factman wrote:For those of you that don't know, Kent puts about $4 million more yearly into the athletic programs than BGSU does.
That's stunning, and if it didn't come from factman, I'd doubt its authenticity. How does this even happen? Isn't Kent supposed to be our "sister school" in the state university system? Apparently our sister has gone on a wild shopping spree at Macy's while we're at the Dollar Store.
This goes well beyond $100 Falcon Club memberships. Whoever is responsible for funneling dollars into the athletic operating budget--whether it's Whipple, Ribeau or the Board of Trustees--needs to get on the ball and take immediate action.
I think that it is unfair that any of you are comparing BGSU to Kent State.... Check the enrollments of the two schools BGSU has roughly 20,000 students while Kent State (including branch campuses) has over 30,000 students. For those of you ripping the administration I think that you need to think what 10,000 more student can do for an athletic budget. I am not saying that BGSU has completely stayed on top of facility needs, however the comparison is not fair... It hurts my heart to say this but a better budgetary comparsion might be Youngstown State.
Evidently the athletic department did a "survey" of the other MAC schools concerning athletic department budgets etc, and that was one of the more disturbing to me. Kent is normally very competitive in everything except football, and that seems to be improving lately. You can do a LOT with an additional $4 million in your budget, including "taking care of what you have" and not having to go out and raise money for every little project!
I'm with factman, if we're going to benchmark our ath;etics budget to Youngstown State as was suggested, we might just as well leave the MAC and join the Gateway Conference.
If we're committed to staying in the MAC, we need to fund the department so it can compete in the MAC. The prevailing wisdom right now seems to be geared towards the athletic department finding revenue streams independent of the Univeristy. I think that's a fine idea and a necessary step, but it cannot be a substitute for the appropriate funding from the University. Outside revnue needs to enhance the budget, not become its foundation.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
I am not suggesting that we go into the Gateway Conference or drop out of Divison 1 sports. All I am really saying is the insitution is in a no win siutation. They have the budget of all D1AA school.... but have the expectation of a D1 school. The fact of the matter is any project is going to take major alumni support and without it nothing with be accomplished ( the budget will never allow for it)..... I will suggest to all of you that we are also lucky that SIDNEY has backed the athletic department and we should pray the next president does as well. From a Higher Education Administration view point there are some major projects that need to be attended to on the academic side before athletic sees another dime... I am as big a supporter of BGSU athletics as you will find, but to suggest that the administration is doing its best is crazy.... especially considering SEBO, Field Turf, and soon to be CONVO center
( it will happen in the next 5 years) that will be SIDNEY's swan song I would say we are going pretty good, and some might not like this but I am telling you if the alumni do not heavily support the CONVO Center for Basketball and Hockey the administration will have to take a very good look at wether hockey is really worth keeping around.
The SEBO center was almost entirely built with private money. The university has "loaned" the department the $$ for the turf even though I'm almost certain that having a playable field is a requiremnt of football at any level. The AD is being asked to go "off books" to find the money to fulfill the most basic requiremnt of the game...I have to question if that's a sign that the University is really supporting athletics as it should.
So far as hockey goes...cut hockey and you will see a shitstorm of biblical proportions visited on the University. Hockey is the ONLY sport that seems to have engender support form the town as a whole and it is the ONLY sport with followers that could be described as rabid, if not enthusiastic. Cut Hockey and they will make it rain toads or locusts or something like that.
It's not the fall that hurts...it's when you hit the ground.
I guess the point is, if we were $4m behind Miami, that would be one thing. But we are $4m behind Kent.
It is depressing. However, the University is a University, and finances are really tight on the academic side. Do we really want to remove $4m from academic support to have a better athletics program? Especially if that impacts tuition?
The administration has a tougher job on its hands than we might imagine, and these are tough calls to make.
As was stated in the hockey thread a few months ago, I think we're fighting an uphill battle trying to fund a D1A football team & a D1 Hockey team.
Personally, I'd cut hockey in a heartbeat to make a better football & basketball program, but I am SERIOUSLY in the minority on that issue.
