DFC, I've wondered the same thing at various times. I've even mentioned this to accountant types. They always tell me that it's better to do it the way we are doing it, but I never quite understood the explanations. Maybe Monroe can explain it in a way that makes sense to the non-accountants on this board. IMHO Monroe knows a lot more about accounting than about zone blocking schemes! :-)

DA, I know you donated to this cause but here's the issue I have with it.

The case for the academic center is predicated upon the current problem that athletes need a place to study close to the athletic fields. The reason they can't make the trek to Alden or somewhere else is that there are constraints on their time. Lifting till 1pm, film session at 3pm and they'd like somewhere to study for a few hours in between.

Fine. Sounds like a real problem.

The Arms Race folks would like to solve that problem with a multi-million dollar building. Oh, and they'd like to kill two birds by secretly enhancing the football stadium in the process. They can use this nice new space on Fall Saturdays to raise more money for the Arms Race.

The solution to this problem (outlined above) is a quintessential example of everything that is WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG with higher education today.

What is the right solution? Well, seeing as the primary goal of a university is to educate...it would seem that the athletic coaches are over-stepping their bounds and are asking too much from their athletes. If they only get a couple of hours a day to study, then that is ***antithetical*** to the very mission of our university. And it cheapens the value of their education...their only means of compensation for all their hard work.

Basically, less football...more study time.

This solution is what any sane person would conclude upon hearing about this problem.

Paul, your posts on this thread seem inconsistent with your posts on other threads where you have been critical of results. If you reduce practice time, and increase study time, the results on the field will get worse, obviously. That leads to the question of priorities.

Do you think there should be football at all? If yes, what should be the most important goals? Student academics? Winning MAC Championships? Some sort of comprise, with decent results, but without sacrificing academic integrity?

We could also ask an admission-related question. I know you don't favor bringing in people with criminal records, but what about people with marginal academics? Should Ohio hold athletic admissions to the same requirements that apply to all other schools? Should they take anyone that qualifies by meeting NCAA required minimums? Should they go lower than that, as Marshall does, and take non-qualifiers, and let them try earn a spot on the field by doing well in the classroom?

"I've also been in academia for the last several years..."

A confused, conflicted academic. Paul, I will have to cut you some slack.

Caveat Emptor

Certainly the market already has options for students ranging from community college to 4 year programs with 4 year programs being divided into with and without athletic programs.

Perhaps a disclosure on the application such as: If you come to OHIO you will pay each semester, an escalating student fee that pays for scholarships of student athletes. If you do not like this fact than you are free to choose to go elsewhere and best wishes in your future endeavors.

Does anyone know with the new tution guarantee, will this also lock in the fee for 12 semesters? If so, look for the fee for next year to be a decently steep increase.

Just on a side note, since I lack the erudition to contribute to this discussion in any meaningful way:

MIT competes in NCAA Div. III, so how can they give athletic scholarships? BTW, I think MIT is currently ranked in the top 25 in men's basketball.

Thanks for the answer, Paul. As for me, I have a different perspective. Gladwell's arguments do give me some pause, but Vedder's do not. Before I turn to Gladwell, let me start with a background perspective. Note that the following paragraph is my opinion only. It is not placed here for discussion of the truth of the opinion (which would move the thread to Siberia), but rather just as a background opinion, which forms the base for the opinions in the following paragraphs.

****background only, not for discussion******
In my opinion, most welfare programs are dramatic failures, and they are failures because when you give people stuff, it simply leads to an expectation that they will be given more stuff, and they begin to believe that they can't get ahead without a constant flow of stuff. The result is that the programs become a roach motel, which trap the recipients. Rather than helping people get ahead, the people become trapped.
****** end of opinion that isn't for background only*********

You may or may not agree with the paragraph above. Either is fine. It is there so that you can understand my opinion, not to convince you. As a contrast to the above, Athletics, including football, is an effective affirmative action program precisely because people aren't given stuff, they have to earn it. They get ahead, succeed, get an education, etc, by working hard, and by earning the things they achieve. They learn in the process that the secret to success is through hard work.

The hope for an athletic scholarship clearly motivates youth to stay in school, and to try to qualify. Even those that never earn a scholarship benefit from trying to earn one. Athletic scholarships also enable many who would otherwise not go to college to go there, and through tutoring, to succeed. When I watch a video like the 12 year old Maleek Irons, working in school to try to get achieve his goal of playing football at an American University, or I read that Tim Edmonds will be the first person in his family ever to graduate from college, I feel like football is accomplishing some great things in people's lives.

