No Change Must = Lost Revenue

[Warthog]

Great post hammb.

And along those lines, hasn't it been proven that a successful football/basketball program leads to increases in enrollment? Again, the increase in revenue from 1,000 addtional students wouldnt be beneficial to the University as a whole?

[PGY Tiercel]

See the thing is I think any faculty that would oppose a buyout of Orr are doing so short-sightedly. I don't at ALL think buying out this coach is a negative revenue move. Quite the contrary. We are losing money on hoops left and right, getting rid of him to re-energize the fanbase and hopefully start winning is the only thing that can help temper those losses.

When you start talking about academics vs athletics you're doing so on a grand scale. I have no problem with that discussion. As much as I love BG sports, and it pretty much is my only remaining connection to the university, I can fully understand an argument to drop athletics. The student fees that go to subsidize athletics at the MAC level are insanely high, it's VERY rare that our teams make any sort of national headlines, and it's been shown over and over again that the university students/alumni/locals just don't support the teams that well. I could easily make a case for dropping sports as a whole, and while it would disappoint me as a fan, I would see why it makes fiscal sense for the university.

But that's not the argument we're having. BG has, to my knowledge, never entertained the idea of dropping from D1 status and giving up it's athletic department. In that vein if you're going to maintain athletics you should commit to excellence. Buying out Orr's contract would pay for itself by next year if you bring in the right coach. The endowments that have gone to the hoops program in recent years should easily be enough to not only buy out Orr, but also invest in a REAL coach. None of this $170k BS. Go out, spend half a mill and get a REAL coach. With our paltry attendance numbers it won't take long for a winning program to start making all that money back. We have a great arena that sits mostly empty because the product on the court is crap. Making an initial financial investment in the program now should draw huge returns down the line that, in the end, make the athletic department LESS of a drain on academics.

And again, I beg to know, why in god's name would you commit to a multi million dollar facility and not be willing to pay $170k to start winning!?

My main criticism isn't against a buyout-its against the negative attacks against university faculty that aggravate me.

I really don't disagree with much of what you said. I do think that paragraph 2, is why even if BG spends the money on a coach, the athletic dept. will never become self supporting, and will keep charging the general student population and will hamper the universities budget. If BGSU athletics made money and was able to give some back the main campus I would feel different.

[Globetrotter]

I wouldnt have even considered BG if it didn't have D1 basketball or football. Wouldn't have even been considered. I may be different then most people but to me D1 football and basketball are what keep bg from being Cleveland State.

[zete]

O what the heck, it's only one more year.

[hammb]

See the thing is I think any faculty that would oppose a buyout of Orr are doing so short-sightedly. I don't at ALL think buying out this coach is a negative revenue move. Quite the contrary. We are losing money on hoops left and right, getting rid of him to re-energize the fanbase and hopefully start winning is the only thing that can help temper those losses.

When you start talking about academics vs athletics you're doing so on a grand scale. I have no problem with that discussion. As much as I love BG sports, and it pretty much is my only remaining connection to the university, I can fully understand an argument to drop athletics. The student fees that go to subsidize athletics at the MAC level are insanely high, it's VERY rare that our teams make any sort of national headlines, and it's been shown over and over again that the university students/alumni/locals just don't support the teams that well. I could easily make a case for dropping sports as a whole, and while it would disappoint me as a fan, I would see why it makes fiscal sense for the university.

But that's not the argument we're having. BG has, to my knowledge, never entertained the idea of dropping from D1 status and giving up it's athletic department. In that vein if you're going to maintain athletics you should commit to excellence. Buying out Orr's contract would pay for itself by next year if you bring in the right coach. The endowments that have gone to the hoops program in recent years should easily be enough to not only buy out Orr, but also invest in a REAL coach. None of this $170k BS. Go out, spend half a mill and get a REAL coach. With our paltry attendance numbers it won't take long for a winning program to start making all that money back. We have a great arena that sits mostly empty because the product on the court is crap. Making an initial financial investment in the program now should draw huge returns down the line that, in the end, make the athletic department LESS of a drain on academics.

And again, I beg to know, why in god's name would you commit to a multi million dollar facility and not be willing to pay $170k to start winning!?

My main criticism isn't against a buyout-its against the negative attacks against university faculty that aggravate me.

I really don't disagree with much of what you said. I do think that paragraph 2, is why even if BG spends the money on a coach, the athletic dept. will never become self supporting, and will keep charging the general student population and will hamper the universities budget. If BGSU athletics made money and was able to give some back the main campus I would feel different.

Well if I have attacked the faculty, I apologize to them. I have no issues with the faculty. Without them the education we all received wouldn't have been possible. I think, however, when it comes to athletics many of them are as jaded as many people here are towards the faculty. In the end I think it's best for the university to continue investing in both academics AND athletics.

As for the 2nd paragraph, I'm in agreement with you. Athletics at the MAC level will NEVER be even close to self sustaining...and it is really quite mindblowing how much money is going from general student fees directly to the athletic department. Obviously, though, students know this and they still choose BG. As others have stated if athletics goes away it's going to severely hamper both enrollment and alumni giving. There is a case to be made either way with regards to athletics as a whole.

My point is simply if you're investing in athletics, which we are, then you should invest enough to build a winner. IT doesn't take THAT much money to buy out Orr and attempt to compete in the MAC. Doing so would pay for itself very quickly, IMO.

[Globetrotter]

http://www.toledoblade.com/DaveHackenbe ... n-Orr.html

Interesting article. This all reminds me of when baseball had a strike year and the question was, "will the fans come back?"