Earlier this month, the Group of Five commissioners, including Jon Steinbrecher of the Mid-American Conference, went to the NCAA with their hats — and pruners — in hand.

https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/ut/20...0200428121

So, student fees are part of the $20.9M "bath" the University is taking? Does that mean the fees for athletics charged to students could be used elsewhere instead of just cutting the fees? Otherwise, the fees the students pay is like purchasing season tickets to every athletic event they want to attend - or not attend. I kind of look at the money pumped in by the University as a "marketing fee". Athletics provides a lot of attention for potential students that also have an interest in attending sporting events. Also helps to generate donations to the University.

In the end, there needs to be looks at every single area of spending, starting with the most spent in each area. All through the Univ. Most universities have no concept of what it means to cut costs or how to "do more with less". A lot of businesses have the same problem.

(04-29-2020 08:27 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  So, student fees are part of the $20.9M "bath" the University is taking? Does that mean the fees for athletics charged to students could be used elsewhere instead of just cutting the fees? Otherwise, the fees the students pay is like purchasing season tickets to every athletic event they want to attend - or not attend. I kind of look at the money pumped in by the University as a "marketing fee". Athletics provides a lot of attention for potential students that also have an interest in attending sporting events. Also helps to generate donations to the University.

In the end, there needs to be looks at every single area of spending, starting with the most spent in each area. All through the Univ. Most universities have no concept of what it means to cut costs or how to "do more with less". A lot of businesses have the same problem.

As a note, yes, those fees could be redistributed to academic arms, or simply removed from a student's account should there be no need to distribute them to athletics anymore. Also, in a study done by RNL prior to the end of their consulting contract, only roughly 2.5% of students factored athletics into their decision to attend UT...that survey had just over 4,500 respondents which included student athletes and all were DHS (direct from high school) entry. The idea that Athletics drives enrollment at schools like UToledo is a perpetuated myth...and that's a hard thing to say for a former college athlete, but it's the truth.

(04-29-2020 09:02 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 08:27 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  So, student fees are part of the $20.9M "bath" the University is taking? Does that mean the fees for athletics charged to students could be used elsewhere instead of just cutting the fees? Otherwise, the fees the students pay is like purchasing season tickets to every athletic event they want to attend - or not attend. I kind of look at the money pumped in by the University as a "marketing fee". Athletics provides a lot of attention for potential students that also have an interest in attending sporting events. Also helps to generate donations to the University.

In the end, there needs to be looks at every single area of spending, starting with the most spent in each area. All through the Univ. Most universities have no concept of what it means to cut costs or how to "do more with less". A lot of businesses have the same problem.

As a note, yes, those fees could be redistributed to academic arms, or simply removed from a student's account should there be no need to distribute them to athletics anymore. Also, in a study done by RNL prior to the end of their consulting contract, only roughly 2.5% of students factored athletics into their decision to attend UT...that survey had just over 4,500 respondents which included student athletes and all were DHS (direct from high school) entry. The idea that Athletics drives enrollment at schools like UToledo is a perpetuated myth...and that's a hard thing to say for a former college athlete, but it's the truth.

Applications for Freshman Class doubled when they
put in the FB stadium at FAU.

(04-29-2020 09:36 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:02 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 08:27 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  So, student fees are part of the $20.9M "bath" the University is taking? Does that mean the fees for athletics charged to students could be used elsewhere instead of just cutting the fees? Otherwise, the fees the students pay is like purchasing season tickets to every athletic event they want to attend - or not attend. I kind of look at the money pumped in by the University as a "marketing fee". Athletics provides a lot of attention for potential students that also have an interest in attending sporting events. Also helps to generate donations to the University.

In the end, there needs to be looks at every single area of spending, starting with the most spent in each area. All through the Univ. Most universities have no concept of what it means to cut costs or how to "do more with less". A lot of businesses have the same problem.

As a note, yes, those fees could be redistributed to academic arms, or simply removed from a student's account should there be no need to distribute them to athletics anymore. Also, in a study done by RNL prior to the end of their consulting contract, only roughly 2.5% of students factored athletics into their decision to attend UT...that survey had just over 4,500 respondents which included student athletes and all were DHS (direct from high school) entry. The idea that Athletics drives enrollment at schools like UToledo is a perpetuated myth...and that's a hard thing to say for a former college athlete, but it's the truth.

