Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board
BobcatAttack.com Message Board
Ohio Football
Topic:  State budget, student fees and future athletic funding

Topic:  State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
Author
Message
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,112

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 7:56:42 AM 
There were a couple of interesting quotes in today's Dispatch about the new state budget as it possibly relates to athletic funding.

"the budget calls on the state chancellor to investigate all higher-education fees charged to students and gives him the power to block a fee he does not determine to be in the best interest of students. Universities could appeal such decisions to the state Controlling Board, a bipartisan legislative-spending oversight panel."

"Meanwhile, state universities got no additional basic operating money over two years."

To my knowledge, this is the first time that those concerned about the use of student fees used to fund athletics have an avenue to lobby for reform or repeal of that practice.

One additional note, "universities must issue an annual report on the number of students who require remedial education, and the resulting cost."

This budget has quite a few accountability measures built into it.
Back to Top
  
Robert Fox
General User

Member Since: 11/16/2004
Location: Knoxville, TN
Post Count: 2,039

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 8:16:38 AM 
What is that avenue? Your post describes power shifted to an un-elected official who alone determines whether or not a fee is "in the best interest" of the students.
Back to Top
  
Alan Swank
General User

Member Since: 12/11/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,112

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 10:05:31 AM 
Robert Fox wrote:
What is that avenue? Your post describes power shifted to an un-elected official who alone determines whether or not a fee is "in the best interest" of the students.


The avenue is what you just described - a specific individual. Before those concerned with the expenditures of fees had no specific person in a position of power to petition. Now they do.
Back to Top
  
bobcatsquared
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 5,296

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 10:14:30 AM 
Good news from the report for those with a daughter beginning college in Athens in the fall: state universities will be allowed to continue to participate in the tuition-guarantee program, which holds tuition for undergraduate students at the same rate for four years.

Bad news from the report for those with a 10-year-old son planning to attend college in 8 years: state universities participating in the tuition-guarantee program can increase tuition 8% next year.
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,382

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 10:47:56 AM 
Alan Swank wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
What is that avenue? Your post describes power shifted to an un-elected official who alone determines whether or not a fee is "in the best interest" of the students.


The avenue is what you just described - a specific individual. Before those concerned with the expenditures of fees had no specific person in a position of power to petition. Now they do.


This is a very dangerous precedent. The Board of Regents is designated a coordinating body, not a controlling body. This was specificially stated in the law that created this body back in the Rhodes administration. It was the result of much debate in the General Assembly. That wording is still in force today. To the best of my knowledge this is the most sweeping authority ever given to the Regents. If he acts too capriciously, I predict the Controlling Board will be hearing a lot of appeals and many of his decisions will be overturned.

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,041

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 10:52:47 AM 
bobcatsquared wrote:
Good news from the report for those with a daughter beginning college in Athens in the fall: state universities will be allowed to continue to participate in the tuition-guarantee program, which holds tuition for undergraduate students at the same rate for four years.

Bad news from the report for those with a 10-year-old son planning to attend college in 8 years: state universities participating in the tuition-guarantee program can increase tuition 8% next year.


Yeah, I've not sat down and tried to work the numbers, but the Year to Year tuition increase (as well as room and board increases), on the 4 year guarantee, I'm just not sure it's a real deal, and at the increase we've seen lately, tuition would be doubling within 10 years. That's outrageous at today's prices.
Back to Top
  
.
General User

Member Since: 2/3/2005
Post Count: 2,997

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 11:12:54 AM 
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 1:02:59 PM 
I've warned before that this was coming. Virginia already instituted caps on the maximum percentage of an AD's budget that can come from subsidies or student fees. The Ohio D1 schools last year took $168M in subsidies. The Plain Dealer ran a multi day series on it. This was only a matter of time.
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 1:08:13 PM 
OhioCatFan wrote:
Alan Swank wrote:
Robert Fox wrote:
What is that avenue? Your post describes power shifted to an un-elected official who alone determines whether or not a fee is "in the best interest" of the students.


The avenue is what you just described - a specific individual. Before those concerned with the expenditures of fees had no specific person in a position of power to petition. Now they do.


