Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Here come the bowl critics
Page: 1 of 2
Alan Swank
General User
AS
Member Since: 12/12/2004
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 7,375
person
mail
Alan Swank
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 9:09 AM
In today's ANews.  With this headline, I wonder if the ANews has been reading our parking discussion.  

http://www.athensnews.com/ohio/article-41319-ou-parallel-...
Last Edited: 12/16/2013 9:10:49 AM by Alan Swank
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 10:58 AM

I would argue that many of the people who were bashing athletic spending a couple years back have a good deal of egg on their face today.

A couple years back, one common argument was "spending on athletics with hopes that Ohio University will ever experience athletic success that positively showcases this school on the national level is nothing but a pipe dream."
The problem with that argument now is that Ohio has now seen that success on the national level.

Playing in the Beef O'Brady bowl, playing in the Potato Bowl, playing in the CBI. Spending money on these games isn't just about rewarding the current team. These postseason trips are good for the program as opposed to just this single Ohio football team.


5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.

Being highly thought of enough as a fanbase to earn a bowl over a solid Toledo program when few thought it was in the cards. That is meaningful.

I think we have come a very long way in just a few short years. If you want to argue if we have the staff in place to continue this growth, that is one thing. It is perfectly logical to raise those questions after a disappointing season.

If you want to pretend all this spending has been for nothing and further plans to build the program is wasteful spending... I would say you are upset things worked out better than you thought possible and now you are grasping at straws.

This administration bet big on athletics and won. Top 25 rankings in football, bowl wins, Sweet 16 showings, OHIO on the front page of the USA Today, Yahoo Sports, sports illustrated features and even more people recognizing the OHIO university not named the Buckeyes..  Money well spent in my mind.

 

Last Edited: 12/16/2013 11:04:18 AM by The Optimist
GoCats105
General User
GC105
Member Since: 1/31/2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Post Count: 7,823
person
mail
GoCats105
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 11:48 AM
I'm wondering if those same folks who were targeting athletics were the same folks who were processing a record amount of applications to the university.
Last Edited: 12/16/2013 11:48:15 AM by GoCats105
SBH
General User
SBH
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 4,679
person
mail
SBH
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 1:13 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more

I would argue that many of the people who were bashing athletic spending a couple years back have a good deal of egg on their face today.

A couple years back, one common argument was "spending on athletics with hopes that Ohio University will ever experience athletic success that positively showcases this school on the national level is nothing but a pipe dream."
The problem with that argument now is that Ohio has now seen that success on the national level.

Playing in the Beef O'Brady bowl, playing in the Potato Bowl, playing in the CBI. Spending money on these games isn't just about rewarding the current team. These postseason trips are good for the program as opposed to just this single Ohio football team.


5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.

Being highly thought of enough as a fanbase to earn a bowl over a solid Toledo program when few thought it was in the cards. That is meaningful.

I think we have come a very long way in just a few short years. If you want to argue if we have the staff in place to continue this growth, that is one thing. It is perfectly logical to raise those questions after a disappointing season.

If you want to pretend all this spending has been for nothing and further plans to build the program is wasteful spending... I would say you are upset things worked out better than you thought possible and now you are grasping at straws.

This administration bet big on athletics and won. Top 25 rankings in football, bowl wins, Sweet 16 showings, OHIO on the front page of the USA Today, Yahoo Sports, sports illustrated features and even more people recognizing the OHIO university not named the Buckeyes..  Money well spent in my mind.

 




Not sure how "big" our bet has been.  We just joined the pack in our league after about 30 years' absence.

L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 1:19 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more

I would argue that many of the people who were bashing athletic spending a couple years back have a good deal of egg on their face today.

A couple years back, one common argument was "spending on athletics with hopes that Ohio University will ever experience athletic success that positively showcases this school on the national level is nothing but a pipe dream."...


And those that said "Spending on athletics will divert giving away from the general fund"
or said "Spending on athletics is wasteful and has no advertising effect, and will not increase applicants"
or said "Spending on athletics will divert money from other places it is needed, such as renovating buildings, or supporting academics"
or who said "Ohio can never charge over $15 a ticket, nor fill the stadium, nor attract fans away from Ohio State"

In hindsight, what about these critics?
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 1:54 PM
SBH wrote:expand_more

I would argue that many of the people who were bashing athletic spending a couple years back have a good deal of egg on their face today.