Applications for Freshman Class doubled when they
put in the FB stadium at FAU.

Last I checked, FAU and UT are different institutions with VERY different potential clientele...but that could also be attributed to the raising of admissions standards that happened in 2010 at both USF and UCF coinciding with FAU's stadium being done in 2011. Could have been a factor, but it certainly wasn't the whole thing. Case in point, if a school like Temple built an on-campus stadium, I doubt their numbers would increase at all.

All I can say for certain is that the survey and numbers I stated in my previous post are verified and accurate for the institution we're talking about...which is really the only relevant information to the original quesiton.

If students are not on campus in the fall, there will be no fall sports. Under that situation, students would not pay any of their student fees including to Athletics. Those funds are gone, not redirected to other areas in the University budget, they simply disappear. With an anticipated 20% cut in state subsidy plus drop in fall enrollment of 7.5% or much higher (if UT goes with online instruction), Athletics is going to experience significant budget cuts, and although MOB does not want to commit publicly today regarding cutting sports-under the circumstances I just described it is a real possibility. And waiting until the summer to make those decisions with the hope the financial and enrollment hits are less than anticipated is not an option, by end of June UT will have set its FY 21 budget, in fact all units will be setting their budgets by end of May.

(04-29-2020 09:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:36 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:02 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 08:27 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  So, student fees are part of the $20.9M "bath" the University is taking? Does that mean the fees for athletics charged to students could be used elsewhere instead of just cutting the fees? Otherwise, the fees the students pay is like purchasing season tickets to every athletic event they want to attend - or not attend. I kind of look at the money pumped in by the University as a "marketing fee". Athletics provides a lot of attention for potential students that also have an interest in attending sporting events. Also helps to generate donations to the University.

In the end, there needs to be looks at every single area of spending, starting with the most spent in each area. All through the Univ. Most universities have no concept of what it means to cut costs or how to "do more with less". A lot of businesses have the same problem.

As a note, yes, those fees could be redistributed to academic arms, or simply removed from a student's account should there be no need to distribute them to athletics anymore. Also, in a study done by RNL prior to the end of their consulting contract, only roughly 2.5% of students factored athletics into their decision to attend UT...that survey had just over 4,500 respondents which included student athletes and all were DHS (direct from high school) entry. The idea that Athletics drives enrollment at schools like UToledo is a perpetuated myth...and that's a hard thing to say for a former college athlete, but it's the truth.

Applications for Freshman Class doubled when they
put in the FB stadium at FAU.

Last I checked, FAU and UT are different institutions with VERY different potential clientele...but that could also be attributed to the raising of admissions standards that happened in 2010 at both USF and UCF coinciding with FAU's stadium being done in 2011. Could have been a factor, but it certainly wasn't the whole thing. Case in point, if a school like Temple built an on-campus stadium, I doubt their numbers would increase at all.

All I can say for certain is that the survey and numbers I stated in my previous post are verified and accurate for the institution we're talking about...which is really the only relevant information to the original quesiton.

Oh, how wrong you are.

(05-01-2020 10:59 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:50 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:36 AM)Boca Rocket Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:02 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 08:27 AM)MotoRocket Wrote:  So, student fees are part of the $20.9M "bath" the University is taking? Does that mean the fees for athletics charged to students could be used elsewhere instead of just cutting the fees? Otherwise, the fees the students pay is like purchasing season tickets to every athletic event they want to attend - or not attend. I kind of look at the money pumped in by the University as a "marketing fee". Athletics provides a lot of attention for potential students that also have an interest in attending sporting events. Also helps to generate donations to the University.

In the end, there needs to be looks at every single area of spending, starting with the most spent in each area. All through the Univ. Most universities have no concept of what it means to cut costs or how to "do more with less". A lot of businesses have the same problem.

As a note, yes, those fees could be redistributed to academic arms, or simply removed from a student's account should there be no need to distribute them to athletics anymore. Also, in a study done by RNL prior to the end of their consulting contract, only roughly 2.5% of students factored athletics into their decision to attend UT...that survey had just over 4,500 respondents which included student athletes and all were DHS (direct from high school) entry. The idea that Athletics drives enrollment at schools like UToledo is a perpetuated myth...and that's a hard thing to say for a former college athlete, but it's the truth.

