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


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



New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
Print Email RSS feed

In Satoshi We Trust?
Outside the Cage
How solid is the case for organic and cage-free egg production?
Between the Lines: Practically Organic
Does the organic farming movement make perfect the enemy of good?
Scene Here: The Kitchen Garden Farm
From Our Readers
Profiles in Survival
Young business owners in retail-rich Northampton get along by getting along.
The Burning Question
Neighbors of a proposed wood-burning plant in Springfield cry foul air