This is a very dangerous precedent. The Board of Regents is designated a coordinating body, not a controlling body. This was specificially stated in the law that created this body back in the Rhodes administration. It was the result of much debate in the General Assembly. That wording is still in force today. To the best of my knowledge this is the most sweeping authority ever given to the Regents. If he acts too capriciously, I predict the Controlling Board will be hearing a lot of appeals and many of his decisions will be overturned.


Rhodes' higher education legacy has pretty much been chipped away since the day he left office. OSU being allowed to move to selective admissions in the mid 80s was the first major blow, and the University System of Ohio (set up under Fingerhut but continued with no changes under Kasich) was probably the final death knell. And the Regents have always had some direct control over campuses such as denying OSU's requests to move to selective admissions in the 60s and 70s (although I'm not sure how much that was done by the Regents or Rhodes' men on the OSU board) or having final say on whether universities can add new programs (definitely a function of the regents).

On the whole, I'd say Rhodes' legacy is very mixed.

Community college system--GOOD
Branch Campuses--MIXED
Too many 4 year public universities--BAD
Unstructured system--BAD
Allowing only Miami to have selective admissions--BAD

Ultimately and like the man himself, it was an overly populist system that didn't age well beyond his last term.

Last Edited: 6/29/2017 3:27:03 PM by OUPride
Back to Top
  
C Money
General User



Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 8:40:08 PM 
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?
Back to Top
  
BillyTheCat
General User

Member Since: 10/6/2012
Post Count: 10,041

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/29/2017 11:52:04 PM 
C Money wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?


No, the "point" is that Ohio is $1 Billion minimum in the hole next year, we have one of the HIGHEST cost of higher education, and $168 million (a national leader in subsidies of student fees). Something has to give.
Back to Top
  
C Money
General User



Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 7:29:46 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
C Money wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?


No, the "point" is that Ohio is $1 Billion minimum in the hole next year, we have one of the HIGHEST cost of higher education, and $168 million (a national leader in subsidies of student fees). Something has to give.


And the thing that gives impacts every Ohio FBS school except Ohio State? And that doesn't make you think, "Hmmmmmm...." the least little bit?
Back to Top
  
Ohio69
General User

Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,034

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 9:04:12 AM 
BillyTheCat wrote:
C Money wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?


No, the "point" is that Ohio is $1 Billion minimum in the hole next year, we have one of the HIGHEST cost of higher education, and $168 million (a national leader in subsidies of student fees). Something has to give.



Why is it $1 billion in the hole? Are K-12 and colleges to blame?

What has to give likely won't happen. Which is a combination of increased support by states and efficiencies/cost cutting by higher education. Because, you know, that's moderate/middle ground stuff. And the US ain't about the moderate/middle ground stuff anymore....

Last Edited: 6/30/2017 9:12:04 AM by Ohio69

Can somebody hit a pull up jumper for me?.....

Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 10:10:52 AM 
C Money wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
C Money wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?


No, the "point" is that Ohio is $1 Billion minimum in the hole next year, we have one of the HIGHEST cost of higher education, and $168 million (a national leader in subsidies of student fees). Something has to give.


And the thing that gives impacts every Ohio FBS school except Ohio State? And that doesn't make you think, "Hmmmmmm...." the least little bit?


Why do would they care?????? How competitive are any of us with Ohio State WITH the subsidies? It's not like they need to do this to maintain their hegemony over the state. OSU isn't dumb. They'll fight the battles they need to fight, but they're not going to go to war with all the other Ohio publics over something they don't need to worry about.

Look past the conspiracy theory to the simplest answer, and that will usually be correct. The simplest answer is that athletic subsidies have become a concern around the country and many feel that it's good public policy to address the issue.
Back to Top
  
C Money
General User



Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 10:51:00 AM 
OUPride wrote:
C Money wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
C Money wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?


No, the "point" is that Ohio is $1 Billion minimum in the hole next year, we have one of the HIGHEST cost of higher education, and $168 million (a national leader in subsidies of student fees). Something has to give.


And the thing that gives impacts every Ohio FBS school except Ohio State? And that doesn't make you think, "Hmmmmmm...." the least little bit?


Why do would they care?????? How competitive are any of us with Ohio State WITH the subsidies? It's not like they need to do this to maintain their hegemony over the state. OSU isn't dumb. They'll fight the battles they need to fight, but they're not going to go to war with all the other Ohio publics over something they don't need to worry about.