A couple years back, one common argument was "spending on athletics with hopes that Ohio University will ever experience athletic success that positively showcases this school on the national level is nothing but a pipe dream."
The problem with that argument now is that Ohio has now seen that success on the national level.

Playing in the Beef O'Brady bowl, playing in the Potato Bowl, playing in the CBI. Spending money on these games isn't just about rewarding the current team. These postseason trips are good for the program as opposed to just this single Ohio football team.


5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.

Being highly thought of enough as a fanbase to earn a bowl over a solid Toledo program when few thought it was in the cards. That is meaningful.

I think we have come a very long way in just a few short years. If you want to argue if we have the staff in place to continue this growth, that is one thing. It is perfectly logical to raise those questions after a disappointing season.

If you want to pretend all this spending has been for nothing and further plans to build the program is wasteful spending... I would say you are upset things worked out better than you thought possible and now you are grasping at straws.

This administration bet big on athletics and won. Top 25 rankings in football, bowl wins, Sweet 16 showings, OHIO on the front page of the USA Today, Yahoo Sports, sports illustrated features and even more people recognizing the OHIO university not named the Buckeyes..  Money well spent in my mind.

 




Not sure how "big" our bet has been.  We just joined the pack in our league after about 30 years' absence.


 

For years, many of the people who bashed athletics stated it was a very big bet. We were wasting a large amount of money on athletics when there were areas of greater need that the administration could put money into to raise the quality of Ohio Univeristy.

You talk about "joining the pack" but that is viewing athletic spending as the end game. Like spending the most is what the goal is... That isn't where the value in athletic spending is. The biggest return on our investment in athletics has come in increased visibility for this University. In that regard, the Ohio brand has pulled ahead of much of the MAC, not "joined the pack."
A couple years back, it would have been absurd to come on this board and argue bowl directors viewed "Ohio" as a bigger brand than "Toledo" yet here we are... In a bowl game over what many have argued was one of the biggest brands in the MAC.

Besides NIU who has benefited from their success in football, would anyone like to make the argument that another MAC school is generating more national brand recognition than Ohio currently in athletics? Over the past couple years, our wins have been of the high-profile variety. For what we have spent, it looks like a bargain to me.


 

 

The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 1:57 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more

I would argue that many of the people who were bashing athletic spending a couple years back have a good deal of egg on their face today.

A couple years back, one common argument was "spending on athletics with hopes that Ohio University will ever experience athletic success that positively showcases this school on the national level is nothing but a pipe dream."...


And those that said "Spending on athletics will divert giving away from the general fund"
or said "Spending on athletics is wasteful and has no advertising effect, and will not increase applicants"
or said "Spending on athletics will divert money from other places it is needed, such as renovating buildings, or supporting academics"
or who said "Ohio can never charge over $15 a ticket, nor fill the stadium, nor attract fans away from Ohio State"

In hindsight, what about these critics?


 

You nailed some of the other biggest arguments. For what we have gotten in return, it really seems worth it.
 

The notion that Ohio cannot compete on the highest level has to be gone now. It has been proven that Ohio is capable of program enhancing wins with the proper resources committed.

Last Edited: 12/16/2013 2:00:10 PM by The Optimist
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 2:31 PM
So, you, too, see the great deficit (recruiting, image, etc...$ $) caused by our recent 123-16 and 9-9.
Mike Johnson
General User
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: North Canton, OH
Post Count: 1,756
mail
Mike Johnson
mail
Posted: 12/16/2013 3:44 PM
Monroe Slavin wrote:expand_more
So, you, too, see the great deficit (recruiting, image, etc...$ $) caused by our recent 123-16 and 9-9.


Now Optimist and Monroe, Santa is watching...
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 6:54 AM
Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
So, you, too, see the great deficit (recruiting, image, etc...$ $) caused by our recent 123-16 and 9-9.


Now Optimist and Monroe, Santa is watching...


       
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 11:04 AM

Mike Johnson wrote:expand_more
So, you, too, see the great deficit (recruiting, image, etc...$ $) caused by our recent 123-16 and 9-9.


Now Optimist and Monroe, Santa is watching...

 

I could steer this train to Siberia so quick Santa wouldn't be able to find me even with the help of Rudolph!

