menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Basketball Topic
Topic: Vedder cited in MAC student fee discussion
Page: 2 of 7
mail
person
Flomo-genized
6/8/2016 1:43 PM
Undoubtedly there are some fans who contribute (whether through financial donations, ticket purchases, etc.) more than enough to cover their respective share of the costs of the athletic program. But the mere fact that you buy tickets or pay a child's student fees doesn't mean you aren't free-riding. You may be free-riding less than others, sure. But considering that the athletic department's annual revenue generation doesn't come anywhere near covering its yearly costs means that the vast majority of us are, in fact, paying less than our fair share for the product we are consuming. That's the textbook definition of free-riding.
mail
person
Robert Fox
6/8/2016 1:50 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
Undoubtedly there are some fans who contribute (whether through financial donations, ticket purchases, etc.) more than enough to cover their respective share of the costs of the athletic program. But the mere fact that you buy tickets or pay a child's student fees doesn't mean you aren't free-riding. You may be free-riding less than others, sure. But considering that the athletic department's annual revenue generation doesn't come anywhere near covering its yearly costs means that the vast majority of us are, in fact, paying less than our fair share for the product we are consuming. That's the textbook definition of free-riding.
That would depend entirely on what size the intended audience. If sports at Ohio University appeals to 50,000 people (no idea, just using a number), then my value is 1/50,000 of the athletic budget, which is what, $28 million or so? By that measure, I'm doing MORE than my share. A lot more.

God help the free-riding fans of the Super Bowl, the World Series, the World Cup, the Stanley Cup, the Olympics, the Triple Crown...
mail
person
Flomo-genized
6/8/2016 2:21 PM
Fair point, the free-riding question would come down to how you calculate the size of the fan base. And I probably overstated things by saying the vast majority of people here, as opposed to the vast majority of the fan base, are free-riding. Considering this site is populated by many of OU's most dedicated fans, the percentage is undoubtedly lower here than for the fan base at-large.

However, while it's true all sports (professional, collegiate, and amateur) attract free riders, the professional sports and Olympics/World Cup aren't really apt analogies. They all generate more than enough revenue on their own (through TV, sponsorships, and ticket sales) to more than cover their costs (even, in most cases, after accounting for any public stadium subsidies). We don't.

In any event, the greater point was that it's not at all clear whether our athletics investment is necessarily the most efficient means of marketing the institution. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; none of us here really know because we aren't privy to the metrics you'd need to assess it accurately.
Last Edited: 6/8/2016 2:23:28 PM by Flomo-genized
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/8/2016 3:07 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
Fair point, the free-riding question would come down to how you calculate the size of the fan base. And I probably overstated things by saying the vast majority of people here, as opposed to the vast majority of the fan base, are free-riding. Considering this site is populated by many of OU's most dedicated fans, the percentage is undoubtedly lower here than for the fan base at-large.

However, while it's true all sports (professional, collegiate, and amateur) attract free riders, the professional sports and Olympics/World Cup aren't really apt analogies. They all generate more than enough revenue on their own (through TV, sponsorships, and ticket sales) to more than cover their costs (even, in most cases, after accounting for any public stadium subsidies). We don't.

In any event, the greater point was that it's not at all clear whether our athletics investment is necessarily the most efficient means of marketing the institution. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; none of us here really know because we aren't privy to the metrics you'd need to assess it accurately.
The term I've used in the past is subsidized. Student fees greatly subsidize the cost of our tickets to attend events. If there are 12,000 paying fans that show up for football and say 4,000 paying fans for basketball, with an average ticket price of $10 that's $720,000 for football and $380,000 in revenue. Without student fees we'd either be deeply in dept or ticket prices would have to go up 5 or 10 fold. Free ride or subsidize, I appreciate the help but I don't think it's sustainable.
mail
person
Robert Fox
6/8/2016 5:10 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
In any event, the greater point was that it's not at all clear whether our athletics investment is necessarily the most efficient means of marketing the institution. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; none of us here really know because we aren't privy to the metrics you'd need to assess it accurately.
Agree with this point entirely. But I want to add if the goal is publicity, than the product doesn't have to "pay for itself." The university gets a benefit from the publicity. A critical question is how much is that publicity worth?
mail
person
Monroe Slavin
6/8/2016 5:23 PM
Robert, I generally get what you're saying. But it really doesn't make sense to say that it doesn't matter if the pub pays for itself....Since, as in about any activity, why put the resources to it if the return is less than the resources returned? Isn't that more or less the definition of 'waste'?

