BGWriter wrote:You HAVE to run the academic and athletic departments separately and not link them together when making decisions.
While the BG administration apparently decided to retain Orr because of what was going on with the faculty cuts, I am willing to bet this had more to do with PERCEPTION than actual dollars. The folks at the top didn't want the additional grief from the faculty union about buying out a coaching contract at a time when faculty were being let go.
It's a ridiculous way to do business, but I'm sure that's probably how things went down.
The fact is this: the decision to trim faculty and staff has to be made based on the reality of what is happening with students coming to BG. Why are they coming? What are they choosing to study? What areas need to be strengthened, and which are not as relevant to keeping the faculty both relevant to what today's students want and what the university can afford?
All of those things should be the primary considerations that go into decisions on whether you keep faculty in certain areas and how much you pay them. In other words, the university is making an investment in those areas of study that they expect to get a strong return in the way of tuition dollars. I know there are faculty in some areas of study that believe you have to keep their fields, even if few are studying them, because they are a part of a broad-based education, but if times are tough, then sometimes tough decisions have to be made.
At the same time, you need to separate what's happening in the athletic programs to understand that money paid to coaches is an investment. If the coach is successful, you will get a return on that investment that more than covers the costs in the way of dollars from gate receipts, parking, concessions, school-related attire, TV revenues (if the program is stronger, it will be more in demand) and tournament/bowl appearances. The final return (which is harder to gauge in dollars...is exposure to potential students.)
When a coach is failing over a long period of time as Orr was, continuing to extend him is like throwing all that money down the toilet. You are not getting anywhere close to even the minimum return on your investment.
All those empty seats at the Stroh are lost income, but not just from gate receipts; from the$5-$20 that person didn't spend on refreshments, the $5 they may have spent on parking; and the $25 they might have paid for a new sweatshirt for their child because they happened to see it in a gift shop at halftime. Multiply that person's experience by several thousand, and you are looking at some real dollars (as they say).
If BG's program continues to founder, it's less likely to be selected by the television folks to be seen, which means less exposure for the university overall. Where if the school is doing well, people see the school and might become fans who buy gear -- or young people looking at schools might find themselves intrigued with the university and start researching it as a possibility of where to attend college after high school.
You may not think sporting events play any role in attracting students to a school, but you'd be very wrong. When I was deciding where to attend college, I scheduled my visits to several of my choices to coincide with football games on those days. It allowed me and my parents an opportunity to walk around, see the campus and interact with students and others, and get a feel for what it was like. We also got had a chance to talk with people around us at the game, including students, and ask questions about the university.
BG was easily the most friendly of the campuses we visited, and the students went out of their way to show us around and answer questions that day. In the stadium, they were just as friendly when talking about their team or the band, or the classes they were taking.
So out of Miami, OU, Kent and BG, it was an easy decision for me. Since all were an academic fit about equally, it really came down to which one I liked the best -- and it was by attending a sporting event that helped seal the deal.
1. Students at a school with a lousy sports programs become dis-identified and unattached alumni that will participate and contribute less with the universityh. So, BGWriter, along with the short-term losses, we incur future losses which, although hard to quantify, are very real. The utter apathy of current BG alumni towards the program demonstrates this point. This apathy is based on the state of the program when they were at the school. Further, when BG hoops gets strong, those alumni won't support at the same level that they would if the program was strong when they were actually there. They've already moved on to support OSU or to generally not care.
2. The sports offerings are part of the university experience for students. How much more FUN to be a student when there is school spirit, when the student body gets together and goes nuts on game days.
