Hey UMass fans, what are your thoughts on this? Your Chancellor stressing unity amongst the Faculty Senate with football independence on the horizon, and your AD is a candidate for the same position at UC Santa Barbara.

http://dailycollegian.com/2014/12/11/uma...ous-motion


The summary: Chancellor Kumble Subbaswamy is a supporter of UMass playing FBS football, and did not like a proposed motion which would have polled the university's entire faculty about their opinion of being in the FBS ranks. He asked the Faculty Senate to reject the motion and refrain from creating an image of chancellor vs faculty for the national media, which they ultimately did. Chancellor Subbaswamy also said the poll would not have swayed his opinion one way or the other, and that the decision to move up was his alone.

“Do you want to make your chancellor, who is working so hard to make this campus a top-20 academically recognized campus, into someone who is in a war with his own faculty?” he said.

“Is that an accurate depiction? That is what the (Boston) Globe will write, which is what The Republican will write, which is what everyone will write because, of course, they are hungry for these stories. Do you really want that to be the story for the next six months? That’s your call.”

What got my attention was this little blurb from history professor Max Page, who didn't like the FBS move. He used my alma mater UC Santa Barbara as an example of whose book they should take a page out of:

He cited University of California Santa Barbara, a school with no football program and highly rated academics, as a preferred model that UMass should follow. Current UMass Athletic Director John McCutcheon recently interviewed with UCSB for its vacant athletic director opening.

Page said if UCSB is good enough for McCutcheon, it should be good enough for UMass.

As flattered as I am to see that we are respected by an academic peer such as UMass, I'm not sure our athletics model is exactly the best one considering our basketball history.

When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

There are a handful of loud professors led by this ******* Max Page, who have ZERO power in athletic decisions.

So what do they do? They cry and cry to the media and try to cause as much trouble as they can while having ZERO real power.

Max Page is an idiot. He's an Architecture History professor who hates sports.

Max Page doesn't realize where he is teaching. We aren't UCSB, we're the flagship university of Massachusetts. No one gives a crap what his personal "preferred model for UMass" is. HE HAS NO POWER. He's a sad little professor who likes to take trips to Europe (on the schools dime) to stare at old buildings.

Don't listen to a word this dumb*** Max Page has to say.

So proud that Chancellor Subbaswamy stood up to this idiot Page. Page deserved to be dressed down in front of the rest of the faculty senate.

UMass administrators and officials are 100% Supportive of the move to FBS.

Quote:“The university, in the way it operates, isn’t focused on making a profit for any of its operations,” said Ed Blaguszewski, a university spokesman.

Always remember. The faculty can make recommendations, but they have ZERO power in athletic decisions.

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

The only people who don't like FBS football at UMass are a handful of elitist professors and the Boston Globe reporters. They can be loud, but they have ZERO power over athletic decisions.

The administrators and officials at UMass are 100% supportive of FBS football.

(12-13-2014 09:56 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

The only people who don't like FBS football at UMass are a handful of elitist professors and the Boston Globe reporters. They can be loud, but they have ZERO power over athletic decisions.

The administrators and officials at UMass are 100% supportive of FBS football.

That's good to know... Any idea if an OCS is under review?!?

The motion of polling is just going to be a reality check for UMass. Nothing bad about it. We can't not go away with the support from faculty.

But UMass has a long way to go. Such a great school with so much potential.

(12-13-2014 09:56 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

The only people who don't like FBS football at UMass are a handful of elitist professors and the Boston Globe reporters. They can be loud, but they have ZERO power over athletic decisions.

The administrators and officials at UMass are 100% supportive of FBS football.

That's not entirely true. Faculty can cause a lot of headaches for the administrators. Faculty have tenure and can pretty much do whatever they want. They can refuse to do a lot of the things the administration wants them to, and make life very difficult for the admins. If the faculty are united they can easily kick out a school's president/chancelor.

That actually happened at my undergrad institution (Case Western) while I was there. As soon as the faculty senate passed a vote of no confidence in the president, the president stepped down. He didn't have to, but he knew that he had little real power left to accomplish his goals for the university.

The question is if the faculty at UMASS are really united on this issue. Clearly the result of the vote shows that they aren't.

The University of Massachusetts has 72,000 students system wide. Think about that for a second.

Of course UMass should be playing FBS football. Ultimately they'll find a spot in the AAC which is evolving toward a group of large East Coast public universities (Cincinnati, Temple, ECU, USF, USF). They belong in with those schools and not the smaller publics of the CAA.

The UCSB situation is not comparable to UMass.

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

That's because you were joining a BCS conference that you were a charter member of. Nothing controversial about the move athletically.

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

Yup, you are correct about the Rutgers issue. It's amazing how such scholarly, well-studied, supposedly intelligent people would be so short sighted and lacking in understanding of basic economics.

