92.3 The Fan to discuss "Rumors" Football to move down

[LZIp]

See post #30 in this thread.

Thanks. So at least two of them went out of their way unsolicited to say that merger/acquisitions are completely off the table. Some may see looking to save money in areas where it makes sense in a way that won't ruffle feathers as showing that there is a problem. Others may see it as being fiscally diligent. I can't imagine it would be in the best interest of Scarborough or Tressel to be apart of some merger where one would lose their position/both would take a substantial pay cut (which is sort of the whole point of a merger).

[Dave in Green]

Thanks. So at least two of them went out of their way unsolicited to say that merger/acquisitions are completely off the table. Some may see looking to save money in areas where it makes sense in a way that won't ruffle feathers as showing that there is a problem. Others may see it as being fiscally diligent.

You are making assumptions. If the reporter was doing his/her job, the reporter would have specifically asked if the merger talk was going beyond functions and services to full university mergers. Any spokesperson worth their salary would reply to the effect that full merger talks were completely off the table. As I pointed out before, off the table means not currently being discussed, not that it would never be discussed. A good reporter might then ask if that meant full merger would never be on the table, and a good spokesperson would answer that's speculative. Been there, done that.

So, when was the last time that Ohio university presidents were under such financial pressure that their fiscal diligence caused them to get together and discuss unprecedented cost-sharing measures? Not that that's a bad thing. In fact I think it's a very good thing. On the other hand, denying that there's a problem is not going to make it go away.

[zip-O-matic]

They can't be stupid enough to believe that if they eliminated athletics, they would get the money instead. It doesn't get redistributed, it's just plain gone.

Actually, if the athletic department were shut down, there would be $22M to be redistributed elsewhere; either refunded back to students through lower student fees or the subsidy could be spent on academics instead. I don't think faculty are jealous of athletic spending. I think they're outraged at the level of money it loses and the extent it needs to be subsidized by students and the general fund. As for OSU's SPENDING, it is fully self-sufficient and actually kicks several million back to the university's general fund every year. If anything, that's what the faculty is jealous of. I don't expect that at UA, but the current level of subsidies (at all the MAC schools) is a disgrace and something that is both unsustainable and bound to become a political issue before too long.

And for those who think the ad suffered unfairly in the budget cuts, they got off easy. The 700K saved in axing baseball was 1.75% of the total cuts. The AD subsidy alone is 5% of the university budget and the overall AD budget is 6.5% of the overall university budget.

[Dave in Green]

... I don't think faculty are jealous of athletic spending. I think they're outraged at the level of money it loses and the extent it needs to be subsidized by students and the general fund. ...

Do you have any examples of universities that have drastically cut their athletic programs in order to channel more funding into academics and/or reduce costs to students? It would be interesting to know how this affects academic standing, enrollment, donor support, overall university image with the general public, etc. It seems logical to assume that if there were obvious overall positive benefits to be had that at least one university would have tried this and documented the results. Of course if any universities have tried it and not seen positive results, that would tend to make other universities reluctant to try that strategy. If there are no documented results, then it remains purely theoretical.

[zip-O-matic]

Well, there's the historical example of the Ivies and Chicago de-emphasizing big time athletics, which is probably an apples and oranges comparison for the MAC schools. The most recent example that I know of is NYU in the 1980s. NYU has certainly seen their academic profile increase greatly since the 80s, but I don't know to what degree, if any, there is a cause and effect of dropping sports down to DIII.

It's also an issue being discussed at Georgetown.

I agree with you that it is largely theoretical, but that's because it's an issue that is just now reaching a boiling point. 25 years ago, athletic subsidies were not an issue, but it's their exponential growth (Akron's has doubled in just the last decade) to the point where they are eating up 5% of some universities overall budget that is going to force them to be addressed. UA spends twice on the athletic subsidy what the entire university's endowment disburses annually. When 10% of a student's tuition is going to subsidize a money losing athletic department at the same time that the Governor, the Regents and both parties in the legislature are screaming about affordability, one has to imagine that a reckoning is at hand.

I'm not in favor of disbanding athletics, but something has to change. As I've said elsewhere, if UA (and the rest of the MAC schools) won't or can't deal with the problem, there's a serious chance that the state will step in and do it for them. I don't think it's too far-fetched to imagine waking up one day and seeing that the Governor has just signed a bill mandating that all Ohio public universities lower their athletic subsidies to no more than 25% or 33% of the AD budget within four years.

And FWIW, I agree with you on how troubling SS's privatization schemes are.

[ZachTheZip]

The University of New Orleans dropped a bunch of sports and tried to move to D-III following Hurricane Katrina. They went to D-II instead after a cost/benefit analysis, and have since moved back to D-I in the Southland conference. They're trying to start a football program and possibly move back to the Sun Belt.

The pressure on college athletics is to move upward. Programs don't drop down without extenuating circumstances, and it's generally a mad rush to get to the highest possible level and to launch football programs at universities that have never fielded the sport before. Why is that? I don't have any data to back up my opinion, but I would surmise that it's because the benefits of playing in D-I (and fielding a football team) outweigh the costs.

[Balsy]

Why is that? I don't have any data to back up my opinion, but I would surmise that it's because the benefits of playing in D-I (and fielding a football team) outweigh the costs.