JSF
General User
Member Since: 1/29/2005
Location: Houston, TX
Post Count: 6,580
mail
JSF
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 5:15 PM
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.


"Meaningful" must have a really low bar these days. Nobody outside these message board cares about the Spud Bowl, the Patches O'Houlihan Bowl, or the Website.com Bowl. They're watched and then quickly forgotten.

The aborted BCS run, sure. The Penn State win, sure. The Sweet 16, absolutely. But the Who Cares? Bowl? No.
Bcat2
General User
B2
Member Since: 7/6/2010
Post Count: 4,295
person
mail
Bcat2
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 5:32 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.


"Meaningful" must have a really low bar these days. Nobody outside these message board cares about the Spud Bowl, the Patches O'Houlihan Bowl, or the Website.com Bowl. They're watched and then quickly forgotten.

The aborted BCS run, sure. The Penn State win, sure. The Sweet 16, absolutely. But the Who Cares? Bowl? No.
Just full of holiday cheer. Life of the party are you? Do you suppose most records or streaks are established over all/only rated competition?
Last Edited: 12/17/2013 5:37:03 PM by Bcat2
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 5:34 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.


"Meaningful" must have a really low bar these days. Nobody outside these message board cares about the Spud Bowl, the Patches O'Houlihan Bowl, or the Website.com Bowl. They're watched and then quickly forgotten.

The aborted BCS run, sure. The Penn State win, sure. The Sweet 16, absolutely. But the Who Cares? Bowl? No.
My argument is not that the Beef Bowl in itself is what counts, my argument is that playing in the postseason consistently while competing in the highest possible division of college football is meaningful.

I'd make a similar argument for the CBI in basketball. For sports purists, the argument is that postseason games like these water down the sports. I agree. From the perspective of a sports fan, it seems ridiculous to throw teams that haven't accomplished much on the field into a postseason bowl.

From the perspective of someone who wants this program to grow so it can continue to enhance the University at large, I am thrilled we are playing in a bowl game in Florida.

I think Tom Fornelli put it well here...
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/24370140/the-top-35-your-201314-bowl-rankings

"Some people would have you believe that 35 bowl games is about 25 bowl games too many. Well, I'll have you know that you shouldn't listen to those people. Bowl games are awesome. Sure, there are too many mediocre teams that go bowling these days because there are so many games, but you should cherish each and every one of the games between mediocre teams.

Because in a few months you won't have any football to watch at all and you'll be dying for a New Orleans Bowl matchup between Tulane and Louisiana-Lafayette."

I like football. America likes football. Throw the MAC on TV on a Wednesday in November. People will watch. That is good for the Ohio program.
DFrids
General User
DF
Member Since: 10/29/2011
Post Count: 44
person
mail
DFrids
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 5:48 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.


"Meaningful" must have a really low bar these days. Nobody outside these message board cares about the Spud Bowl, the Patches O'Houlihan Bowl, or the Website.com Bowl. They're watched and then quickly forgotten.

The aborted BCS run, sure. The Penn State win, sure. The Sweet 16, absolutely. But the Who Cares? Bowl? No.

Are you suggesting that while each bowl game we've been in had viewership over a million people, that it's had no impact on those watching?  That it doesn't build a public image?  Not to mention the highlights and being on the ESPN ticker for pretty much a month straight.

Ultimately, you know who won't be being seen by over a million people?  Toledo.  We have the advantage, let's take it and run with it.

 

 
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 7:04 PM
JSF wrote:expand_more
5 straight bowls, the potential for 3 straight bowl wins. That is meaningful.


"Meaningful" must have a really low bar these days. Nobody outside these message board cares about the Spud Bowl, the Patches O'Houlihan Bowl, or the Website.com Bowl. They're watched and then quickly forgotten.

The aborted BCS run, sure. The Penn State win, sure. The Sweet 16, absolutely. But the Who Cares? Bowl? No.

I don't disagree. But where do you draw the line with which bowls people care about? What makes it a bowl game no one cares about? BCS bowls aside, do these bowl names draw any more national interest than O'Brady? 
Franklin American Mortgage Music City Bowl
Bell Helicopter Armed Forces Bowl
Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl
Fight Hunger Bowl
San Diego County Credit Union Poinsettia Bowl
Chick-fil-A Bowl
Taxslayer.com Gator Bowl

My point is that most bowl names sound ludicrous (cue ludicrous speed graphic from Spaceballs). Beef Bowl is no different. But there are some teams that are/were nationally ranked in these crazy "Who Cares" bowls. Bowls are kinda like pizza. Even bad pizza is still good because its pizza (cue pizza debate in 3, 2, 1...)