(12-13-2014 11:43 AM)AntiG Wrote:  It's amazing how such scholarly, well-studied, supposedly intelligent people would be so short sighted and lacking in understanding of basic economics.

Actually the more I watch "respected economists" and the more I read from "experts," on a variety of subjects, it doesn't surprise me at all.

(12-13-2014 11:43 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

Yup, you are correct about the Rutgers issue. It's amazing how such scholarly, well-studied, supposedly intelligent people would be so short sighted and lacking in understanding of basic economics.

They are making 70,000 a year as a full professor PhD teaching liberal arts to 18 and 19 year olds.

If they were that smart they wouldn't be doing it.

(12-13-2014 11:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 11:43 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

Yup, you are correct about the Rutgers issue. It's amazing how such scholarly, well-studied, supposedly intelligent people would be so short sighted and lacking in understanding of basic economics.

They are making 70,000 a year as a full professor PhD teaching liberal arts to 18 and 19 year olds.

If they were that smart they wouldn't be doing it.

Being a tenured faculty is the easiest job in the world. Also you have 3 months vacation, great benefits, and you can't be fired. So there's that upside.

But you're right, if they were really that smart they'd be in the engineering or hard sciences and earning a salary that's worth the time they spent getting that degree. Or if they were really savvy they'd get a job in the business school and pull in some real dough. Starting salaries for freshly minted business PhDs are 90-120k for most disciplines, 140-190k for accounting and finance. Plus a lot of schools add a 22.22% bonus that they call "summer support" if you're doing research.

I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.


That's too bad about the Boston newspapers. Life is tough enough in FBS without backstabbing local
media.

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.

Have you seen some of the dinky stadium capacities across the AAC?

Football stadium size obviously is not a requirement.

(12-13-2014 12:31 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 11:50 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 11:43 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

Yup, you are correct about the Rutgers issue. It's amazing how such scholarly, well-studied, supposedly intelligent people would be so short sighted and lacking in understanding of basic economics.

They are making 70,000 a year as a full professor PhD teaching liberal arts to 18 and 19 year olds.

If they were that smart they wouldn't be doing it.

Being a tenured faculty is the easiest job in the world. Also you have 3 months vacation, great benefits, and you can't be fired. So there's that upside.

But you're right, if they were really that smart they'd be in the engineering or hard sciences and earning a salary that's worth the time they spent getting that degree. Or if they were really savvy they'd get a job in the business school and pull in some real dough. Starting salaries for freshly minted business PhDs are 90-120k for most disciplines, 140-190k for accounting and finance. Plus a lot of schools add a 22.22% bonus that they call "summer support" if you're doing research.

Are you talking about teaching at a business school or in private industry?

My faculty director used to ***** about the salary he could be making if he was teaching business at NYU or another larger school. Said he could be making "100k" teaching business.

This thread is full of idiocy.

I fully expect to get troll-rated for it, but it's the truth.

(12-13-2014 11:13 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 09:56 AM)EmeryZach Wrote:  

(12-13-2014 08:36 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  When UConn decided to move up 15-20 years ago, it was almost unanimous. The entire state was behind it.

UMass hasn't been as fortunate. Like Rutgers, many faculty members would rather see the money go to women's studies programs and classes on white privilege.

The only people who don't like FBS football at UMass are a handful of elitist professors and the Boston Globe reporters. They can be loud, but they have ZERO power over athletic decisions.

The administrators and officials at UMass are 100% supportive of FBS football.

That's not entirely true. Faculty can cause a lot of headaches for the administrators. Faculty have tenure and can pretty much do whatever they want. They can refuse to do a lot of the things the administration wants them to, and make life very difficult for the admins. If the faculty are united they can easily kick out a school's president/chancelor.

That actually happened at my undergrad institution (Case Western) while I was there. As soon as the faculty senate passed a vote of no confidence in the president, the president stepped down. He didn't have to, but he knew that he had little real power left to accomplish his goals for the university.

The question is if the faculty at UMASS are really united on this issue. Clearly the result of the vote shows that they aren't.

No, it's entirely true that the faculty at UMass have ZERO power over athletic decisions. They have NO vote. That's the rules.

They have power over academic issues, but ZERO power over athletic issues.

All they can do is make recommendations. And our Chancellor just told them he doesn't care what their recommendation about the football program is.

Our administration is 100% supportive of the football program.

(12-13-2014 01:09 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I can see UMass in the AAC someday. They have work to do. For example, it's my understanding the FB stadium is being upgraded to hold 25,000. I'm just a fan and have zero inside info, but I think the AAC may want something bigger than that.


That's too bad about the Boston newspapers. Life is tough enough in FBS without backstabbing local
media.

It's just the Globe. The Herald is fair to UMass, but the Globe has hated UMass since the Calipari days. The Globe is a biased Boston College paper.

Im skeptical of FBS UMass, but UCSB? Not Suny-stony brook or cornell? Fail.