https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedd...e3e61e6f5e

(07-16-2018 09:16 PM)ljmhurons Wrote:  https://www.forbes.com/sites/richardvedd...e3e61e6f5e

Sir, what is your point?

Do you want EMU to eliminate ALL inter-collegiate sports?

Let me put some context in this article and the author. The author is an emeritus faculty at Ohio University which means he is probably in his 70s or 80s (EDIT: 77).

For those who are millennials, etc. Ohio U has had a lot of the public debate that the EMU faculty is. I believe say 50 years ago (during the Vietnam war), Ohio de-emphasized football and made a strong program weak. Their president de-emphasized football with the glad tidings of the faculty. Lest I be wrong, Ohio had a really good future in football until they gutted it. I'll get more details.

Eventually, they changed course and re-built it and got it turned around. It wasn't easy and OU FB was a bottom feeder for many, many years.

Under Solich they do well on the field and at the gate. Again, lest I be wrong Ohio had the potential in the 60s to be more like a Pittsburgh than say a MAC team but they blew it big time.

If we need more details on Ohio's FB history and strategic decisions, I'm sure we can get an Ohio poster or two to provide details. I do want some help. I believe UBuffalo did similar, de-emphasized a good FB program and I don't want to confuse the two schools and their football programs.

There were MAC schools which de-emphasized football to the harm to their athletic departments and later decided to do a 180 and re-emphasize it.

Poorly researched piece of crap. If one of my reporters had submitted that, it would have been tossed back at them with a sea of red marks.

I wasn't making a point.

I think we should have MORE sports programs, not less. We just dropped men's swimming and diving, which won more league championships than football will win if we play 500 years. It makes no sense to me.

(07-16-2018 11:08 PM)ljmhurons Wrote:  I wasn't making a point.

I think we should have MORE sports programs, not less. We just dropped men's swimming and diving, which won more league championships than football will win if we play 500 years. It makes no sense to me.

Okay. You and the author are making opposite points, which is fine.

I still maintain, as I have in the past, that most of EMU's financial problems could be solved in Lansing if the next governor would open up the purse strings for higher education. EMU is not like the City of Detroit was with deep, deep financial problems which required drastic measures.

Give EMU another 6 - 8M per year and most of these problems and issues become pretty much non issues and we can get back to education, sports, etc.

The state is being 'penny wise and pound foolish' with higher education funding. Too much drama.

Obviously, nobody on this board wants any further cuts to athletics, or the university as a whole. And you are absolutely right that more state funding would in the short term close the budget defecit. The problem is that EMUs admin can't be trusted to properly handle additional funds, anymore than they've shown an inability to properly run the university and it's budget over the last 50 years. Until EMU proves it can strategically plan for the future, improve retention, and graduation rates (both of which are among the lowest in the country), and stop all the scandals, why should the state give EMU anymore money. I love EMU, and as an alumni, this article sucks, but EMU is like a heroin addict that keeps stealing from Mom and Dad, eventually they either go to rehab, or they die.

(07-17-2018 06:39 AM)emdypo Wrote:  Obviously, nobody on this board wants any further cuts to athletics, or the university as a whole. And you are absolutely right that more state funding would in the short term close the budget defecit. The problem is that EMUs admin can't be trusted to properly handle additional funds, anymore than they've shown an inability to properly run the university and it's budget over the last 50 years. Until EMU proves it can strategically plan for the future, improve retention, and graduation rates (both of which are among the lowest in the country), and stop all the scandals, why should the state give EMU anymore money. I love EMU, and as an alumni, this article sucks, but EMU is like a heroin addict that keeps stealing from Mom and Dad, eventually they either go to rehab, or they die.

I really didn't want to comment and this will be my only one on this thread. The problem associated with planning is the Governor appoints BoRs. If the BoRs are inept and can not align with the President's vision, then bad decisions are made.

(07-17-2018 06:39 AM)emdypo Wrote:  Obviously, nobody on this board wants any further cuts to athletics, or the university as a whole. And you are absolutely right that more state funding would in the short term close the budget defecit. The problem is that EMUs admin can't be trusted to properly handle additional funds, anymore than they've shown an inability to properly run the university and it's budget over the last 50 years. Until EMU proves it can strategically plan for the future, improve retention, and graduation rates (both of which are among the lowest in the country), and stop all the scandals, why should the state give EMU anymore money. I love EMU, and as an alumni, this article sucks, but EMU is like a heroin addict that keeps stealing from Mom and Dad, eventually they either go to rehab, or they die.