Applications for Freshman Class doubled when they
put in the FB stadium at FAU.

Last I checked, FAU and UT are different institutions with VERY different potential clientele...but that could also be attributed to the raising of admissions standards that happened in 2010 at both USF and UCF coinciding with FAU's stadium being done in 2011. Could have been a factor, but it certainly wasn't the whole thing. Case in point, if a school like Temple built an on-campus stadium, I doubt their numbers would increase at all.

All I can say for certain is that the survey and numbers I stated in my previous post are verified and accurate for the institution we're talking about...which is really the only relevant information to the original quesiton.

Oh, how wrong you are.

Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

BearcatMan: self minus eleventy million (you have that to spare) for fish-baiting the troll. You had to say "Temple."

At least he didn't say Marshal.

sigh

(05-02-2020 05:29 PM)eastisbest Wrote:  BearcatMan: self minus eleventy million (you have that to spare) for fish-baiting the troll. You had to say "Temple."

At least he didn't say Marshal.

sigh

Goddamnit...I know better

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Just to clarify, I'm not stupid enough to think an on campus stadium wouldnt increase attendance. Literally every case of a school going from off-campus or shared stadiums to on-campus stadiums has born out that trend rather clearly. My argument was that it wouldnt increase enrollment at the University.

(05-02-2020 11:27 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Just to clarify, I'm not stupid enough to think an on campus stadium wouldnt increase attendance. Literally every case of a school going from off-campus or shared stadiums to on-campus stadiums has born out that trend rather clearly. My argument was that it wouldnt increase enrollment at the University.

About 29,000 undergrad and 10,000 graduate studies.
Population of 6 million in the metro area.

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Agree. And your record in the MAC clearly demonstrated you were in-MAC like.

(05-03-2020 07:45 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Agree. And your record in the MAC clearly demonstrated you were un-MAC like.

They were 9-4, 8-4, 9-4 their last three years in the MAC. Since being in the American, they've been to a bowl game each of the last five years, under four different coaches. I wouldn't put them in Toledo's football category but they're doing alright. They're certainly in a conference with more economic potential.

Temple is not a model for Toledo unless Toledo becomes a member of that conference. Personally, biasedly (?) I think that would be a win-win. We are essentially not just Toledo's D1 rep in football but potentiall Detroit's if in a better conference. That's a heck of a market.

(05-03-2020 08:37 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 07:45 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Agree. And your record in the MAC clearly demonstrated you were un-MAC like.

They were 9-4, 8-4, 9-4 their last three years in the MAC. Since being in the American, they've been to a bowl game each of the last five years, under four different coaches. I wouldn't put them in Toledo's football category but they're doing alright. They're certainly in a conference with more economic potential.

Temple is not a model for Toledo unless Toledo becomes a member of that conference. Personally, biasedly (?) I think that would be a win-win. We are essentially not just Toledo's D1 rep in football but potentiall Detroit's if in a better conference. That's a heck of a market.

Ah to dream is to dream.... 15-20% cut in budget, 15-20% fewer students in the fall....potential for online classes only in fall = no student fees for Athletics, UT football and Athletics will be lucky to get through this without a down grade from MAC and right out of G5 and into down a division, current crisis could wipeout MAC and they will have the resources to stay in any reorganized G5 level.

ps you are crazy to think that under any scenario that the Detroit and SW Michigan fans would follow UT football, won't be any different then now with those fans supporting UM, MSU or ND.

(05-03-2020 06:07 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 08:37 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 07:45 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Agree. And your record in the MAC clearly demonstrated you were un-MAC like.

They were 9-4, 8-4, 9-4 their last three years in the MAC. Since being in the American, they've been to a bowl game each of the last five years, under four different coaches. I wouldn't put them in Toledo's football category but they're doing alright. They're certainly in a conference with more economic potential.

Temple is not a model for Toledo unless Toledo becomes a member of that conference. Personally, biasedly (?) I think that would be a win-win. We are essentially not just Toledo's D1 rep in football but potentiall Detroit's if in a better conference. That's a heck of a market.

Ah to dream is to dream.... 15-20% cut in budget, 15-20% fewer students in the fall....potential for online classes only in fall = no student fees for Athletics, UT football and Athletics will be lucky to get through this without a down grade from MAC and right out of G5 and into down a division, current crisis could wipeout MAC and they will have the resources to stay in any reorganized G5 level.

ps you are crazy to think that under any scenario that the Detroit and SW Michigan fans would follow UT football, won't be any different then now with those fans supporting UM, MSU or ND.