 
Zaleski
General User
Z
Member Since: 8/24/2010
Location: League City, TX
Post Count: 225
person
mail
Zaleski
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 8:21 PM
Make mine pepperoni, mushroom and onion on thin crust please.
Paul Graham
General User
Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424
mail
Paul Graham
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 9:03 PM
I think there's almost no evidence that our mild athletic successes contribute anything to the university, outside of perhaps donations to the athletic department.

And tying the increases in applications to athletics is complete malarkey (erroneously reported here thepost.ohiou.edu/content/value-victory ). If you put our numbers side-by-side with Miami for 2012, we both saw major increases in applications....I don't really know why.

Not to mention that our bowl appearances have done little for recruiting. We still get the same level of athletes we got several years ago...guys with one or two other MAC offers.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 9:11 PM
OhioStunter wrote:expand_more
...I don't disagree. But where do you draw the line with which bowls people care about? What makes it a bowl game no one cares about? BCS bowls aside, do these bowl names draw any more national interest than O'Brady? ...

The answer is simple. No, most people don't care about any of these bowls, unless they are a fan of one of the specific teams. So, why do the bowls exist? The answer to that question is equally simple. There is a high demand for entertainment for people to watch during the long holiday season. The plain and simple truth is that the these bowls will all be watched because people want something to watch, and even though they could care less about the Beef O'Brady Bowl, they will watch it anyway.

Given that people will be watching (as in 1 million people), these bowls absolutely have a lot of value. How much would it cost Ohio to run a National advertisement seen by 1 million people? How much would it cost to have Ohio mentioned hundreds of times over 3 hours on National TV, with a million people watching?

It isn't rocket science. The bowl itself is meaningless. The fans like them, however, and the players, too. But, the 500 lb gorilla here is the national exposure for Ohio University, exposure that will cost the University virtually nothing, since they will hopefully lose very little on the bowl, or break even. Is it a coincidence that since Ohio has started this string of Bowl Games, both the number and quality of applications is up significantly? Is it a coincidence that Ohio's endowment is growing at a much faster pace that the national average during this same period?

Edit - OK, put Paul in the camp where those are coincidences. I disagree on the recruiting, though. Today we get mostly recruits with a couple other MAC offers. Prior to the bowl run Ohio mostly got recruits with no other offers.
Last Edited: 12/17/2013 9:13:38 PM by L.C.
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 9:33 PM
Ohio University Foundation Assets and Giving by year:
June 2005 - $182.5m
June 2006 - $218.8m $35.6m
June 2007 - $239.6m $8.2m
June 2008 - $312.2m $94.4m
June 2009 - $266.6m $23.4m
June 2010 - $324.8m $14.6m
June 2011 - $385.6m $27.7m
June 2012 - $417.4m $20.6m
June 2013 - $454.0m $13.5m

Overall this is a 12% annual growth rate for the endowment. The national average was more like 4% for this period, I believe. Maybe it's just a coincidence, of course, and certainly there were some large major gifts here (but, other schools get large gifts, too), but certainly Ohio is doing some right things to have collected $238m in gifts over the last 8 years. I personally think that success at football helps to make the alumni base feel more connected to the University, which in turn is eventually reflected in larger gifts, but I also understand that reasonable minds can differ.
Paul Graham
General User
Member Since: 1/18/2005
Location: The Plains, OH
Post Count: 1,424
mail
Paul Graham
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 10:15 PM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Edit - OK, put Paul in the camp where those are coincidences. I disagree on the recruiting, though. Today we get mostly recruits with a couple other MAC offers. Prior to the bowl run Ohio mostly got recruits with no other offers.


I think you can make a pretty strong argument for the coincidence theory...