I really didn't want to comment and this will be my only one on this thread. The problem associated with planning is the Governor appoints BoRs. If the BoRs are inept and can not align with the President's vision, then bad decisions are made.

My last comments:

There are a lot of folks who are 'stakeholders' who have their own vested interests, be it students (scholarship money, keeping tuition increases down, etc.), faculty and staff (salary and benefits), athletes (scholarship monies and facilities, etc.), fans of the athletic programs, etc.

So how one sees the university might be very much colored by what one's stake in the U is.

I really don't like the author putting EMU and UofM in the same sentence or paragraph.

I'm familiar with 2 of the 3 directionals (CMU being the other, I married a Chip many years ago), I have an undergraduate degree from Wayne State. Each university has its own mission and student population. WSU's undergraduate student population is highly drawn from the Detroit area. EMU also draws heavily from the Detroit area. CMU draws more from across the state including the upper half of the lower peninsula. WMU is probably somewhat similar to CMU. I just don't see EMU (or WSU) as a destination for a student from say Big Rapids, Grand Rapids, etc, any more would I expect a high school student from Canton to go to Ferris State. A student from say Canton who wants to study business can easily pick EMU or WSU if he or she chooses. He/she can go east or west what 20 miles. I do realize some what to be further from home, but so be it.

So EMU shouldn't be really compared to UofM, MSU, etc. It shares certain similarities to WSU.

UofM is in a completely different universe. It is essentially a public Ivy League school with money gushing out all over. Sometimes UofM is hard pressed to spend their endowment and gifts.

(07-17-2018 06:39 AM)emdypo Wrote:  Obviously, nobody on this board wants any further cuts to athletics, or the university as a whole. And you are absolutely right that more state funding would in the short term close the budget defecit. The problem is that EMUs admin can't be trusted to properly handle additional funds, anymore than they've shown an inability to properly run the university and it's budget over the last 50 years. Until EMU proves it can strategically plan for the future, improve retention, and graduation rates (both of which are among the lowest in the country), and stop all the scandals, why should the state give EMU anymore money. I love EMU, and as an alumni, this article sucks, but EMU is like a heroin addict that keeps stealing from Mom and Dad, eventually they either go to rehab, or they die.

Exactly! Just like the State of MI, or the Federal Gov't, no amount of $$$$$ will ever be enough.

Dear emdypo,
I would disagree with the fifty years comment. Maybe it was hyperbole. But President Elliot, Sponberg, and a couple of others at the far end of fifty years, did a good job, in my opinion.
Luckeyone is correct with his comment about the Board of Regents having responsibility. Steve is also correct with the funding issue.
Some, if not all of the schools in the MAC are in the same boat. Not to deflect, but because of our record in football over twenty years, any school in the MAC could fit the argument.

(07-17-2018 09:15 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear emdypo,
I would disagree with the fifty years comment. Maybe it was hyperbole. But President Elliot, Sponberg, and a couple of others at the far end of fifty years, did a good job, in my opinion.
Luckeyone is correct with his comment about the Board of Regents having responsibility. Steve is also correct with the funding issue.
Some, if not all of the schools in the MAC are in the same boat. Not to deflect, but because of our record in football over twenty years, any school in the MAC could fit the argument.

I'm breaking my 'last comment' pledge. Never thought I could keep it, anyway.

I'm sure Ken and I being among the older ones here (I'm a baby boomer who watched Ron Johnson play in the late 70s). We realize what great progress EMU made over the decades since we were at EMU.

EMU's growth is NOT a story of failure, bad leadership, etc. The U has made great progress in the last half century. I wish the EMU campus 40 years ago looked half as nice as it does today.