Then I'd rather be crazy than the person who thinks there's no scenario under which the University of Toledo could expand a fanbase, particularly when they are obvious insiders. Re: my post on UT needing a pres with the will to tell the hangers on, you stay only if you get on with the new program.

It's as I stated in that post. UT has become a place where ideas from outside the current cliques are met with whack-a-mole mentality. Instead of just registering another opinion, they find the better tactic is call others "crazy."

New blood for a new age.

(05-03-2020 06:07 PM)PaulJ Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 08:37 AM)eastisbest Wrote:  

(05-03-2020 07:45 AM)H2Oville Rocket Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 10:48 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(05-02-2020 04:08 PM)FMRocket Wrote:  Please specify on how wrong Bearcatman is !!
This should be interesting, since Temple presently has MAC like numbers at the LINCOLN and building an on-campus stadium they would automatically elevate themselves to be in the 35-40,000 range attendance wise.
Oh, but lest we forget, TU was such a dominant program when they were in the MAC... (Barely finishing above .500 or not withstanding Toledo slapping the Owls around a few years ago in Boca)...

Temple attendance 2008: 15,582
Temple attendance 2019: 29,460

The only program in the entire country with larger growth than us is Mississippi State.

Toledo is the only program in the MAC over 18K. I'd say we're very un-MAC like.

Agree. And your record in the MAC clearly demonstrated you were un-MAC like.

They were 9-4, 8-4, 9-4 their last three years in the MAC. Since being in the American, they've been to a bowl game each of the last five years, under four different coaches. I wouldn't put them in Toledo's football category but they're doing alright. They're certainly in a conference with more economic potential.

Temple is not a model for Toledo unless Toledo becomes a member of that conference. Personally, biasedly (?) I think that would be a win-win. We are essentially not just Toledo's D1 rep in football but potentiall Detroit's if in a better conference. That's a heck of a market.

Ah to dream is to dream.... 15-20% cut in budget, 15-20% fewer students in the fall....potential for online classes only in fall = no student fees for Athletics, UT football and Athletics will be lucky to get through this without a down grade from MAC and right out of G5 and into down a division, current crisis could wipeout MAC and they will have the resources to stay in any reorganized G5 level.

ps you are crazy to think that under any scenario that the Detroit and SW Michigan fans would follow UT football, won't be any different then now with those fans supporting UM, MSU or ND.

Presumptuous for you to think that UT will drop down because of the budget crisis/pandemic... If that’s the case, donor money and overall fan support will take a major hit... Having the GB 1/3 full in the fall when the Youngstown State’s and Eastern Kentucky’s of the world blow into town will really dissuade this season ticket holder and donor of 40+ years to follow through on yearly renewals... And yes I believe Toledo can garner a lot of the SE Michigan and a part of the Detroit market when the program is winning/ranked from time to time... I know a lot of folks that do an hour plus drive south to support the Rockets... Obviously your negative rant about UT and the rest of the MAC taking a nosedive financially and athletically is your opinion, but most assuredly, not one I share, or support...
I guess it can all be relative to the Darwin theory - “Survival of the fittest”.

You greatly fail to understand how severe the FY21 budget cuts are going to be, how do you expect any major changes or growth in UT Athletics when their budget, including football, will be reduced by 10+%. You can't expand a fan base without funds you do not have at a time when the program will be smaller not larger.

Gaber did plenty to shift the mentality at UT and changed the direction, including realizing (that no one in local area or previous leadership at UT would) that it is time to cut UTMC lose. Under the swift and serious changes in higher education across the US, whoever is the next President you can be sure growing or expanding the sports fan base will not be a priority, more likely will be a scaled down Athletics will be the future model. Varsity sports and their fans don't bring money to campus, they don't generate donations to non-athletic programs, don't support the academic mission of the University, and don't attract students (vast majority don't even attend the games). They are a huge cost at a time when major budget cuts are in play. Better get familiar to the new athletics at UT.

"If that’s the case, donor money and overall fan support will take a major hit..."

Neither of which come close to supporting the UT Athletics budget, you downsize varsity sports to the budget the university can afford to support.