Look past the conspiracy theory to the simplest answer, and that will usually be correct. The simplest answer is that athletic subsidies have become a concern around the country and many feel that it's good public policy to address the issue.


You don't think a proposal that limited osu's ability to fund its football team would be met with screams and howls? Say, any donations for athletics had to go into a common public higher education fund for redistribution across the state on a per-athlete basis....what would the reaction be to that?

Yet if it's the MAC taking the hit, no one in Columbus cares. Hmmmm...

(Also, higher ed costs aren't the state budget buster **cough**Medicaid**cough** and athletics aren't the university budget-buster **cough**administrative bloat**cough**)
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 11:05:05 AM 
C Money wrote:
OUPride wrote:
C Money wrote:
BillyTheCat wrote:
C Money wrote:
Brian Smith wrote:
The chasm between Ohio State's athletics program and everyone else's in the state could get even wider under this system. They're producing revenues of $50 million or so while everyone else is seemingly propping up departments with student fees.


Might that be the point?


No, the "point" is that Ohio is $1 Billion minimum in the hole next year, we have one of the HIGHEST cost of higher education, and $168 million (a national leader in subsidies of student fees). Something has to give.


And the thing that gives impacts every Ohio FBS school except Ohio State? And that doesn't make you think, "Hmmmmmm...." the least little bit?


Why do would they care?????? How competitive are any of us with Ohio State WITH the subsidies? It's not like they need to do this to maintain their hegemony over the state. OSU isn't dumb. They'll fight the battles they need to fight, but they're not going to go to war with all the other Ohio publics over something they don't need to worry about.

Look past the conspiracy theory to the simplest answer, and that will usually be correct. The simplest answer is that athletic subsidies have become a concern around the country and many feel that it's good public policy to address the issue.


You don't think a proposal that limited osu's ability to fund its football team would be met with screams and howls? Say, any donations for athletics had to go into a common public higher education fund for redistribution across the state on a per-athlete basis....what would the reaction be to that?

Yet if it's the MAC taking the hit, no one in Columbus cares. Hmmmm...

(Also, higher ed costs aren't the state budget buster **cough**Medicaid**cough** and athletics aren't the university budget-buster **cough**administrative bloat**cough**)


Sure, Ohio State would fight something that negatively affected it. As for your hypothetical donation law, that's likely unconstitutional. Why stop at athletics. Let's expropriate Ohio State's entire endowment (specific wishes and legal rights of the donors who created it be damned) and spread the wealth.

My point is that other state schools subsidizing their athletic departments doesn't negatively affect OSU one bit. Big bad evil empire does not need to limit MAC subsidies to protect their athletic department because MAC schools are not a threat. It's not their fight, so why fight it? Hell, you want to scare OSU, let the MAC+UC schools take that $168M in athletic subsidies and turn it into full-tuition scholarships for Ohio residents with a 30+ ACT score. That would get some attention in Columbus. They're probably quite happy with the rest of the state pouring it into an athletic sinkhole rather than into something that might actually compete with them.
Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 10,470

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 11:56:51 AM 
OUPride wrote:
... The simplest answer is that athletic subsidies have become a concern around the country and many feel that it's good public policy to address the issue.

They probably should fund parts of it with fees, such as support for the IPF, which all students can use, support part of it by the way they would support other activities that students might attend, fund the scholarships out of the general scholarship fund, and directly fund part of athletics as an advertising expense.

Last Edited: 6/30/2017 11:57:30 AM by L.C.

“We have two ears and one mouth so that we can listen twice as much as we speak.” ― Epictetus

Back to Top
  
C Money
General User



Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 12:06:27 PM 
OUPride wrote:


My point is that other state schools subsidizing their athletic departments doesn't negatively affect OSU one bit. Big bad evil empire does not need to limit MAC subsidies to protect their athletic department because MAC schools are not a threat. It's not their fight, so why fight it? Hell, you want to scare OSU, let the MAC+UC schools take that $168M in athletic subsidies and turn it into full-tuition scholarships for Ohio residents with a 30+ ACT score. That would get some attention in Columbus. They're probably quite happy with the rest of the state pouring it into an athletic sinkhole rather than into something that might actually compete with them.



