I believe that athletic subsidies should be banned. We and every other state school in Ohio not named OSU are pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into something that shows no signs of turning around and becoming anything other than a giant money pit. To put UA's subsidy in perspective, each year it is more than twice what our entire endowment disburses. It works out to just about $1,000 per student or 10% of the tuition for an in-state student.

Since Boise State was mentioned....

https://news.boisestate.edu/update/2012/10/19/boise-state-enrollment-trends-signal-growth-more-diversity/

tOSU is no different. Do you really think all these people have just flocked to Columbus because they are in love with their agriculture program? No. They do it because they had an affinity for the university since they were a child, or in Boise States case the last decade. I remember Bobby Bowden talking about how the enrollment at FSU increased several hundered percent after the football team came to national prominance. This is one of the reasons that universities soak money into athletics. They are hoping that success on the field equals an increase in enrollment. You cant look at the athletic revenue in a vacuum. Enrollment increases caused by athletics isnt factored into those profit/loss numbers.

[Hilltopper]

KD is not going anywhere.

[Spin]

A few years ago myself and GP advocated for dropping back down to I-AA so that we could be competitive with our budget, which would increase popularity, which would increase attendance and possibly enrollment. But we were shot down big time. I really don't think those fans who paid to see the Canton Invaders cared that the league was inferior to the MISL. The players were making $1000 a month while the better Force players were making 6 figures. I don't think all the fans who go see the Rubberducks care it's only AA. It's a good time, and the team wins.

The legacy of OSU's using athletics as a marketing tool is very evident when one walks through Akron's campus. I myself had thoughts of going to OSU Mansfield instead of UA when I went back, but my wife would have nothing of the 54 mile commutes. That's the allure of being a "Buckeye".

[Captain Kangaroo]

A few years ago myself and GP advocated for dropping back down to I-AA so that we could be competitive with our budget, which would increase popularity, which would increase attendance and possibly enrollment. But we were shot down big time.

You save 22 scholarships if you drop to 1-AA. It would have a negligible effect on the football budget. Dropping to 1-AA would not increase enrollment. It would not increase attendance. Unless you think there is a huge upside to replacing Toledo and K.e.n.t. on our schedule with Gardner Webb and Eastern Illinois.

Had we dropped to 1-AA say, 6 years ago, Wistercill would have hired a "1-AA Version" of Ianello, and we'd be in the same boat we're in now, but with a smaller chance to crawl out of it. The problem is not 1-AA vs. 1-A, it has been the lack of UA Athletics vision and leadership.

There are plenty of additional negatives to dropping football to the 1-AA level. Too many too list.

Dropping to 1-AA is not the solution to increasing anything at The University of Akron except the fast-tracking of its irrelevance.

[Balsy]

a-zip, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who thinks TB is here to stay, and I stand by that sentiment that he'll retire from coaching as an Akron Zip.

As for everything else you say...we're not mischaracterizing you or Scarborough. I'm pointing out that Scarborough's comments are not that of a good leader. He's leading from behind, and hasn't proposed anything of merit in regards with how to deal with the reality of our athletics situation. If it's such an important issue, which it seems to be important enough to warrant a statement that he wouldn't have built THAT stadium, than what's the plan SS? Cue the crickets because he apparently doesn't have one. SS deserves the criticism.

[zip-O-matic]

Since Boise State was mentioned....

https://news.boisestate.edu/update/2012/10/19/boise-state-enrollment-trends-signal-growth-more-diversity/

tOSU is no different. Do you really think all these people have just flocked to Columbus because they are in love with their agriculture program? No. They do it because they had an affinity for the university since they were a child, or in Boise States case the last decade. I remember Bobby Bowden talking about how the enrollment at FSU increased several hundered percent after the football team came to national prominance. This is one of the reasons that universities soak money into athletics. They are hoping that success on the field equals an increase in enrollment. You cant look at the athletic revenue in a vacuum. Enrollment increases caused by athletics isnt factored into those profit/loss numbers.