We shouldn't do the pub...or should do pub differently...if the pub that we're doing doesn't more or less pay for itself.
mail
person
Robert Fox
6/8/2016 6:14 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Robert, I generally get what you're saying. But it really doesn't make sense to say that it doesn't matter if the pub pays for itself....Since, as in about any activity, why put the resources to it if the return is less than the resources returned? Isn't that more or less the definition of 'waste'?

We shouldn't do the pub...or should do pub differently...if the pub that we're doing doesn't more or less pay for itself.
We're saying the same thing. Again, the question is what is the publicity worth? If the university deems that it is worth more than the cost, then it's paying for itself, or providing a benefit.
mail
person
colobobcat66
6/8/2016 6:40 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
Robert, I generally get what you're saying. But it really doesn't make sense to say that it doesn't matter if the pub pays for itself....Since, as in about any activity, why put the resources to it if the return is less than the resources returned? Isn't that more or less the definition of 'waste'?

We shouldn't do the pub...or should do pub differently...if the pub that we're doing doesn't more or less pay for itself.
Because it's somebody else's money(students)that you're spending. Lots of people don't care how you spend money if it's somebody else's.

As long as the university is able to get students who are willing to pay the fees which support the sports, maybe it's not a big deal to the university. I'm not saying this is anything close to ethical or whatever, but it happens all the time. I agree it's waste if nobody is really getting their money's worth out of their investment(fees)
mail
TWT
6/8/2016 11:32 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Fair point, the free-riding question would come down to how you calculate the size of the fan base. And I probably overstated things by saying the vast majority of people here, as opposed to the vast majority of the fan base, are free-riding. Considering this site is populated by many of OU's most dedicated fans, the percentage is undoubtedly lower here than for the fan base at-large.

However, while it's true all sports (professional, collegiate, and amateur) attract free riders, the professional sports and Olympics/World Cup aren't really apt analogies. They all generate more than enough revenue on their own (through TV, sponsorships, and ticket sales) to more than cover their costs (even, in most cases, after accounting for any public stadium subsidies). We don't.

In any event, the greater point was that it's not at all clear whether our athletics investment is necessarily the most efficient means of marketing the institution. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't; none of us here really know because we aren't privy to the metrics you'd need to assess it accurately.
The term I've used in the past is subsidized. Student fees greatly subsidize the cost of our tickets to attend events. If there are 12,000 paying fans that show up for football and say 4,000 paying fans for basketball, with an average ticket price of $10 that's $720,000 for football and $380,000 in revenue. Without student fees we'd either be deeply in dept or ticket prices would have to go up 5 or 10 fold. Free ride or subsidize, I appreciate the help but I don't think it's sustainable.
It's been sustainable at Ohio for decades Alan. Only in the last decade has it become become public knowledge that athletics at most D1 universities is largely paid for by student fees. It's the secret sauce of college athletics and the recipe was revealed. Students at the University of Idaho supported a move to FCS with costs cited and the president made the move. I think concerns about student fees are becoming a force to take seriously but I don't see it impacting Ohio.
Last Edited: 6/8/2016 11:37:10 PM by TWT
mail
The Optimist
6/8/2016 11:48 PM
Flomo-genized wrote:expand_more
At the end of the day, we all love Ohio athletics. But Ohio athletics, as currently constituted, isn't anywhere near being financially self-supporting without significant, compulsory subsidies from the student population. So pretty much everyone here is free-riding, to some extent, on the fees that the institution's current students are subjected to.

Reasonable minds can differ on the acceptability of that, but to suggest that anyone who questions the sustainability or appropriateness of OU's current athletic funding model doesn't "get it" is pretty close-minded.

You make a VERY large assumption that everyone here isn't contributing to those subsidies that you mention.

I started posting on this board as a high school student prior to ever enrolling at Ohio. I've posted on this board as: a prospective student, student paying fees, student attending games, alumni paying student loans, alumni donating to OBC, alumni buying season tickets, alumni contributing to OBC capital projects and MULTIPLE combinations of the proceeding.