And my point is that osu is helped if the other schools can't subsidize their programs with this particular revenue stream....precisely because it's a revenue stream that osu doesn't need!

Even if the on-field product isn't competitive, you apparently agree that the off-field product is--which is why those academic scholarships would be such a threat to osu.

Are you saying that Ohio University--or any other MAC school--would have the exact same public profile if there were no football team representing the school on Saturdays? Because if you're not taking that position, I don't know how you can assert that osu isn't helped when every other public school's athletic department loses a revenue stream that osu won't lose.
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 12:10:12 PM 
L.C. wrote:
OUPride wrote:
... The simplest answer is that athletic subsidies have become a concern around the country and many feel that it's good public policy to address the issue.

They probably should fund parts of it with fees, such as support for the IPF, which all students can use, support part of it by the way they would support other activities that students might attend, fund the scholarships out of the general scholarship fund, and directly fund part of athletics as an advertising expense.


I don't think anyone other than the anti-athletics hardliners are saying that subsidies should be zero. The argument is that they've gotten out of hand: $168M a year for the Ohio FBS schools and at some they account for over 70% of the athletic budget and over 5% over the entire university's budget! There's a lot of grey area between the two extremes with which to work.

Last Edited: 6/30/2017 12:40:01 PM by OUPride
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 12:23:34 PM 
C Money wrote:
OUPride wrote:


My point is that other state schools subsidizing their athletic departments doesn't negatively affect OSU one bit. Big bad evil empire does not need to limit MAC subsidies to protect their athletic department because MAC schools are not a threat. It's not their fight, so why fight it? Hell, you want to scare OSU, let the MAC+UC schools take that $168M in athletic subsidies and turn it into full-tuition scholarships for Ohio residents with a 30+ ACT score. That would get some attention in Columbus. They're probably quite happy with the rest of the state pouring it into an athletic sinkhole rather than into something that might actually compete with them.



And my point is that osu is helped if the other schools can't subsidize their programs with this particular revenue stream....precisely because it's a revenue stream that osu doesn't need!

Even if the on-field product isn't competitive, you apparently agree that the off-field product is--which is why those academic scholarships would be such a threat to osu.

Are you saying that Ohio University--or any other MAC school--would have the exact same public profile if there were no football team representing the school on Saturdays? Because if you're not taking that position, I don't know how you can assert that osu isn't helped when every other public school's athletic department loses a revenue stream that osu won't lose.



How is OSU helped? For them to be helped by hurting the MAC schools' athletic departments, you have to start from the proposition that MAC schools' athletic departments are a threat to them. They're not. I don't think they care one way or another how this plays out, but they're not the driving force behind it because it doesn't affect them.

As for being competitive off the field, every year the other state publics fall further and further behind Ohio State in freshmen class profiles, endowment, research dollars, faculty profiles etc (don't believe me read this report, specifically go down to PAGE 20: https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/mup-2015-top-amer... ) while at the same time, athletic subsidies at the other Ohio publics have gone through the roof. So how have these athletic subsidies helped us (or any other Ohio public) compete with OSU off the field versus putting that money directly into something (like recruiting better students and faculty) that directly competes with them off-field rather than hoping that the illusory "advertising effect" of athletics will have a magical subsidiary effect on the university as a whole?

I'm not saying that Ohio should abolish all subsidies, but for arguments sake it it did and split that $18M equally into recruiting faculty and students, every year Ohio would be able to create 5 fully endowed full Professorships and award 225 full-tuition, 4-year merit scholarships.

And, I don't advocate NO football team. One, however, can look at the University of California system where the campuses at Davis, Irvine, San Diego and Santa Barbara are world class, AAU-member universities with very low level athletic profiles. They don't seem to need FBS football to be top public universities. On the other side of the coin, you can look at schools like Alabama, Clemson, Auburn or LSU which are thoroughly mediocre universities despite being state flagships with big time football.

Last Edited: 6/30/2017 1:18:23 PM by OUPride
Back to Top
  
C Money
General User



Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 1:21:52 PM 
OUPride wrote:
How is OSU helped? For them to be helped by hurting the MAC schools' athletic departments, you have to start from the proposition that MAC schools' athletic departments are a threat to them. They're not. I don't think they care one way or another how this plays out, but they're not the driving force behind it because it doesn't affect them.