That's a bit of a puff piece put out by the university admins. I looked at their common data set, and Boise is almost perfectly equal in freshman class profile to UA.

I understand the cultural impact of OSU football within Ohio, but it isn't what made OSU, OSU. Those were decisions taken on a statewide level to position it as the flagship that occurred before there even was such a thing as college football. Anyone who thinks OSU is just "ag programs" really doesn't understand the place. They have strong programs across the board from philosophy to engineering to their law and business schools. Just look up the National Research Council's ranking of academic departments. Even Case can't compete outside of biological sciences and engineering. I think that has a lot more to do with the majority of students they are attracting than does their football program. Do I think that team generates a couple thousand additional apps, sure. But I don't think it's driving the quality of their freshman classes. And as I pointed out, OSU was elected into the AAU two decades before they became good at football. It's hard to argue that football was the catalyst for their academics, role within the state's higher ed hierarchy and research.

OU has enjoyed their best success in football and basketball over the last several years. Despite that, they aren't attracting any better students and are pumping more dollars to subsidize their athletic department than they were before their run began.

My underlying point is that the door has closed on jumping into the college football big time. The subsidies just get bigger every year, and there has to some kind of a long range end game. As noted above, if individual universities don't stop the madness, the adults will step in and stop it. Think how far it would go with Kasich and the Regents if UA took a leadership position on this, stepped down to FCS and told the state that the funds formerly used for athletic subsidies would be split to enact a 5% across the board tuition decrease and fund 1,000 full tuition scholarships for high ability students. Now, you think that might attract more and better students to UA?

[zipsoutsider]

Attendance is not dictated by one factor, alone, it is a complex, multi-facet issue. Tuesdays nights were obviously, an insurmountable challenge, especially on very cold, rainy nights. But consider the following as factors:

• UA is still transitioning from a "commuter campus"
• Recent history - less than successful
• Poor marketing
• Zips fest - has been pretty lame. Only family watches the Roo walk. The walk is too short, tailgating happens at opposite end, sometimes they walk early, without anyone knowing
• Lack of traditions - nothing storied or established. Just a handful of folks in Lot 9. No songs that everyone connects to, no chants that unique to the fans (just the I Believe for students)
• Scheduling Can't State the day after Thanksgiving - when no one is at school - this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Why schedule with the rival when no one is there to go?
• TV broadcasts, even ESPN3, give people a reason to stay home, especially in poor weather
• College football attendance, apart from the power programs, is struggling

Agree with Balsy. TB is here for the long haul to build a quality D1 program. Take a look at the roster and the amount of players who have a red shirt status. There is a vast difference between the seniors and freshen. Rome was not built in a day.If you look at that stat, alone, it is understandable why this has been a multi-year process. Winning will attendance. Winning big games will be the biggest help. Beating Pitt at home this year goes along way towards boosting interest.

[a-zip]

a-zip, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one here who thinks TB is here to stay, and I stand by that sentiment that he'll retire from coaching as an Akron Zip.

As for everything else you say...we're not mischaracterizing you or Scarborough. I'm pointing out that Scarborough's comments are not that of a good leader. He's leading from behind, and hasn't proposed anything of merit in regards with how to deal with the reality of our athletics situation. If it's such an important issue, which it seems to be important enough to warrant a statement that he wouldn't have built THAT stadium, than what's the plan SS? Cue the crickets because he apparently doesn't have one. SS deserves the criticism.

I certainly hope you are right about TB. The only thing I am saying is I am quite sure SS has a plan, it is being formulated and likely implemented by a new AD. As with all the hubbub around the rebranding and other issues, I don't expect them to reveal the whole plan until it is fully baked. Things get leaked, sentenced are printed out of context and everyone here goes crazy. These things need to be done behind closed doors, scrutinized behind closed doors. Now, if they are not working on a plan I would agree with everyone…..that would be bad….but I highly doubt that is the case. I DO have a problem with the previous administration that DIDNT have a good plan. There are already some noticeable changes - no TW and the schedule seems to be much better.

