http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-3...verse.html

These students have a choice to attend a university without sports.

I thought only the Enquirer ran such stories that try to tear down UC! Just kidding.

Fortunately it's only City Beat and only the anti-sports super-Hipsters in Northside will read this.

Citybeat makes me long for Everbody's News days.

Citybeat reads like a middle school project full of tween angst.

"Robin Hood in Reverse
How universities force working-class students to pay thousands of dollars in marketing fees to universities looking to raise enrollment for the benefit of the students themselves"

Oh wait, that doesn't sound quite as sexy.

These kids have a lot to learn. I don't think these writers understand how business works.

This read like a slob piece for Ohio State as well. They do realize that the only reason OSU is able to do the things they are is because they put the investment in earlier right? Because they are reaping the rewards in terms of cash generated by the athletic department now for investment they put in before. They have a brand they worked a heck of a long time to create.

This is like CityBeat publishing an article "How a local startup force working-class people to pay a high percentage markup of their product to a business awash in red ink"

You only get to spend money like OSU does after you grow your university to that level. That's why schools spend money on athletics the way they do. English majors who haven't ever worked in any type of business (large or small) have no perspective on why these administrators spend money on the school. Do they go overboard on some things? Sure. Is there some element of corruption? I'm sure there is. But the strategy itself isn't a bad one, and the investigative students who put the piece together have no idea what they are talking about.

As for the students they interviewed, I'll forgive them for being naive, but they have a lot to learn. If they aren't ok with larger marketing, sports marketing, and administrative expenses, they could have gone to a school where that doesn't exist. If you think schools are hiding the large amount they spend of athletics, then you are very naive.

As for UC, its ironic they didn't talk about how all this investment into sports and the campus itself has brought back INCREDIBLE dividends as the school ascends to never seen heights, both in terms of enrollment and academics. All this started with the investment into the campus in the late 90s to mid 2000s. I don't think it's a coincidence the school's real breakthrough came after their entry into the Big East. Funny how they neglected to mention that in this novel of an investigative article which missed the point they were trying to achieve remarkably.

My comments left on the article....

A few notes. I am a UC alum and now live in California. The truth of the matter is that, on a national level, I truly believe that the athletic success of UC over the past 6-7 years has made my resume more valuable. You can’t understate the value of someone simply knowing about your university, let alone knowing that your university competes at the highest level of sports (BCS bowls, etc.). It adds much more credibility in their mind and people typically equate good athletics with good educational programs (whether they realize it and even whether it’s true or not). Now imagine that these same people are hiring managers who now have a connection to your educational background that may not have existed otherwise.

Secondly, I realize that this article mentions a number of Ohio schools, but it seems to be unjustly focused on UC. The authors’ data and even arguments themselves seem to suggest it is a higher-education problem that you are identifying, yet the authors really go out of the way to attack UC over and over. I think your data analysis and commenting about athletic subsidy increases is deceptive. You state that UC had the highest percentage increase out of 98 FBS public schools. Okay, fair enough. Yet, the data you provided clearly shows that UC was under-subsidizing athletics, when compared to other Ohio schools, by nearly 1/2 or 1/3. UC’s 2014 numbers are much closer to all the other schools than what they were in 2005. On top of that, where is the data for the other 98-8=90 public FBS schools so that we can compare actual subsidy values? I believe that this full enclosure of data may tell a different story than the percentage increase story, especially when compared to the other Ohio schools…which brings me to the last point.

OSU is obviously disqualified from the statements I am about to make b/c they are one of the few rare cases, as your article points out, that generates actual profit; that aside, none of these other programs compete at the same overall level as UC has, having been to multiple NCAA tournaments in consecutive years and 2 BCS bowls in this time-span. If I’m not mistaken, 2005 was the year UC joined the Big East…of course it is going to cost more money to compete at a higher level; the hope is that the investment in athletics will return to the university.

Finally, this entire article might hold a lot more weight if the academic endeavors of the university were being neglected at the sake of athletics. However, this simply can’t be proven to be true. Sure, you can always make an argument that you could make more scholarships or pay more faculty with funds going to athletics. But, UC has many top and nationally recognized programs, has an increasingly-respected research profile and a campus that is routinely listed as one of the most beautiful in the country, predominantly for its architecture, which is predominantly a tribute to the non-athletic buildings. And if that weren’t enough, UC recently was ranked #1 for return on investment (ROI) by Policy Mic (you’ll find similar rankings from other sources).

(05-06-2015 03:35 PM)DannyG203 Wrote:  My comments left on the article....

A few notes. I am a UC alum and now live in California. The truth of the matter is that, on a national level, I truly believe that the athletic success of UC over the past 6-7 years has made my resume more valuable. You can’t understate the value of someone simply knowing about your university, let alone knowing that your university competes at the highest level of sports (BCS bowls, etc.). It adds much more credibility in their mind and people typically equate good athletics with good educational programs (whether they realize it and even whether it’s true or not). Now imagine that these same people are hiring managers who now have a connection to your educational background that may not have existed otherwise.

Secondly, I realize that this article mentions a number of Ohio schools, but it seems to be unjustly focused on UC. The authors’ data and even arguments themselves seem to suggest it is a higher-education problem that you are identifying, yet the authors really go out of the way to attack UC over and over. I think your data analysis and commenting about athletic subsidy increases is deceptive. You state that UC had the highest percentage increase out of 98 FBS public schools. Okay, fair enough. Yet, the data you provided clearly shows that UC was under-subsidizing athletics, when compared to other Ohio schools, by nearly 1/2 or 1/3. UC’s 2014 numbers are much closer to all the other schools than what they were in 2005. On top of that, where is the data for the other 98-8=90 public FBS schools so that we can compare actual subsidy values? I believe that this full enclosure of data may tell a different story than the percentage increase story, especially when compared to the other Ohio schools…which brings me to the last point.