As Flipper mentioned there are a number of alumni who would cease their donations altogether if we cut hockey. There are a lot of people in BG that are die hard hockey fans and not much else. There are tough decisions to be made.
hammb wrote:Personally, I'd cut hockey in a heartbeat to make a better football & basketball program, but I am SERIOUSLY in the minority on that issue.
I'm with ya hammb.
Or are you just trying to stir the pot on a Friday afternoon again?
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
hammb wrote:As Flipper mentioned there are a number of alumni who would cease their donations altogether if we cut hockey.
I understand that point. But wouldn't it be interesting to see how much donations would increase if we were fielding a top-flite football/basketball program year in and year out?
This is just an idle thought, not an argument, but do you think Bob Sebo would have made a $4,000,000 donation if Urban Meyer hadn't revitalized the football program? If the program had the commitment and performed at that level consistently, don't you think the increase in donations from those backing football would more then offset the donations lost from those backing hockey? Just in sheer numbers, the quantity of football fans far exceeds the quantity of hockey fans.
"An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools."
- Ernest Hemingway
hammb wrote:As Flipper mentioned there are a number of alumni who would cease their donations altogether if we cut hockey.
I understand that point. But wouldn't it be interesting to see how much donations would increase if we were fielding a top-flite football/basketball program year in and year out?
This is just an idle thought, not an argument, but do you think Bob Sebo would have made a $4,000,000 donation if Urban Meyer hadn't revitalized the football program? If the program had the commitment and performed at that level consistently, don't you think the increase in donations from those backing football would more then offset the donations lost from those backing hockey? Just in sheer numbers, the quantity of football fans far exceeds the quantity of hockey fans.
It's pure speculation on my part, but I'm betting cutting hockey would result in a net profit right at the beginning. Yes, we lose a lot of donations, but you cannot tell me that the hockey program is running at a profit.
No, I'm not trying to stir the pot, in fact I don't want to get back into this. It was an argument that could not be argued on this board from factual evidence. It ties too closely to the emotions of way too many people.
I do concur with your thoughts RE: SEBO. There is no way Bob Sebo is pledging $4 million to the program if it was still in it's late Blackney era situation.
Yeah but if we can be pretty successful (ESPN Gameday, Bowl Games, Women's Sweet 16, MAC Soccer Champs, baseball competative program etc.) why should we spend more money?
I"m not saying those are my thoughts, but in working in sports with bottom-line minded people I can see where that might be the mentality. We've shown we can win, be successful, and all at a bargain basement price.
This is just an idle thought, not an argument, but do you think Bob Sebo would have made a $4,000,000 donation if Urban Meyer hadn't revitalized the football program? If the program had the commitment and performed at that level consistently, don't you think the increase in donations from those backing football would more then offset the donations lost from those backing hockey? Just in sheer numbers, the quantity of football fans far exceeds the quantity of hockey fans.[/quote]
But the number of hockey fans destroys the number of basketball fans. And hockey is the most traditioned sport at this school. Heck its one of the reason I even knew what Bowling Green was because it produced players like Rob Blake and Brian Holzinger.
hammb wrote:
As Flipper mentioned there are a number of alumni who would cease their donations altogether if we cut hockey. There are a lot of people in BG that are die hard hockey fans and not much else. There are tough decisions to be made.
I posted the question concerning the hockey situation on ask the AD. What was NOT included in the question that they put up there (they edited it out) was my statement that if hockey was cut so would my support of the university. I'm not the only one that feels this way.
What many of you don't understand is that there are a large number of current and past pro hockey players that have come through this system. If the unversity could find a way to tap into that resource the benefits could be huge and the program could support itself. Thus far, they've failed to do that and I'm not sure why. The university also took away one of the biggest fundraisers for the program with the bunching of all of the golf outings together. I understand their reasoning but many of the donations for that outing came from former players and supporters of the program, and not as much from the local businesses. It was the single largest fund raiser for the program and a large number of former players attend it, putting quite a bit of $ back into the program. Taking that away is not the right move to support this program IMHO.