On recruiting...Ok, we've made a little progress. But its not what we should expect in year 9 of the Solich regime. I think this year we've got at least 5 or so guys with a single D1 offer. In the past probably 2/3 would have a single offer, now its maybe 1/3? And those that do have offers don't have any worth writing home about.
OhioStunter
General User
Member Since: 2/18/2005
Location: Chicago
Post Count: 2,516
mail
OhioStunter
mail
Posted: 12/17/2013 11:25 PM
Paul Graham wrote:expand_more
I think there's almost no evidence that our mild athletic successes contribute anything to the university, outside of perhaps donations to the athletic department.

And tying the increases in applications to athletics is complete malarkey (erroneously reported here thepost.ohiou.edu/content/value-victory ). If you put our numbers side-by-side with Miami for 2012, we both saw major increases in applications....I don't really know why.

Not to mention that our bowl appearances have done little for recruiting. We still get the same level of athletes we got several years ago...guys with one or two other MAC offers.


Here is an interesting study about that: http://www.montana.edu/econ/seminar/Archive/siegfriedcollegesports%20052010.pdf

Last Edited: 12/17/2013 11:26:50 PM by OhioStunter
L.C.
General User
LC
Member Since: 9/1/2005
Post Count: 10,584
person
mail
L.C.
mail
Posted: 12/18/2013 12:40 AM
Very interesting article. Here's a fixed link for you. That article summarizes a lot of diverse studies, some showing correlations to giving, some not. There's plenty in there to support your beliefs, regardless of what your beliefs are. Pertaining to the specific discussion of the value of bowls:
Siegfried and Getz @page 6 wrote:expand_more
Regular season winning percentage was unrelated to donations for both private and public universities, but for private universities, a football bowl appearance was associated with an increase in general alumni contributions, boosting the average contribution by about 50 percent. It is possible, however, that the expansion of bowl games in the decades since Baade and Sundberg completed their study might have diminished the donations effect of bowl appearances. Basketball tournament participation did not affect donations. For state universities, whose external fund raising is generally lessthan that of privates, playing in a post-season football bowl game or the men’s basketballtournament were both associated with a statistically significant increase in contributions of about 40 percent.


Then, from their conclusions:
Siegfried and Getz wrote:expand_more
A lot of anecdotes and marketing hype are devoted to the prospect that winning university sports teams stimulate private donations to the successful schools. Systematic empirical evidence generally supports the anecdotes, although the effects appear to be small, and result primarily from the appearance of football teams in post-season bowl games.


I am left with the conclusion they hoped to prove that winning at football did not increase general giving or applications, and since they couldn't prove that, they were left debating the alternate questions "if it boosts giving, where does the money come from" and "is it a good thing".
bobcat72
General User
B72
Member Since: 7/2/2011
Location: Athens, OH
Post Count: 540
person
mail
bobcat72
mail
Posted: 12/18/2013 12:48 AM
Paul Graham wrote:expand_more
I think you can make a pretty strong argument for the coincidence theory...


It's hard to say. But to dismiss it as having no impact at all is naive. The question is more how much or to what extent.

Can you point to or cite any other factors that might be driving these increases? Why are some schools "winning" and others "losing" (in regards to enrollment, fundraising, etc.)?

For example, Bowling Green is in financial ruin and laying off 100's of employees, while we are very much in a prosperity and growth period. To say that our national exposure (and, during the same time period, their relative mediocrity in the major sports) has no impact seems silly. It's all related. For better or worse, sports are the #1 way that universities advertise themselves. That's not to say it's effective. But beyond the playing field/court...most schools do not have much of a national or regional advertising presence.
Monroe Slavin
General User
MS
Member Since: 12/21/2004
Location: Oxnard, CA
Post Count: 9,121
person
mail
Monroe Slavin
mail
Posted: 12/18/2013 1:27 AM
Let's go back to the midweek MACtion games of the last several years.

Remember when a good-sized faction here was much against those....but some of us said they were a good thing.

Remember two years ago when we were on 5 or 6 times and won almost all those games.  That was huge OHIO.  It's why I'm so peeved about the collapse during MACtion during the last two years.  If we'd've done better during MACtion, we'd've had more TV shine (mid-week....no competiiton/no other games on...no bowl competition) ...which would've led to better bowls and real national TV interest.

Why not OHIO.

It's been 44 years since our last MAC title.

IT IS TIME FOR MACC.

IT IS TIME FOR MACC.

IT IS TIME FOR MACC.

IT IS TIME FOR MACC.
Showing Messages: 1 - 25 of 49
MAC News Links



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