Rage against drug addicts: College presidents

Submitted by superstringer on

I have to rant. This is getting to be too much for me.

Presidents of major colleges are DRUG ADDICTS. I'm not trying to throw around nasty insults just because I'm mad. But their behavior is much like that of any addict: they can't get enough, and they'll say anything to get it.

I'm referring to their addiction to MONEY, of course, and the outright untruths they are spilling to chase it.

This summer, we were all discussing whether the term "student-athletes" makes sense. I, like many others, think this system is totally broken and unAmerican, and players should get some form of compensation for the value (which is generating billions of $$$, with a "B") to their schools. Whether that's by salary, trust funds / lockboxes, advertising/outside gigs, etc. -- those are just the details. So what did schools say? No no, they are students first, this is amateurism, this isn't about them doing a job. Furthermore, schools said, look at the massive value they are receiving -- free degrees! In other words, schools get to keep the TV money, you guys frame those nitfy Iowa State degrees and go find a job, good luck with that.

But now, what's realignment about? Academics? Tradition? The experience of the student-athlete? No -- its only about big TV contracts -- yet more money. So much for tradition. Oklahoma-Texas rivalry? Don't really need it, OU said a couple weeks ago. Syracure founding the Big East? Who cares, certainly not Syracuse.  And the student-athlete's experience counts for nothing.  Hey, we have a road game 2000 miles away!  Better tell your professor you can't study for that test or make that seminar!

What infuriates me is how college presidents are so two-faced about it. Used car salesmen and corporate spokespersons will avoid answering questions and taking generically without answering questions, and we shrug it off as par for the course. But presidents of institutions of higher learning, where ethics and morals and academia should rule the roost? For them to be avoiding the merits of questions because they don't want to admit the truth -- this is so deep in poop, I'm embarrassed by it.

-- Like, the Syracuse administrating saying, this is for the good of Syracuse. How about a few years ago, when they said BC and Va Tech were liable for breaches of fiduciary duty in leaving the Big East, and were engaging in grossly bad faith conduct by turning their backs on their commitments to their conference affiliates? Oh, well -- wait, did we say that back then? Well, uh, trust us, this is DIFFERENT, this time.

-- Or the Pitt chancellor (or whatever she is) being asked what's wrong with the Big East, and her answer was: Well, the ACC has great Olympic sports. Huh? How about answering the question, bitch? That's what a politician or corporate spokesperson does -- avoids answering the question.

So that's what it is -- if it takes money like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. These aren't institutions of higher learning anymore. THEY ARE FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS. That's how they are acting.  They'll say anything to keep the green drugs for themselves, and to get more and more of it.

Aren't boards of trustees embarrassed by this behavior by the leaders of colleges?  Where's the outrage?

By the way... I'm more worried about the Aztecs than I was about ND, but, I'm not ranting about THAt.

EDIT:  This is being misunderstood.  I am NOT complaining that "schools need the money" and that they money is useful for non-footballish things.  This I know, I'm not stupid.  My complaint is that school leadership -- those who are supposed to be leaders of higher education -- are acting like politicians, getting greedy and refusing to acnkowledge it.  Lying, misrepresenting, hypocrisy, not answering the question.

a2_electricboogaloo

September 19th, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^

 

 

That being said surprisingly few NCAA athletic departments turn a profit at the end of the day (in 2009 there were only 14 that did).  Yes major sports like football and basketball bring in huge amounts of money, but they are used to subsidize smaller athletic programs that do not bring in nearly as much profit.  If, after general athletics are paid for, the department is still in the black, then the money goes into the endowment of the school, which benefits the entire university system.

Yes it sucks that they the sports that we love are being so monetized, but it kind of makes sense.  General funding for many universities (ours included) are being cut, and this is one way they can make more money without cutting things like research and facilities, which are vital to the university as a whole.