OSU is obviously disqualified from the statements I am about to make b/c they are one of the few rare cases, as your article points out, that generates actual profit; that aside, none of these other programs compete at the same overall level as UC has, having been to multiple NCAA tournaments in consecutive years and 2 BCS bowls in this time-span. If I’m not mistaken, 2005 was the year UC joined the Big East…of course it is going to cost more money to compete at a higher level; the hope is that the investment in athletics will return to the university.

Finally, this entire article might hold a lot more weight if the academic endeavors of the university were being neglected at the sake of athletics. However, this simply can’t be proven to be true. Sure, you can always make an argument that you could make more scholarships or pay more faculty with funds going to athletics. But, UC has many top and nationally recognized programs, has an increasingly-respected research profile and a campus that is routinely listed as one of the most beautiful in the country, predominantly for its architecture, which is predominantly a tribute to the non-athletic buildings. And if that weren’t enough, UC recently was ranked #1 for return on investment (ROI) by Policy Mic (you’ll find similar rankings from other sources).

Excellent response!

I suspect the real theft is the money these students are paying for a journalism degree. Not a very good ROI on that $.

This could be referred to as a marketing fee and I think getting UCs name out in a positive light is valuable. At least UCs marketing is paying off versus the funding Miami is throwing down a rat hole for their programs.

Comparing UC to OSU is never going to easy. OSU is an impressive organization and they used skill, luck, and planning to set themselves up quite well. I don't care for OSU athletics but I can admit it is a well oiled machine. Still, the faculty at OSU dislikes the athletic department just as much as at any other university. Regardless of where the money comes from everyone thinks football gets too much and their department deserves more.

I can't say I disagree with the author. Students should not have to be forced to pick up the some of the bill of the athletic dept. Either they stand on their own two feet, or take a step back.

That being said, taxpayer $$ should not have been used to re-do OSU's stadium. That should have been done with private donations.

The entire college athletics is on its ear right now. All of the P5, haves and have nots.
Destroying rivalries and conferences for a few extra dollars. I know, its only going to get worse.

City Beat......LOL

How much less money to you suppose would be donated to the University if the athletic department is dissolved or just plain falls into irrelevance. Bet it is less than that subsidy amount.

I read about two sentences of this nonsense. The bottom line is if thy feel they are getting ripped off the. I would recommend these crybaby one arts majors take their business else where.

I bet they fail to mention all of the students that come to the school because they recognize the basketball and football teams. Take sports away and you can about half of the students and probably even more.

Here's an idea, let's just cut all of the sports that don't make any money (aka women's)

Remember prez Ono saying the success of sports has helped drive record apps and better apps for bigger and better classes. Athletics are very important for colleges to market themselves. As has been stated, the university loves those Thursday night games because it is a 4 hour marketing pitch for your school.

Can't wait for Selection Sunday..who do you think gets in
University of Phoenix? Devry? Liberty?..ohhh those are
colleges without classrooms,,oh,,and no athletics,,

Job Interviewer .. "Oh Tommy, I see where you "attended" University of Phoenix, Gets hot out there in the summer I bet,what's their team colors??? Oh,,that online college.

"Wasn't there a U of P college at the strip mall??? " Yea, but they
closed down 3 years ago, and now the closest one is in Peoria.

One word that I've never seen associated with Online Colleges,,

Endowment

Odd article. UC is always in a dahmed if you do dahmed if you don't position.

We always hear how UC does not support it's athletic teams enough financially. They get dumped on. When UC is doing something, such as building facilities to compete or pull funding from the student body, which 95% of the Universities do, they are ripped for it.

The article is nothing new. I knew there was a small portion of my tuition going to the athletic department. It is called reading the fine print. Did anyone really think those fball/bball tics were really complimentary? Some schools, such as osu, have forced students to pay.

Just another trash piece courtesy of the Cincy Media.

(05-06-2015 05:48 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  How much less money to you suppose would be donated to the University if the athletic department is dissolved or just plain falls into irrelevance. Bet it is less than that subsidy amount.

This is the real point that needs to be made. Athletics drives donations. Period.

(05-07-2015 03:00 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  Odd article. UC is always in a dahmed if you do dahmed if you don't position.

We always hear how UC does not support it's athletic teams enough financially. They get dumped on. When UC is doing something, such as building facilities to compete or pull funding from the student body, which 95% of the Universities do, they are ripped for it.

The article is nothing new. I knew there was a small portion of my tuition going to the athletic department. It is called reading the fine print. Did anyone really think those fball/bball tics were really complimentary? Some schools, such as osu, have forced students to pay.

Just another trash piece courtesy of the Cincy Media.

Calling "City Beat" the media is like calling Miller Lite a craft beer

City Beat blows goats. You have to sort through 20 pages of sophomoric opinion rants against all things suburban, white, non-leftist, and God forbid religious to get to the 2 pages of music and arts info that is actually news.

Why does it feel like every time I read a CityBeat article I picture the author as a poorly educated SCPA grad or just a plain old high school dropout?

Yep...who think Doonsberry is still high comedy and who carry a european men's handbag...it's not a purse, damnit.