RE: A stinging piece about CSU's WBB coach 0-24
I'd fire them when convenient, meaning when the cost is low. CSU has no money to pay severance. WBB is no value, so I'd let the contract run out. Of course CSU is known for bad hires, and also in the academic side, arbitrary fires that get them dragged into court. So they might fire her with a $1m severance based on past moves - par for the course.
Chicago State Should drop athletics completely, save all the money. But if they insist on having sports, they should play at the level they are actually funding, which is NAIA. I don't like liars and hypocrites. Officially Chicago State claims a budget of $5.8m which would barely be minimum for the WAC. The WAC gave much lower numbers to the NYT, closer to $2.6m, which was more or less confirmed by CSU Athletic staff.
To support D-I on say a reasonable cost of $500 per student for a $6m minimum budget (that is no frills) requires an enrollment of 12,000. You can increase the subsidy to a very high figure, say $1000 per student, and make it work for a student body of 6,000. But lets get real SoCalBob, there are not 3,000 students just waiting for a Chicago State to get a budget to enroll, even to meet that low number. Except for Governors State, the Illinois system is seeing declining enrollment everywhere, and has for a few years. It's not all budgetary, much of that is demographic.
But let's say a budget did get in place, and taxes are raised some and some programs axed completely to cover the increased expenditures in high need areas. How will that affect Chicago State's enrollment? The answer is very little in the short term. The rebuilding process will take years. Chicago State wont get that higher attendance necessary to support D-I athletics until well into the next decade. And that is if reforms actually take place at the school to fix the academic and more importantly administrative issues, and a flood of money is given to them to fix all the facility issues (that $59m backlog). Building trust is not a quick thing, and asking people to commit 4 or 5 years of their lives to your institution is a major rebuild of trust.
The JCC is separate issue. And I said so; only your dim witted mind conflated it with maintenance backlog. It is a money pit for the school, expensive to operate, never filled for any school event save convocation (lease agreement would allow a few use dates free). So why not lease it to make money from the JCC instead of lose money? The older gym they have is more than sufficient for the size of crowds they draw for games, and much cheaper to operate. So absolutely, make a move that improves the cash flow.
The maintenance backlog is more related to rebuilding the school to be an attractive place for students to want to attend. It will be a sunk cost. Separate issue. But perhaps related in that the extra money from leasing the JCC would allow you to perform some additional maintenance on campus elsewhere.
But my biggest issue with you is that you seem to think schools exist for athletic teams. Spending any government subsidy money on sports is good and holy to you. That is backasswards, and frankly welfare syndrome thinking. You like something therefore somebody else (i.e., tax payers and specifically their money earmarked for education) should pay for it. But then again you are not alone in that thinking. Many out there think college athletics at D-I level is something of a right (as in positive rights), and people who say it should not impact tax funds are taking away your right to spectate. It's a thinking pattern common in the deep south and African-American communities, which often will cite anecdotal evidence about so-so having their life "saved" by athletics.
It matters not. Chicago State will be dropped by the WAC after 2017-18 anyway. The only question is will they be back in 2017-18 or just quit this summer. I advocate the former, as with letting the WBB coach go, honor your contract first.
(This post was last modified: 03-06-2017 03:57 AM by Stugray2.)