1464

September 19th, 2011 at 3:24 PM ^

The system sucks, but it also provides amazing opportunities for people to get an education and live their dreams.  I played college soccer.  A lot of schools would not offer scholarships to as many athletes without the money that comes in from revenue sports.

Is there greed and corruption?  Of course.  But I think your anger would be better suited for some more egregiously offensive institutions.

ShockFX

September 19th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

Syracuse and Pitt NOT joining the ACC would be a breach of fiduciary duty.

I think you guys forget, with the exception of the B1G, all other conferences are athletic conferences only, and as such the presidents of those schools should pick whatever conference gives the AD the best chance to run in the black and pay for all the athletic endeavors, which requires chasing the money.

There's a lack of perspective on this board that comes from not ever having to worry about this as each B1G school is incredibly stable and flush in athletic revenue. It's not the same at places like Syracuse or Kansas, which have historically awesome bball programs and are in danger of being in Conference USA or the like.

justingoblue

September 19th, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^

Mark Nordenburg, (the male Pitt Chancellor) has accomplished far more in his lifetime than you ever have or will. He's certainly not a bitch, but it sounds like you are.

justingoblue

September 19th, 2011 at 5:56 PM ^

I spent two years there, enough time to see him at some of my best friends commencements. I have a lot of love for Pitt and for the leadership he's shown since attaining his current position. Much like MSC around here, I feel like if Nordenburg does something he has the best intention for Pitt, and I know enough about his career to know that he's usually right.

Pitt needed a stable home. The BE wouldn't provide that (especially with WVU leaving as well) and there was no apparent chance at a Big Ten invite. Pitt found a home and I'll now be able to watch them play in a much more competitive conference with much more stability. I'd love to hear what the OP finds wrong with that. That's his job.

WolverineLake

September 19th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^

... and smoke a bowl.

 

A rant about the ACC/Big East seems a little out of place here.

 

Also, athletics fund a lot of other budgets.  Maximize your earning potential and whanot.

Feat of Clay

September 19th, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^

Look, I've written reverent, near-poetic tributes to the university as an idealistic sanctuary of noble ideas and pure intellect, far above the quotidian notions of revenue, profits, and dolla dolla bill y'all.   I can spout that stuff as well as anyone.  With sincerity.

But sometimes, what brings money to the University is also what's good for the University. 

So I recoil from your tone here, whereupon any president who makes a decision with an eye to the bottom line is a hypocritical, greedy, grasping enemy of the purest ideals of higher education.

Bluemandew

September 19th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^

Anyone that is suprised that universities are all about the benjamins needs to ask themselves did all of the state funded schools in MI's operatings costs go up by 6 to 9% almost every year for the last ten years or can they just get away with sqeezing more money out of their students. 

MAgoBLUE

September 19th, 2011 at 4:24 PM ^

When I was a sophomore in college I lived in a dorm that had more residents with cars than it had parking spaces.  If you came home late at night you couldn't find anywhere to park.  This was a problem because if you parked anywhere else on campus you could be assured of a $25 ticket waiting for you the next morning.  The administration heard this complaint from countless numbers of students but ultimately decided that making hundreds of dollars a night from parking tickets was a better option than spending thousands of dollars on a new parking structure.  It had nothing to do with right or wrong, fair or unfair.  Money was being made and there's no stopping that train once it starts.

Feat of Clay

September 20th, 2011 at 8:33 AM ^

That's because I stupidly replied to the wrong post. This was supposed to go under the 6-9% tuition post.
<br>
<br>But since i am here....As it happens, the MI legislature is very concerned about the phenomenon you describe. In fact, They want to every university to put into place a review process to prevent that from happening. However, that process would slow down textbook notification to students, booksellers, and wholesalers. That would probably drive up prices overall because students can't sell back as many books, booksellers can't get their hands on as many used ones, students have less time to shop around, profs would have less time to arrange for cheaper digital books, etc. So the question is, how prevalent is what you describe? A few bad apples, or a lot of professors?

MGoShtoink

September 19th, 2011 at 4:59 PM ^

How much of it actually goes to the University?