Is football, or athletics in general, a valid thing for a University to be doing? I don't see any reason why not. Elitists might feel that "big dumb football players" are unworthy to participate in their elite classes, but I think that is pretty petty. I do not favor giving athletes easy classes, or easy majors. To graduate they should have to meet the same requirements as everyone else. I do favor giving them extensive tutoring, as required. That enables the playing ground to be evened, a little, and helps the athletes succeed, but also assures that if they do graduate, they do learn in the process.

Could they accomplish the same thing by awarding 85 scholarships to random people who otherwise would not get in? They could do some of the good, but it would lack the hard work-success relationship that i think is important.

Now, where my nice scenario goes off course is when the win-at-all-costs mentality takes over. That brings an incentive to cut corners or cheat. If you don't give the athlete a real education, there goes my whole argument. If you fudge his transcript, you've taught a lesson, but entirely the wrong one. It also leads you down the crazy path we're on where coaches' salary goes up and up, with no end in sight.

A large part of why I became an Ohio fan is that I have no use for the spend-spend-spend-winning-is-what's-important attitude that you see in P5 teams. Sadly it is spreading down, even to the MAC.

What about pro Football? I see it as a bad thing for a couple reasons. One is Gladwell's argument. People that play football only in high school do not have the same kinds of head-injury and other issues that you find in pro football players that play in the NFL for a long time. It also adds little to my positive scenario. There is a lesson that you can make a ton of money in the NFL, but really, that's the wrong lesson. The lesson that I think is the right one is that football isn't the end itself, but rather its a means to an end. If you work hard, you get ahead, and it helps you to get a college degree, after which you go on from there to get a job in your career.

For me, the thing that could convince me that football isn't a good thing aren't things like Vedder's articles. It's along Gladwell's argument. Show me that the injury rate is too high. Show me that these people don't get any good out of the education, and that they don't have a higher success rate than others they grew up with that took a different path. Those are the things that would make me doubt whether it's a good thing or not.

So, in the end, the expenses of football don't faze me, where the expenses are the scholarships themselves, because I think football does a lot of net good. I think it helps the players do well in life. I think it brings economic benefits to the community. I think it helps bridge the town-gown divide. I think it helps advertise the University, and helps connect the University to alumni.

Now that I gave my perspective, perhaps you'll understand why I'm not conflicted, at least until the point where someone gets a serious long term injury. Now to address a couple points you made:

1a - Dropping to FCS won't save money. From what I've seen, they get less benefits, and lose more, which is why so many FCS teams want to move to FBS. Moving to Division II or III would save money, though.

2 - I have sympathy for the argument that they athletes should have to meet the general academic requirements. If you do that, it does decrease the affirmative action somewhat, but it also increases the lesson that "to get ahead, you need to do well in the classroom". As I said above, I'm also comfortable with it the way it is, so long as you only provide tutoring, but still require them to meet the same standards at the end of the day.

And DA, Harvard gives the exact same financial package to athletes that every other student receives.

I feel like you are not understanding that I believe we are in violent agreement on this, and I detailed as much in my post above replying to Jeff in detail regarding the difference between financial aid and scholarships. The two mechanisms produce identical ends, but are different means to that identical end: expense relief for students, regardless of that student being an academic or an athletic recruit.

Where Harvard and OHIO differ is that the funds are derived primarily from the need based endowment funds at Harvard (who also supplements those funds with scholarships, grants and University employment opportunities, with the desired result being that no student incurs out of pocket expenses to attend Harvard), and at OHIO the athletic scholarships are derived to a large extent from student fees, and there are also directed scholarships and general fee funds that contribute to covering the cost of the expense relief at OHIO.

Where do you feel we are not aligned on this? Are you saying that Harvard and MIT are not participating in recruiting student athletes? Clearly Sally Sue the aspiring rocket scientist at Harvard is not going to be recruited once on campus to play men's hockey, so Jean Jacques the Hockey Jock from Quebec is at no risk to lose his spot as first line forward on the Harvard hockey roster, nor his financial aid derived from the endowment fund. And he is not paying full tuition, room or board for the opportunity to play Harvard, either.

Proof that OHiO University pays its profs too much!


DA, I think we may be very close on agreement, I think we are hung on verbiage.

My information is back in 2000, so maybe things have changed, but my first reaction is that it is B.S. Thanks for clarifying where you got the information and that you were simply reporting a source's information and not making a statement of known fact. I guess I failed to understand the attribution in the original post.

Going through this right now, their statements and their financial aid plans are by far the easiest to understand and comprehensive as any! Their endowment allows them to be extremely generous, and 20% of their students pay no money to attend.