[Dave in Green]

... I'm pointing out that Scarborough's comments are not that of a good leader. He's leading from behind, and hasn't proposed anything of merit in regards with how to deal with the reality of our athletics situation. If it's such an important issue, which it seems to be important enough to warrant a statement that he wouldn't have built THAT stadium, than what's the plan SS? Cue the crickets because he apparently doesn't have one. SS deserves the criticism.

Appointing UA's CFO interim AD will give Dr. Scarborough a detailed analysis of UA's athletic financial situation on which to move forward.

[LZIp]

Appointing UA's CFO interim AD will give Dr. Scarborough a detailed analysis of UA's athletic financial situation on which to move forward.

Something he should have had prior to UA's CFO being named interim director of athletics.

[K92]

I hope that everyone concerned with attendance purchased some tickets to be given away for Military Day. There's a good program to get some people in the door to be exposed to the product.

[Balsy]

Appointing UA's CFO interim AD will give Dr. Scarborough a detailed analysis of UA's athletic financial situation on which to move forward.

Even worse. Making comments about a situation that you do not have all the information on.

[Dave in Green]

If it gets any worse it will be the end of times for UA.

[Balsy]

If it gets any worse it will be the end of times for UA.

haha, now you finally understand Dave

[Dave in Green]

You save 22 scholarships if you drop to 1-AA. It would have a negligible effect on the football budget. ...

... Think how far it would go with Kasich and the Regents if UA took a leadership position on this, stepped down to FCS and told the state that the funds formerly used for athletic subsidies would be split to enact a 5% across the board tuition decrease and fund 1,000 full tuition scholarships for high ability students. ...

Trading 22 football scholarships for a 5% across the board tuition decrease and funding 1,000 full tuition scholarships for high ability students sounds to me like the biggest miracle since The Feeding of the 5,000 with 5 barley loaves and 2 small fish.

[Dave in Green]

OK, here's a reality check. These numbers are a few years old now, so maybe someone wants to take the time to dig a little deeper for more recent numbers. But these at least give a ballpark estimate of 1-AA (FCS) football budgets compared with UA's 1-A (FBS) budget. There's not a lot to be saved if the Zips were to be properly funded to be a consistent winner in FCS. UA would have to maintain roughly the same budget (minus 22 scholarships) to have a top 10 FCS budget.

Top 10 FCS Football Budgets (Fiscal Year 2011)

South Alabama $5,963,648
Delaware $5,661,455
Villanova $5,363,135
Furman $5,306,599
Liberty $5,273,826
Fordham $5,113,173
Samford $5,074,283
Montana $5,023,393
Old Dominion $5,020,385
Richmond $5,010,248

UA Football Expenses 2009-10

$5,738,172

[Spin]

Spin, if an aggressive marketing campaign is all it took to get people into the Rubber Bowl or Infocision….why hasn't it been done? There has been marketing, we have an amazing charismatic coach who is out promoting, we give away scholarships, we have a winning basketball team….nobody seems to care. I played for the Zips during a time when we probably had the highest attendance ever and we were division 1AA, making the move to D1. It still used to piss me off when we would come out of the locker room and you could hear people having conversations in the stands because of how small the crowd was.

UA has never been accused of mounting a serious marketing campaign. That's always been one of the main reasons cited for our failure in attendance. The problem isn't the athletics dept. doesn't want to do serious advertising, but they have a small marketing budget from the administration. The same administration who will be making decisions on the future of athletics.

Marketing needs to be seen as an invesment, not an expense. I find it very hard to believe people would rather watch arena football than college football. Or watch indoor soccer (which Pete Franklyn referred to as "human pinball") than college basketball. But looking at just attendance numbers you would think so.

The last game at the Info had announced attendance of 5,400, we opened the season with 9,100!!!! Anybody at the last game would tell you there were not that many people at the game. I played in front of more people in high school.

I was there...