We aren't talking about pennies.  We are talking about millions.  Since these are non-profit entities, all of this money is reinvested, in some way, back into the school or athletic department. 

Last year Michigan got $19 million in conference distributions, $1.6 went to the University.  These funds are used to pay for everything, including expansions to the athletic complex.

These decisions are for the good of the school, employees, students and athletes. 

I understand these decisions are made at the expense of traditions and rivalries, but sometimes it's necessary for a school to take that big risk in order to earn more conference funds to help expand their athletic offerings, which helps attract more talent, which will help win, which will attract more fans, which generates more revenue, which helps to expand...

BlueHills

September 19th, 2011 at 6:13 PM ^

You do realize that a very big part of the job of being a college president is fundraising, right?

And that big-time athletics raise the profile of a school (a good old-time example would be Notre Dame that went from insignificant to becoming a highly regarded school thanks to its football program)?

And that the alums eat this stuff up, and feel connected to their school, and open their wallets because of it?

And the more the alums give because of the success of the athletic programs, the fewer people the college president has to (figuratively) blow?

So...

treetown

September 19th, 2011 at 7:55 PM ^

Don't be too tough on the poster. I don't think he is out trolling or aiming to kick up a hornet's nest for fun. Usually no one with that aim would bother to write something that long or try to be convincing.

Live long enough and ultimately you'll find most things are not quite what they appear to be. This is not cynical fatalism but the NCAA has long been NOT about amateur athletics and the ideals on which it was founded. And the various university presidents are quite aware of this and they are also aware that every other university president, board of regents and governors are also aware of this.

Every now and then someone will decide that they'd rather not play this game - see University of Chicago which once had a very good and powerful team and once was an innovator in the game (Yes, way back at the dawn of college football, but hey they did help popularize the T formation and the forward pass, so give them acknowledgement and they played in Amos Alonzo Stagg stadium, one of the first ur-super coaches...I know back in the tar pit days of the game, but it all happened). But the president of the U of Chicago realized where this was all heading back (when it was just radio, train rides and newspapers) and had the school get out of big time college football. They now have a Division III team.

So don't take it too hard. Right now no college president of any major football power wants to take that first step. Everyone else wants the other person to take that first move and pull back the tattered curtain of hypocrisy.

In my other posts, I've advocated taking the other position - make the student athlete really that - a student of athletics.

Make football, basketball and any other revenue sport a true athletic scholarship like a performance music major or dramatic arts major. Make it a real field of study and training - change the rules to allow year round training and study and invite all of the top professional coaches and trainers onto the campus regularly. Doesn't it strike anybody as strange that the top players drafted are often criticized as having major flaws in fundamentals such as their throwing motion? Could that occur in any other activity involving this much time, energy and money? Are their any engineers graduating who have fundamental problems with statics and dynamics? Are their any Eng. Lit. majors graduating who have serious grammar problems?

The games will still matter - each school wants to showcase their squad to show that their training and preparation is better.

Performance Athletics Major - a degree granting field, you saw it here first.

Tater

September 19th, 2011 at 8:05 PM ^

The world is driven by money.  While the NCAA has been quite successful at promoting shamaterurism and making too many fans believe otherwise, the NCAA is a giant ATM.  Most university presidents get there by combining superb social skills with consummate bean-counting ability.  It would be ludicrous to expect them not to be hypocrites in public when it comes to the NCAA.  

If you were in the position of being a university president, would you want to be the one who derails the gravy train?  It certainly wouldn't be very conducive to job security.

ArmyBlue

September 19th, 2011 at 8:30 PM ^

would be irrational and negligent for both SU and Pitt's administrators...  Fact of the matter is the landscape IS different than when BC and VT left.  It sucks, sure, but it is what it is.  It's a business, to include building a national brand that attracts students and student-athletes.  Staying in the Big East is a committment to mediocrity.  

FWIW, SU Chancellor was a former UM Provost.