As for being competitive off the field, every year the other state publics fall further and further behind Ohio State in freshmen class profiles, endowment, research dollars, faculty profiles etc. Don't believe me read this report, specifically go down to PAGE 20: https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/mup-2015-top-amer... . At the same time, athletic subsidies at the other Ohio publics have gone through the roof. So how have these athletic subsidies helped us compete with them off the field versus putting that money directly into something (like recruiting better students and faculty) that directly competes with them off-field rather than hoping that the illusory "advertising effect" of athletics will have a magical subsidiary effect on the university as a whole?

And, I don't advocate NO football team. One, however, can look at the University of California system where the campuses at Davis, Irvine, San Diego and Santa Barbara are world class, AAU-member universities with very low level athletic profiles. They don't seem to need FBS football to be top public universities. On the other side of the coin, you can look at schools like Alabama, Clemson, Auburn or LSU which are thoroughly mediocre universities despite being state flagships with big time football.


So you ARE taking the position that football adds practically nothing to the public profile of the university, and therefore is not worthy of subsidy through student fees, correct?

That's fine if you are...it's just a premise I disagree with. And I also disagree that the state government isn't more concerned about propping up Ohio State athletics than the rest of the state schools' athletics. I've had too many conversations about osu football with too many elected officials to think otherwise.

(Ever been in a meeting with a state-wide elected official, who stopped the meeting and ran out into the hall like a fan-boy because Jim Tressel walked by? I have.)
Back to Top
  
OUPride
General User

Member Since: 9/21/2010
Post Count: 574

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 1:37:11 PM 
C Money wrote:
OUPride wrote:
How is OSU helped? For them to be helped by hurting the MAC schools' athletic departments, you have to start from the proposition that MAC schools' athletic departments are a threat to them. They're not. I don't think they care one way or another how this plays out, but they're not the driving force behind it because it doesn't affect them.

As for being competitive off the field, every year the other state publics fall further and further behind Ohio State in freshmen class profiles, endowment, research dollars, faculty profiles etc. Don't believe me read this report, specifically go down to PAGE 20: https://mup.asu.edu/sites/default/files/mup-2015-top-amer... . At the same time, athletic subsidies at the other Ohio publics have gone through the roof. So how have these athletic subsidies helped us compete with them off the field versus putting that money directly into something (like recruiting better students and faculty) that directly competes with them off-field rather than hoping that the illusory "advertising effect" of athletics will have a magical subsidiary effect on the university as a whole?

And, I don't advocate NO football team. One, however, can look at the University of California system where the campuses at Davis, Irvine, San Diego and Santa Barbara are world class, AAU-member universities with very low level athletic profiles. They don't seem to need FBS football to be top public universities. On the other side of the coin, you can look at schools like Alabama, Clemson, Auburn or LSU which are thoroughly mediocre universities despite being state flagships with big time football.


So you ARE taking the position that football adds practically nothing to the public profile of the university, and therefore is not worthy of subsidy through student fees, correct?

That's fine if you are...it's just a premise I disagree with. And I also disagree that the state government isn't more concerned about propping up Ohio State athletics than the rest of the state schools' athletics. I've had too many conversations about osu football with too many elected officials to think otherwise.

(Ever been in a meeting with a state-wide elected official, who stopped the meeting and ran out into the hall like a fan-boy because Jim Tressel walked by? I have.)


I'm not saying it doesn't add anything. I'm saying it doesn't add what a lot of people think it adds, and there is an argument to be made that if the justification for athletic subsidies is the peripheral effect that athletics has on the university as a whole then you're better off just investing the subsidy money in the academic side.

As for OSU, who the hell is propping their athletic department up? It's one of the 7 or 8 cfb bluebloods, has a cultural lock on the entire state barring the Cincy metro area and generates a multi-million dollar profit every year. It's the 800lb gorilla, and the state or anyone else doesn't need to go out of their way to prop it up. It is what it is whether the Ohio MAC schools are pumping 30M a year, 15M a year or nothing into their athletic departments.