I would argue that your stance is "close-minded." Your argument is examining this issue as "Ohio athletics." If you think this is about "Ohio athletics" and not "Ohio University" I respect your opinion as little as The Situation respects the opinion of Monroe Slavin. "Ohio Athletics" is the window to "Ohio University."
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/9/2016 7:50 AM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
At the end of the day, we all love Ohio athletics. But Ohio athletics, as currently constituted, isn't anywhere near being financially self-supporting without significant, compulsory subsidies from the student population. So pretty much everyone here is free-riding, to some extent, on the fees that the institution's current students are subjected to.

Reasonable minds can differ on the acceptability of that, but to suggest that anyone who questions the sustainability or appropriateness of OU's current athletic funding model doesn't "get it" is pretty close-minded.

You make a VERY large assumption that everyone here isn't contributing to those subsidies that you mention.

I started posting on this board as a high school student prior to ever enrolling at Ohio. I've posted on this board as: a prospective student, student paying fees, student attending games, alumni paying student loans, alumni donating to OBC, alumni buying season tickets, alumni contributing to OBC capital projects and MULTIPLE combinations of the proceeding.

I would argue that your stance is "close-minded." Your argument is examining this issue as "Ohio athletics." If you think this is about "Ohio athletics" and not "Ohio University" I respect your opinion as little as The Situation respects the opinion of Monroe Slavin. "Ohio Athletics" is the window to "Ohio University."
Everyone here isn't contributing and even if they were, the 40 posters on this board are about as representative a sample of OU as nothing. We are the diehards, white men with above average disposable income and job flexibility to get to games. We are becoming more and more a minority everyday. Many people who attend an occasional game are doing it because the weather is nice and it's something to do on a warm fall afternoon. There is nothing wrong with that. But at the end of the day there are thousands right here in Athens county who couldn't tell you who we were playing on any given Saturday.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoy the OU athletic experience but for the masses it's no big deal and one of these years, students are going to say, no more fees.
mail
person
Recovering Journalist
6/9/2016 9:19 AM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
It's been sustainable at Ohio for decades Alan. Only in the last decade has it become become public knowledge that athletics at most D1 universities is largely paid for by student fees. It's the secret sauce of college athletics and the recipe was revealed. Students at the University of Idaho supported a move to FCS with costs cited and the president made the move. I think concerns about student fees are becoming a force to take seriously but I don't see it impacting Ohio.
You say this like nothing's changed and nothing will change. The college costs are spiraling. Student debt is a national issue. Woody Hayes made $43,000 a year in 1978. Today, sports coaches are the highest-paid public employees in every state. The D1 sports environment is rapidly changing with P5 autonomy, cost of attendance, cable cord-cutting, conference realignment and a slew of other factors changing the landscape every year.

Change is coming because the growth in costs is not sustainable.
mail
person
Flomo-genized
6/9/2016 9:59 AM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
"Ohio Athletics" is the window to "Ohio University."
It's certainly a window, but if you think it's THE window to the university you are vastly overstating the importance of athletics, especially at our level. College sports are becoming increasingly less important to college students. Even in the SEC, student attendance at football games has dropped significantly in recent years. Fewer than one-third of students at Alabama attend each home game, for goodness sakes.

Even our exposure on ESPN is pretty limited. The BGSU football game attracted less than 700K viewers. And even then, I shutter to think what kind of impression our 62-24 loss left on the viewing public.

Athletics is certainly a reasonable part of the university's mission. But it's only a relatively small part. If you truly care about Ohio University as an academic institution, you should at least be curious about whether our current athletic budget constitutes the most efficient and effective form of marketing for the school.
mail
bornacatfan
6/9/2016 11:28 AM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
. We are the diehards, white men with above average disposable income and job flexibility to get to games. We are becoming more and more a minority everyday.

So ...like every other conversation ....we are gonna bring race in. As long as we are there....I have been floating the idea of contributions and charitable giving to Boy's Club, YMCA and other organizations I am a board member or supporter. Amongst my peer groups where I may often be the only white man in the group, My responses have ranged from a raised eyebrow and a "who me?" look to outright...."man, y'all are the rich ones I got nuttin left to give" from a guy who is a close friend with a rising business, a brand new Escalade and 3 cell phones,(main one, business one and "girlfriend phone"). Suffice to say ...my take on this is becoming...if we are becoming the minority and are relying on rising social classes to become the benevolents rather than the recipients we are in a heap of trouble. The "I gots mines, y'all got to fend for yourselves" is a problem that goes against the social responsibilities I was raised to believe in... regardless of color, creed or persuasion it has always been incumbent on us to do the right thing. Just not seeing it these days.

