Sorry if this has already been posted but I found these two letters to be very interesting:

http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/main.asp?SectionID=4&Sub...

http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/main.asp?SectionID=4&Sub...;

I'm sort of guessing that the dept is taking a "don't feed the trolls" approach - or maybe that's just what I'd like to think they're doing. That, and the fact that they've been cut so much already that they hopefully don't have time to mess with that sort of thing. If they'd try to rebut any and every stone the Post lobs over, then it would mean they're stooping to the same level as those that are trying at all costs to divert attention to athletics because their own house may not be in order.

But I do recall an economic efficiency study last year where the athletic department did fare pretty well. I think they did put it on the website. Perhaps Ms. Yanity overlooked that one. But I guess that might not make for a good editorial.

I mean it's unfortunate, that we have the Hays' & McLaughlin's trying to save their own tail by degrading whatever else they can, but I guess I at least understand(but disagree) if they're more worried about self preservation than what's good for the whole. (I can see tenure/union/# of majors tangents possible here)

Thankfully, right now the opinions that matter are not Steve Hays, Joe McLaughlin, Al Swank, or any aspiring dirt digging journalist. It's the trustees, and President McDavis that end up determining value of the different departments, and direction of the university as a whole. And thankfully the answer thus far has been that athletics is absolutely a very valuable part of the university, one that brings so many of us back to campus, and one that is worth significant investment.

Also, if you really want to see how disdainful some of the faculty are towards athletics, check out the faculty senate minutes sometime. You can tell some really have it out for sports. Sad, actually. I really feel they should be worrying about more than fighting over someone else's piece of pie.

Steve Hays' letter got me a bit (understatement) upset.

What really bothered me is that he starts off by saying he "believes" in ICA,then uses the rest of his letter
trashing ICA at O.U.

I sent in a response letter to The Post and included my position  that, if making / losing money
is now the benchmark which  O.U. should use to determine the value of a program,then that
same standard must be applied to all academic curiculms and cultural programs too.

We'll see if they  print it.

Folks, just because someone takes issue with Ohio University's current athletics funding model does not mean that they are speaking simply in the interests of self-preservation, or have a "vendetta" against athletics.  Reasonable minds can differ on these issues, without needing to resort to personal attacks.  Indeed, critics of athletics could just as easily argue that the many of the athletics supporters here are simply acting out of a selfish desire to maintain their heavily subsidized, artificially inexpensive athletic entertainment. 

While those who view the purpose of higher education exclusively as a job credential may not appreciate the discipline, no self-respecting research university is going to eliminate its Classics department in order to avoid cuts to its athletics program.  Classics will never be eliminated, and therefore Professor Hays really isn't acting out of self-preservation at all.  He is simply speaking his mind. 

While many here may not like what Professor Hays and others are saying, I suspect that if we are being honest, even many BobcatAttackers would agree that at some level it is unfair to require each and every current undergraduate student at Ohio University to pay more than $600 per year to support athletics, regardless of whether they ever attend a single athletics event. 

The fact of the matter is that Ohio University's athletics funding model is highly irregular for Division I FBS institutions.  Of the 120 FBS universities, only 3 rely to a greater extent on institutional funds to support athletics than we do:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/05/20/ohio

The fact that those funds are largely levied from current students is troubling.  To put it into perspective, by my count there only around 300 members of the Ohio Bobcat Club whose annual donations equal or surpass the amount that each of the nearly 21,000 current Ohio University undergraduate students is forced to pay to subsidize the athletics program. To be candid, I have to agree with Professor Hays that that is unfair. 

Now that doesn't mean that there isn't value in Ohio athletics, or that we should simply cut our athletics program.  But the current funding model is unjust and unsustainable, and that is an issue that should be deeply concerning to anyone that loves Ohio athletics. 

If its unfair  to require students to pay for athletics,wether they attend an event or not,then you should have to apply that same standard to everything covered by student fees.

I'm sure a lot of students would be against their student fees being used by  O.U. to sponser certain events or groups  or other activites that they never participated in.

To me,the student fee  is a lot like your income taxes.You don't get a say on how the money is spent.

In the case of the Federal Government, you can vote for people who share your views.In higher education you are free to go to another school.

 

 

Per usual, Flomo has stated things very well and there's little I can disagree with.  Still, that fact is pretty sobering.  Really makes you think about who is getting what they pay for.  Consider this, if students are attending 8 Bobcat athletic events or less a year, most of them probably sit in that many class periods in a week.  Why are we so quick to advocate for the value of athletics to the student experience but talk about the faculty as if they're so expendable and underperforming?  Who is really doing more to shape the student experience at Ohio on a daily basis? 

Also, the idea that most of the faculty who are critical of athletics funding are merely cynical, self-preservationists just trying to protect their own piece is a convenient fantasy.  Yeah, there may be a few who fit that bill but most are probably conscientious, well-meaning individuals with concerns about how resources are being allocated and prioritized at the university and how this will alter Ohio's image and ability to provide a quality educational experience. Seriously, is the content of Steve Hays letter really that outrageous?  Disagree, sure, but it's not like it's crazy talk.  

I don't know about the Hays letter but Molly's was not orchestrated.  Her's was an informed plea to Schaus to help him help those who support athletics in vary degrees, myself included, support his cause.  She is a practicing professional journalist - an AP voter at one time.  This is not some ivory tower educator or uninformed kid.  Unfortunately many on this board totally missed her point.

This is not black and white.  As Flomo has said repeatedly it's not a matter of funding athletics or not but how you shape the funding model.  When one group gets $15,000,000 and another (performing arts) gets $90,000, that's a bit of a problem.

I agree, but if you're talking fairness for students who may or may not attend sporting events, it doesn't help them out any.

As one President of a college said several years ago in a faculty meeting,  I am hired to run this college with  approval of the BOT. You the faculty should do one of two things: 1) Make you academic areas stronger, be involved in the college recruiting process,and do a great job in the classroom and research for which you are being paid.  IF YOU DO THIS YOU WILL NOT HAVE TIME TO CARE ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OF THIS COLLEGE AND YOU WILL BE REWARDED.  2) Leave this college so that I can find strong faculty members that are more interested in education of our students and not trying to run this college. This discussion was brought about with the increase of monies for athletics and facilities.

As one faculty member of that college indicated, this college has made great strides in  enrollment , research monies and outside praciticums and internships for student involvement.  The adm./faculty internal strife ended. 

Maybe it is time for this to happen at this university.  Reward those faculty and programs that have significant enrollment, research monies and get rid of the excess academic programs and adm./facultybaggage .  After the budget cuts in March this will become a reality as senior adm and budget heads will have bigger decisions to make that will affect all., faculty, academic programs and athletics.

It is time for all who are interested in athletics,  INCREASE "THE ALDEN ENDOWMENT FUND FOR ATHLETICS"

I say we let good old fashioned capitalism handle this.  You don't like OU's budget model, enroll/work somewhere else.

Why?

I respectfully disagree...completely.  The last time I checked, it was not significantly more expensive to attend Ohio than any other state school in Ohio.  And Ohio isn't unable to enroll the maximum number of students because the cost of attending Ohio is too great.  It does not cost decidedly more to attend Ohio that Ohio State, which breaks even on ICA most years. 

There are many revenue sources that constitute running all aspects of Ohio University, the only thing that differs at Ohio is that the ledger has a clear deliniation of what revenue streams fund it, and which actually provides the transparency that many have asked for.

If you care that the Trustees decide to take the funding from another kettle of revenue so that it isn't linked to student fees, then make that point.  You are just arguing over accounting.

My wife and I don't have children and yet year over year we pay for children to attend our local schools.  Is that unfair?  I sure know I would much rather keep that money, or donate it to Ohio University, but the government tells us that we have to fund that aspect of our community, and kids, that is exactly what we are talking about here with the Trustees and how they decided to fund ICA when they decided it.

And back to Schaus needing to defend the current funding system, that's poppycosh.  It's not his system.  It's like asking a driver to defend himself for driving the speed limit or asking a zebra why he has stripes.

This place is starting to smell like red herrings.

The reason that it's a problem is that if those who were being taxed had a say, the numbers would be quite different.

I get your point,its just that, personally, I don't have problem with how O.U. is handling ICA funding.
This may be due in part  to the fact that  I'm a former,non scholarsip, intercollegiate athlete and attended almost every home football and basketball game when I was at O.U.

To me O.U. is also being "upfront" about their ICA funding,instead of burying costs in other budget line items.
I know, from living in N.J., that that one of the complaints about the Rutger's  is that it is spread a number of ICA costs,including the football coach's salary, over a bunch of seemingly unrelated budget items.

I also agree with D.A.'s comparison to school taxes.My wife and I don't have kids,but we still have to pay school taxes.

As I've also said,if you don't like O.U.'s ICA funding model,you can attend or work for another university.