I'm not saying OSU is some benign entity that doesn't fight for its interests and use the pathetic fanboy feelings state legislators have for its football team as a tool. It does precisely that. I'm just saying that this particular move on the part of the state is being driven by legitimate public policy concerns rather than some big conspiracy by OSU because they feel threatened by the football programs at Ohio or Kent or Miami. I know it stings the pride to consider it, but OSU really could care less what happens in Ohio's AD.

Last Edited: 6/30/2017 1:40:08 PM by OUPride
Back to Top
  
OhioCatFan
General User



Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 14,382

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 2:02:25 PM 
Some here don't really understand Ohio politics. If this negatively affects every state school except Cowtown U, it won't go unnoticed by the General Assembly. If the Board of Regents comes down with a big hammer on these subsidies, you'll not only see the Controlling Board overruling them, you'll also see new legislation to support athletics. I have no idea exactly what form that would take, but you'll see the forming of alliances among state senators and state representatives from various parts of the state that have these universities in their districts. This could get ugly. And, if you supported limiting student fees through the BofR, you might end up with something you like even less. In saying this, I'm not commenting on the merits, I'm just telling you what I predict will be the outcome if the Regents try to get too aggressive in this area. As a result, I think you'll actually see the Regents do next to nothing in this area, because they'll realize that consequences might be more than they bargained for.

I won't go into detail here, but I will say in order to establish some bond fides here, that I once was part of an effort to abolish the Board of Regents that came up only one vote short in the Senate, after passing the House. This was a reaction to the Regents proposing to abolish the Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine by "merging" it with Wright State's medical school. Needless to say, it got their attention, and they backed off. IMHO, Ohio would be better off if we had succeed in our attempt.

Last Edited: 7/1/2017 10:06:00 PM by OhioCatFan

The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA

"It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right."

Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org

Back to Top
  
C Money
General User



Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 2:25:11 PM 
OUPride wrote:
I'm not saying OSU is some benign entity that doesn't fight for its interests and use the pathetic fanboy feelings state legislators have for its football team as a tool. It does precisely that. I'm just saying that this particular move on the part of the state is being driven by legitimate public policy concerns rather than some big conspiracy by OSU because they feel threatened by the football programs at Ohio or Kent or Miami. I know it stings the pride to consider it, but OSU really could care less what happens in Ohio's AD.


Even if it's not a conscious conspiracy, the proposal is formed in an environment that is going to be biased in the favor of osu--because it's the "800lb gorilla in the room". The proposed solution to the problem impacts seven of the eight FBS schools in Ohio, and leaves osu untouched, even though it's the one school that could afford athletic funding cuts at current spending levels.

You can't tell me osu doesn't care about what happens at the university level at Ohio or Kent or Miami--and when you start saying "it's ok to cut those schools' athletic funding but not osu's," it's a giant signal that opens the door to other cuts made...so long as osu's revenues are preserved. It's the broken windows theory applied to higher education spending. And it's no secret that osu has always wanted to be the official flagship university for the state, with all the other universities regional campuses.

People care too much about college football. I'm guilty myself. And when you start giving Ohio State's football program what effectively amounts to state-sanctioned special status, you set a norm that is going to carry over into other aspects of the university.

Why is the decision to scrutinize how "student fees" are spent so much more palatable than one scrutinizing how donations to a university are spent? Why does the state have to come in and say, "non-osu schools, you aren't allowed to fund your athletics with a major revenue stream"? Why not just let the students themselves decide whether they'll subsidize MAC/Cincy football, by voting with their feet?
Back to Top
  
Jeff McKinney
Moderator

Member Since: 11/12/2004
Post Count: 6,127

Status: Offline
  Message Not Read  RE: State budget, student fees and future athletic funding
   Posted: 6/30/2017 3:48:08 PM 
OUPride wrote:
I've warned before that this was coming. Virginia already instituted caps on the maximum percentage of an AD's budget that can come from subsidies or student fees. The Ohio D1 schools last year took $168M in subsidies. The Plain Dealer ran a multi day series on it. This was only a matter of time.


I've also been warning about this for years. It's the Achilles heel of mid major programs. Will be interesting to see what happens.

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  1 - 25  of 44 Posts
Jump to Page:  1 | 2    Next >
View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



WHO'S ONLINE
There are 134 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com
132 Guests
2 Registered Users:
 mcbin, cbarber357
There are no other users looking at this page.




Copyright ©2025 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties