|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Mar 15, 2010 12:13:35 GMT -5
In the end, they have a lackluster athletic department that runs a $2 million defecit, and we have her ideals to thank for it. You have your donors to thank for the deficit. The academic side isn't, and shouldn't, be there to bolster the athletics. I never said it was. I said that she made academics the focus at the expense of athletics. It's a short-sighted viewpoint that doesn't realize that athletics makes the university money, and focusing on academics while gutting your most profitable athletic program was a big mistake. Better to do both, and let the AD and the deans of your colleges take care of the details. |
|
BK From WV
Hank Scorpio
Claims to have sense of humor, probably stole it
I'm Here
Posts: 5,611
|
Post by BK From WV on Mar 15, 2010 12:21:55 GMT -5
As a West Virginian,I'll gladly give you Huggins back. I can't stand the man. Marshall fan? I am but I've always supported both schools. I know most people in this state pick one or the other but I've always liked both since I was little. I've just never been able to stand Huggins. I didn't like him at Cincy or K-State. I don't deny he's a good coach but he's just always come across as pompous and arrogant to me. So once WVU hired him,I gave up on them in basketball. I still support the WVU football team but I've just never been able to support that man. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 15, 2010 12:35:46 GMT -5
You have your donors to thank for the deficit. The academic side isn't, and shouldn't, be there to bolster the athletics. I never said it was. I said that she made academics the focus at the expense of athletics. It's a short-sighted viewpoint that doesn't realize that athletics makes the university money, and focusing on academics while gutting your most profitable athletic program was a big mistake. Better to do both, and let the AD and the deans of your colleges take care of the details. Athetics makes the athletic department money. It makes the coaches millionaires and pays for the training facilities, scholarships and stadiums. Very few athletics programs give anything to the academics side (I've only heard Michigan, and even then I'm doubtful), and those that do give don't give much compared to the other revenue streams. The idea that athletics is a big revenue source for any university is simply not true. High school? Maybe. Colleges, no. Even professional sports rarely pays dividends to the city they're in. Sports as a money maker for anyone outside of sports is, generally, a myth. |
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Mar 15, 2010 13:59:09 GMT -5
I never said it was. I said that she made academics the focus at the expense of athletics. It's a short-sighted viewpoint that doesn't realize that athletics makes the university money, and focusing on academics while gutting your most profitable athletic program was a big mistake. Better to do both, and let the AD and the deans of your colleges take care of the details. Athetics makes the athletic department money. It makes the coaches millionaires and pays for the training facilities, scholarships and stadiums. Very few athletics programs give anything to the academics side (I've only heard Michigan, and even then I'm doubtful), and those that do give don't give much compared to the other revenue streams. The idea that athletics is a big revenue source for any university is simply not true. High school? Maybe. Colleges, no. Even professional sports rarely pays dividends to the city they're in. Sports as a money maker for anyone outside of sports is, generally, a myth. What about parking, merchandise, and concessions stands, depending on the university? Even if the athletic department gets the ticket money and the TV money, the university still makes money off sporting events. My point still remains, gutting the most profitable sports program leading to a defecit in the millions was a very bad idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 15, 2010 14:27:07 GMT -5
Athetics makes the athletic department money. It makes the coaches millionaires and pays for the training facilities, scholarships and stadiums. Very few athletics programs give anything to the academics side (I've only heard Michigan, and even then I'm doubtful), and those that do give don't give much compared to the other revenue streams. The idea that athletics is a big revenue source for any university is simply not true. High school? Maybe. Colleges, no. Even professional sports rarely pays dividends to the city they're in. Sports as a money maker for anyone outside of sports is, generally, a myth. What about parking, merchandise, and concessions stands, depending on the university? Even if the athletic department gets the ticket money and the TV money, the university still makes money off sporting events. My point still remains, gutting the most profitable sports program leading to a defecit in the millions was a very bad idea. Nope, the parking, merchandise, tickets and concessions are all part of the revenue stream for putting on the events, and those monies get funneled back to the athletic department, not the academic side. Left over money from football and basketball goes to the non-revenue generating sports (track, equestrian, swimming, etc). Rarely does the academic portion get any piece of that pie. It doesn't make money for the school. In fact, the academic side is really whose subsidizing athletics, as they give up land they could use for more dorms and class space (thus allowing more students) to put stadiums and training facilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Mar 15, 2010 15:00:51 GMT -5
What about parking, merchandise, and concessions stands, depending on the university? Even if the athletic department gets the ticket money and the TV money, the university still makes money off sporting events. My point still remains, gutting the most profitable sports program leading to a defecit in the millions was a very bad idea. Nope, the parking, merchandise, tickets and concessions are all part of the revenue stream for putting on the events, and those monies get funneled back to the athletic department, not the academic side. Left over money from football and basketball goes to the non-revenue generating sports (track, equestrian, swimming, etc). Rarely does the academic portion get any piece of that pie. It doesn't make money for the school. In fact, the academic side is really whose subsidizing athletics, as they give up land they could use for more dorms and class space (thus allowing more students) to put stadiums and training facilities. Actually, it would depend on the individual university on the first part, and for the second part, that's an awful stretch. On the parking issue, it would depend on whether the university's parking garages were used. Merchandise would depend on whether they bought a University T shirt or a Team T shirt. Concessions would depend on who provides the employees. Are they employees of the university's food service that supplies food for the residence halls? Again, it would depend on the university, and how they have everything set up. But this point is still a distant second to the main point of my original post, and that is that firing Huggins was a huge mistake by Zimpher, especially considering where the two basketball programs are now. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 15, 2010 15:57:18 GMT -5
Actually, it would depend on the individual university on the first part, and for the second part, that's an awful stretch. On the parking issue, it would depend on whether the university's parking garages were used. Merchandise would depend on whether they bought a University T shirt or a Team T shirt. Concessions would depend on who provides the employees. Are they employees of the university's food service that supplies food for the residence halls? Again, it would depend on the university, and how they have everything set up. Not really, the only reason it's a stretch is because it's crammed into everyone's heads by franchise owners and sports writers how important sports is to everything. But when people began to look at the numbers, the results they found was that it wasn't, and that's fairly universal across the board. How do you think the football practice facility, lacrosse equipment, head coach's salary and track meet were all paid for? All the athletic department's revenue streams. The cost of college athletics is immense. Between what it costs to actually maintain the teams (hint, college football is the most expensive sport you can put on), put on the games, fund the coaches and staff, fund the non-revenue generating sports, then give your share of the total revenue to the conference in whatever revenue sharing deal you have, it rarely, if ever, trickles down to academics and it sure as heck isn't a big money maker for a university. But this point is still a distant second to the main point of my original post, and that is that firing Huggins was a huge mistake by Zimpher, especially considering where the two basketball programs are now. Maybe, but the overall image of a university is more important to the president than the success of the basketball team. A bad basketball team doesn't hurt the image like the portrayal of a student body filled with thugs and criminals does. Aside from his arrest (which wasn't two years before, it was a year after she put a focus on the image of the university), the team got a lot of bad press and had coaches and players arrested. If I were the president of a university, I wouldn't keep someone who continued to make us look worse and worse to potential recruits (both athletic and academic). If Eddie Sutton and his lengthy history couldn't outlast a DUI, then Huggins really had no chance with that and the other problems. |
|
lovingway
El Dandy
Crimson and Clover
Posts: 8,135 
|
Post by lovingway on Mar 18, 2010 20:10:32 GMT -5
Another factor that was working against Huggins was that he was sleeping with a board member's wife.
But I am not telling you anything that any UC alum didn't know
|
|