I agree with Ken who agrees with me I believe the biggest problem has been in Lansing with the problems that the STATE has. The state of Michigan has gone through a lot in the last 10 - 20 years. It is quite understandable that anything or anybody (e.g., colleges and universities, high schools, roads and bridges, mental health, etc. etc.) dependent on state monies will be hurting (unless it is a school like UofM which has endowment and gifts coming out its a*s). I'm very familiar with D.C. government and it is a government which is pretty flush with cash. I see the alpha and omega of 'state' government. Some states are booming and others (like MI) are not.

But then again, there is no comparison between the rust belt and areas like the mid-Atlantic states (e.g., D.C., Md, Va, etc.).

To get back to 2019: The voters will choose a new governor. Each governor has he or her own priorities for taxation and spending.

The citizens of Michigan will decide if they want more dollars spent on higher education, roads, mental health, public safety, etc. etc. or if their emphasis is on taxation.

I'm hoping as I have said before that the new governor will see fit to make a lot of public colleges and universities 'financially whole' again.

'financially whole' again............?

So more $$$$ is going to magically fix the declining credit hours, and terrible retention & graduation rates that emdypo mentioned?

Dear EagleTough,
Yes, if more dollars from the State lessen the financial load on students wishing to come to Eastern, that will help. Who knows, with more money from the State, Eastern could keep tuition rates as they are, or maybe cut them a bit.

(07-17-2018 09:47 AM)EagleTough Wrote:  'financially whole' again............?

So more $$$$ is going to magically fix the declining credit hours, and terrible retention & graduation rates that emdypo mentioned?

Lot of issues here:

Declining credit hours is due to declining enrollment and retention problems. Declining enrollment is due to the 'baby bust' we are seeing in both the state and the country (without immigration we'd be up s*it creek w/out a paddle. ("Half' of the McDonalds and Burger Kings would have to close. We don't have enough native born Americans who are available for that work).

The retention and graduation rates are very easy to explain. EMU (and WSU) take a lot of students who are not financially well off. Many of them drop out of school because of FINANCIAL reasons. They THINK they have enough money from EMU, loans, etc. to make it through but they don't.

Very simple: College retention is based on two primary factors: 1). Ability and motivation to do the work, 2). The financial means to be able to be financial viable for say 4 or 5 years.

Lot of those students at UofM come from families which are very financially successful and have the means to ensure that Johnnie or Mary don't drop out of school because of $ issues.

Many EMU students may be the first in their families to go to college.

When I was an undergrad (at WSU) I worked in a factory summers, delivered pizzas, etc. etc. to be self-supporting. That good paying factory work isn't there any more for today's college students (it was neat: factory workers took their vacations in summer and college students filled in for them. Win-win. Now with factory jobs vanishing: lose - lose.).

(07-17-2018 09:58 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear EagleTough,
Yes, if more dollars from the State lessen the financial load on students wishing to come to Eastern, that will help. Who knows, with more money from the State, Eastern could keep tuition rates as they are, or maybe cut them a bit.

"Yes, IF more dollars from the State lessen the financial load on students"..........

A Don Meredith quote seems appropriate here:

If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts wouldn't it be a Merry Christmas!

EMU students today pay about 4X more (corrected for inflation) than students if the mid 70s. College graduation and retention rates were higher then as was state support. So, yes, more state spending used to lower tuition would increase retention and graduation.

(07-16-2018 09:47 PM)HuronDave Wrote:  Poorly researched piece of crap. If one of my reporters had submitted that, it would have been tossed back at them with a sea of red marks.

Uh huh.

Is that the kind of horsebleep that passes for journalism? Shame on you Forbes.

It looks like something Bob W. would write.

(07-17-2018 11:40 PM)masttg Wrote:  EMU students today pay about 4X more (corrected for inflation) than students if the mid 70s. College graduation and retention rates were higher then as was state support. So, yes, more state spending used to lower tuition would increase retention and graduation.

Yes!!!! It is a SHAME whenever a student can do the work can not complete his or her education because of $.

Folks have to remember, tuition and books are only a part of the expenses. Students need to eat, have transportation expenses, health care expenses, that phone in their pocket, etc. as well as they residential expenses, say rent an apartment at school.

And we attempt to education a higher percentage of the population then we did in the 70s so some aren't going to make it academically but retention rates are CORRELATED with family income and financial assets.

The paucity of state funding for public education is one of the great SHAMES of our times. We don't pay enough for higher education, fix roads, etc.