News

From Our Readers

UMass Football Program: Touchdown or Fumble?; UMass Football Program: Touchdown or Fumble?

Comments (1)
Tuesday, December 24, 2013

UMass Football Program: Touchdown or Fumble?

 

Great article [“False Start: UMass struggles to find its place in upper division football,” December 12, 2013)!

Just something to think about for the future:

While I respect the USAToday numbers, they have a major flaw, as does most data coming from the NCAA: they don’t count expenses such as stadium building and maintenance and marketing that is not done specifically by the Athletic Department. One of the reasons I think [UMass’] Ad Hoc report is a step ahead of the usual calculations is that we insisted the AD produce numbers on:

—gender scholarships (required because of the increase in football scholarships)

—marketing (they now report all marketing—some spent out of the athletic department budget and some out of the University Relations office

—the stadium. Many of the boosters insist that the NCAA doesn’t count football stadiums in the football budget. They simply want to ignore one of the largest expenses associated with this sport. We have insisted that the press box—required by the Middle Atlantic Conference—and the “football training facility” actually count as, well, a football expense! Sometimes these discussions are in never-never-land: “Yes, it’s for football, but we don’t count it.”

When those big schools brag about “making money,” it is largely fictitious. It is of course true that those few big schools do bring in a lot of money. But I would bet if they had to factor in the full costs they incur on the campus, those profits would disappear.

Penn State is yet another case: they say they have a “profit,” but that conveniently ignores the $100 million they are paying for the despicable behavior of one of their coaches. That erases the profits for a decade.

 

Cheers for Obamacare

 

Tom Vannah and I are basically on the same page with regards to what’s needed for better health care policy, but I find the tone of this article [“No Cheers for Obamacare,” December 5, 2013] objectionable. Let us try to be charitable and enouraging towards an effort that has managed to get started despite almost insurmountable odds, rather than harshly condemning its fragile beginnings.

Yes, it is highly flawed, so let us draw a metaphor for the circumstances under which it has been born: You desire to build a large house for the homeless—not a temporary emergency shelter, a real home within which the lives of those who have not been given a fair chance can flourish. As you try to build it, a gang of hooligans comes along, blindfolds you, ties heavy weights to both your arms, ties your legs together, comes to the job site every night to steal tools and materials and destroy the work you did the previous day. What’s worse, said gang of hooligans is quite wealthy from the proceeds of previous crimes, and so is able to influence most of your local newspapers, radio and TV stations to publish completely false and misleading scare stories about the home you’re attempting to build, turning against you the very neighbors who should be supporting you. Somehow, against all of these odds, something gets built. It’s a mere shadow of what was planned, and in the scramble to get anything built at all, not enough attention was paid to how it would be opened and administered—all made more difficult by the fact that all the opposition forced you to re-plan constantly. So is the end result disappointing? Absolutely. Should we nonetheless cheer the builders and give them our full support towards building a better house? Absolutely.

Comments (1)
Post a Comment

Gordon,

Unless you are prepared to produce evidence that republicans hacked into the website and deleted code thus breaking the website, your example makes no sense.

A more accurate example would be that you decided to build a house with poor structure in a swamp. I tell you it's a bad idea and won't work but you finagle a way to get the green light and do it anyway. Upon completion it immediately starts to sink in the mud and no one can even help because the contruction is fundamentally flawed. I and reality say it should just be knocked down.

So I didn't support you in the first place because it was a bad plan that won't work. When you prove me right, how is it then my fault that you insisted on doing it? It's like me telling you it's a bad idea to build a snowman in front of a heater. You do it anyway and when it's melting you get pissed I won't help you get more heaters to "fix it." This is your logic deconstructed.

Posted by Ben on 12.27.13 at 16:57
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

From Our Readers
Baker: More of the Same; Props to Rohmann; Props to Rohmann
Between the Lines: A Gun Owner’s Resentment
Why make it expensive and difficult for law-abiding residents to possess firearms?
Sorry, Nixon
If the impeachment of our 37th president showed that the system works, what does Obama’s continued political survival say about it?
The Zipcar Is Here
Car sharing takes hold in the Valley.
Under the Microscope
Did ex-WSU president Evan Dobelle use university resources to support an identity as well as a lifestyle?
From Our Readers
Casino Opposition “Selfish”; Cut Foreign Aid, Not Our Military
Between the Lines: Deval’s Capital Management
He can rehab his office, but what about his legacy?
From Snowden to the Pentagon Papers
Can student interest in civics be rekindled?