THe student fees issue is here to stay and no moral argument is going to stem the tide in my lifetime.
mail
person
giacomo
6/9/2016 11:49 AM
I reject the idea of "free riding". As alumni we are under no obligation to support athletics monetarily. They decide what they will spend and if it's appropriate to the return they get or expect to get. I understand the argument over student fees when the two highest paid employees of the university are coaches. Do we make money on men's football and basketball?
mail
person
BobcatSports
6/9/2016 12:19 PM
It's a deadly combo that we are facing and I think the long-term consequences are dire: Rising student fees that support athletics and declining student attendance at the events they are signaling with their absence that they don't support. Not a good mix.
mail
person
Jeff McKinney
6/9/2016 1:02 PM
BobcatSports wrote:expand_more
It's a deadly combo that we are facing and I think the long-term consequences are dire: Rising student fees that support athletics and declining student attendance at the events they are signaling with their absence that they don't support. Not a good mix.
That's what I'm saying. I hope Ohio and the MAC can preserve a strong athletic presence but it could go either way.
mail
person
Robert Fox
6/9/2016 1:23 PM
So in essence, students are buying their tickets but aren't going to the game. Until students stop buying tickets, I don't see where the panic comes from.
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/9/2016 1:23 PM
Jeff McKinney wrote:expand_more
It's a deadly combo that we are facing and I think the long-term consequences are dire: Rising student fees that support athletics and declining student attendance at the events they are signaling with their absence that they don't support. Not a good mix.
That's what I'm saying. I hope Ohio and the MAC can preserve a strong athletic presence but it could go either way.
All it will take is an extremely activist group of students and the house of cards will come tumbling down. Right now I don't see much activism on campus other than LGBT issues and in terms of staffing, programming and benefits that battle has largely been won.
mail
person
BobcatSports
6/9/2016 3:18 PM
Robert I disagree that the students are "buying" their tickets. The students are systematically being "charged" for their tickets thru the student fees, they aren't given a choice whether to "buy" or not. How many students do you think would choose to "opt-out" if given the choice whether to subsidize athletics thru their fees? I'm fearful that would be a big number of students that would be saying no thanks.
mail
person
giacomo
6/9/2016 3:30 PM
Do student fees cover the shows at Memorial Auditorium or plays at Kantner Hall?
mail
person
Alan Swank
6/9/2016 3:33 PM
BobcatSports wrote:expand_more
Robert I disagree that the students are "buying" their tickets. The students are systematically being "charged" for their tickets thru the student fees, they aren't given a choice whether to "buy" or not. How many students do you think would choose to "opt-out" if given the choice whether to subsidize athletics thru their fees? I'm fearful that would be a big number of students that would be saying no thanks.
I know that my two kids who attended OU for either graduate or undergraduate school would have opted out and if they had wanted to go to a game they would have bought a ticket on a one game basis.

Which brings up and interesting question, do graduate students general fees also fund athletics?
mail
OhioCatFan
6/9/2016 3:39 PM
Alan Swank wrote:expand_more
Which brings up and interesting question, do graduate students general fees also fund athletics?
That's a good question, Alan. I remember this was discussed several years ago by graduate student council. It seems to me that the answer from the administration at the time was somewhat muddled, but that it was a general "no." It seems to me that there were a few caveats but that, with a few minor exceptions, very little of grad student fees went for athletics. Does anyone else have a recollection of this discussion?
mail
person
Robert Fox
6/9/2016 3:54 PM
giacomo wrote:expand_more
Do student fees cover the shows at Memorial Auditorium or plays at Kantner Hall?
That's a good question.
mail
person
Robert Fox
6/9/2016 4:08 PM
BobcatSports wrote:expand_more
Robert I disagree that the students are "buying" their tickets. The students are systematically being "charged" for their tickets thru the student fees, they aren't given a choice whether to "buy" or not. How many students do you think would choose to "opt-out" if given the choice whether to subsidize athletics thru their fees? I'm fearful that would be a big number of students that would be saying no thanks.
Are there public universities that don't charge similar fees?
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 160
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)