Once again, do not misrepresent what SS has said or what I have said. Neither one of have EVER said "Lets cut football". What I have been saying for decades (warning against) is that if some of you people in NEO don't get your asses to support Zips football and basketball, you are going to lose it. I have warned against losing TB and KD……everybody says "NO WAY a-zip they are here to stay". BULLSHIT, they are too good to go down on a sinking ship. I DONT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN but it is inevitable if the trend continues.

I go to as many games as I can, and depending on my work schedule have bought season tickets to football. I support club hockey and the baseball program that few people stop to notice as they walk through campus. The hardcore fans are not the problem. You have tpo look past us if you want to see any growth. We're on GoZips rooting through schedules and downloaing them into our calendars, hell sometimes we have them memorized. We get on here and talk about our teams. We're at the games.

We can't keep pumping money into athletics!! While you folks put blinders on I am simply stating reality and you don't want to hear it. I firmly believe if people would have shown up to support, we would have won more games at home, we would have better recruits, we wouldn't be in as bad of a financial mess and more than likely we would be further ahead on getting a new basketball arena. Instead we are being embarrassed by articles being written about having the worst attendance in college football.

I am more pissed at the previous administration for building the Info and then sitting on their asses. Seriously, I think they watched "Field of Dreams" too many times….."build it and they will come seemed to be their marketing strategy. Now, SS is taking the blame when the previous administration were the ones that did not whack TW and try to stop the bleeding.

The classes I took taught me about supply and demand. They taught me about running a business. They taught me about making sound/responsible business decisions. They taught me about ROI. They did teach me about marketing too but part of successful marketing begins with having a product people want. The defeatist attitude lies right in Akron…..if cuts have to be made Joe Akron will have to look no further than the mirror to find someone to blame.

That is like the promoter of the Milwaukee IndyCar race holding a race, doing very little advertising, and then blaming the fans for not coming.

[zipsoutsider]

As long as we are doing, "reality checks", let's take a look at where UA fits into the public ed pack in OH:

Bowling Green State University Main Campus

Bowling Green, 15,220 Students

$9,096

Central State University

Wilberforce, 2,255 Students

$3,738

Cleveland State University

Cleveland, 10,263 Students

$9,449

Can't State University at Can't

Can't, 21,028 Students

$9,816

Miami University Oxford Best Value

Oxford, 15,621 Students

$11,443

Ohio State University Main Campus

Columbus, 48,788 Students

$9,168

Ohio University Main Campus

Athens, 19,948 Students

$10,446

Shawnee State University

Portsmouth, 3,914 Students

$6,085

University of Akron Main Campus

Akron, 20,349 Students

$8,449

University of Cincinnati Main Campus

Cincinnati, 25,412 Students

$9,124

University of Toledo

Toledo, 17,697 Students

$7,864

Wright State University Main Campus

Dayton, 15,266 Students

$8,542

Youngstown State University

Youngstown, 10,929 Students

$7,670

Understandably, actual will vary by year, but UA is right in the middle of the pack. The ranting about a fee for athletics is much ado about nothing.

[Balsy]

Understandably, actual will vary by year, but UA is right in the middle of the pack. The ranting about a fee for athletics is much ado about nothing.

Not that I'm defending A-Zip, or that I'm against UA athletics...but it is a lot to do about something. $800 a year going to athletics is absurd. It's even more absurd when the main product of your college (education...or at least it should be education) is being taught by instructors whom are not contingent-faculty (meaning that they are part-time, non tenure track, and don't have a personal investment in the university, or frankly the students). I graduated from UA only a couple of years ago, and had to deal a lot with the part-timers. The quality between them and full-time faculty was huge. The classes I had with run by part-time non-contingent faculty weren't even in the same league as the others. Not to mention with fewer full-time faculty, there's fewer mentors avialable to students to find in departments.

All this talk about "cost savings for students" and demands from legislatures to reduce cost savings for students, impacts the educational quality of the students; by cutting full-time faculty and incorporating online classes.