Or it looks good on the resume of an administrator, administration team, whom doesn't plan on being around long enough to see if it actually does work or not. Data is often cherry-picked to support any narrative especially when it's paid for privately conducted research that will never be open to criticism because it's "proprietary".

[Dave in Green]

The best thing to have on one's resume is success. If a few universities were to become more successful overall by cutting back on athletics spending, those who make those decisions would have stronger resumes and be in more demand. So far I haven't seen any signs of that happening.

[Zipgrad01]

Or it looks good on the resume of an administrator, administration team, whom doesn't plan on being around long enough to see if it actually does work or not. Data is often cherry-picked to support any narrative especially when it's paid for privately conducted research that will never be open to criticism because it's "proprietary".

You are right. The government should get us the data. It is more accurate. ?

[zip-O-matic]

The best thing to have on one's resume is success. If a few universities were to become more successful overall by cutting back on athletics spending, those who make those decisions would have stronger resumes and be in more demand. So far I haven't seen any signs of that happening.

Again, I think higher education and college sports are reaching a critical mass point where the old way of doing things is simply unsustainable, so you're going to start seeing universities (either of their own volition or when mandated to by the state) cutting their athletic program subsidies.. Up until now, the money has been there to stave off the crisis to pump it into the ad in the hopes that it will spur revenue growth. Nobody wants to be first, but eventually somebody is going to have to do it. An athletic subsidy equal to 5% of the overall university budget is just madness. Only then will there be any base of practical experience to judge

And if OU is any indication, success in the big two sports won't start to balance the books. Despite probably the best combined football/basketball success in their history, their AD is as bad off as ever (18.5M subsidy). For every dollar in revenue growth these programs gain, they gain almost a dollar in additional subsidy. Where does it stop?

[zen]

And if OU is any indication, success in the big two sports won't start to balance the books. Despite probably the best combined football/basketball success in their history, their AD is as bad off as ever (18.5M subsidy). For every dollar in revenue growth these programs gain, they gain almost a dollar in additional subsidy. Where does it stop?

I think this is a great question.

Even when you have success, or more-likely when you have success, the compulsion then is to say "look what we have done! Don't start cutting us off now. The brass ring is within reach!"

The goal is not to become self sufficient. The goal is revenue of every kind.

[ZachTheZip]

Scarborough is on 92.3 The Fan right now, but I can't listen. It will probably (hopefully) be up as a podcast later today.

[Spin]

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2015/07/23/scott-scarborough-you-cant-be-all-things-to-all-people-you-have-to-make-tough-decisions/

Podcast is available

Scott Scarborough, President of the University of Akron explains that he knew what he was walking into, even though he didn’t have the specifics of a $60 Million issue, but that there was financial stresses that was made clear. He goes through some of the decisions that have been made and what some of the alternative idea were to cut money without cuttingprograms or jobs.

Scott explains that they looked to save the baseball program, but there simply wasn’t a way to do so without compromising other athletic programs. He tells us that very few athletic programs make money at the collegiate level and the real goal is educational and marketing through the sports teams.

The question for Ken is why a sport as big as football deserves so much money when it appears that it doesn’t see that investment returned. President Scarborough explains how a majority of the population won’t view a school as legitimate without a football program. He says the focus now is football, basketball, and the soccer program and maintaining the level ofcompetition they are at and improving upon that.

Scott Scarborough admits that the school is being run like a business that has an educational purpose. He recounts the NCAA requirements and the MAC requirements for athletics and how they were limited in the decisions they could make if they wanted to remain a member. He lists what the priorities were when looking at how they can cut costs and decrease the deficit. While he isn’t happy with what the school was forced to do, he does say it was the right decision to make.

President Scarborough says a good portion of the bad publicity was by design and they hope it will be past when the school year begins. He says there are no future reduction plans and they feel confident that with the $40 Million decrease in spending they can close the deficit relatively quickly. He describes the importance of making good decisions in the future so they don’t find themselves in a hole like this again.there was financial stresses that was made clear. He goes through some of the decisions that have been made and what some of the alternative idea were to cut money without cuttingprograms or jobs.

Scott explains that they looked to save the baseball program, but there simply wasn’t a way to do so without compromising other athletic programs. He tells us that very few athletic programs make money at the collegiate level and the real goal is educational and marketing through the sports teams.

The question for Ken is why a sport as big as football deserves so much money when it appears that it doesn’t see that investment returned. President Scarborough explains how a majority of the population won’t view a school as legitimate without a football program. He says the focus now is football, basketball, and the soccer program and maintaining the level ofcompetition they are at and improving upon that.

Scott Scarborough admits that the school is being run like a business that has an educational purpose. He recounts the NCAA requirements and the MAC requirements for athletics and how they were limited in the decisions they could make if they wanted to remain a member. He lists what the priorities were when looking at how they can cut costs and decrease the deficit. While he isn’t happy with what the school was forced to do, he does say it was the right decision to make.

President Scarborough says a good portion of the bad publicity was by design and they hope it will be past when the school year begins. He says there are no future reduction plans and they feel confident that with the $40 Million decrease in spending they can close the deficit relatively quickly. He describes the importance of making good decisions in the future so they don’t find themselves in a hole like this again.