Mr. Xxxx xxxxxxxxx
----------------- Wichita, KS -----
RE: Ohio State Football Article
Dear Xxxx,
Prior to reading the captioned article you sent me, I noticed
the author was writing for "The Chronicle of Higher Education".
When educators talk to each other in their politically correct
education speak, its like two clones talking to each other. There
is no chance for any off the reservation linearly deductive thought
processes. But I diligently carefully read the article anyway.
When I finished the article, it reminded me of the Clent
Eastwood movie Joe Kidd, also staring Robert Duval, and John
Saxton. The movie is about a range war between the mexicans led by
Louis Chama, John Saxton, and a rancher, Robert Duval, who leads a
gang of hired guns who have a little mexican mountain town treed,
and who is in bed with the local law. The scene the article made
me remember, takes place on the mountain overlooking the town, in
which Joe Kidd, Clent Eastwood, is confronting Chama and his gang
all by himself, and is trying to convince Chama to turn himself in
to the local law and rely upon Joe Kidd to get him to another town
for trial. Chama's senorita chimes in, in support of Joe Kidd's
argument, saying if Chama does not give himself up, Duval's gang
will kill them all, including the town mexicans he is presently
threatening to kill, one ever 10 minutes, unless Chama gives
himself up. The language that the captioned article made me
specifically recall, by Louis Chama in his best mexican accent, is
as follows:
"Woman, I bring you along for times in the afternoon
when there is nothing to do, and for cold nights, not
to hear you talk."
While it shouldn't, it never ceases to amaze me: that there is
no principle or linearly deductive rationale that the self anointed
superior intellect elitist clones of university professors and
education folks, are not prepared to abandon; and always with a
high degree of moral superiority; in order to damn athletics. They
are no better than spoiled brats who want all the attention, and
are jealous of any program or anyone who the public might deem more
important than they are. They ought to be happy with what they
have. We might take their tenure away from them, or actually make
them work more than 10 hours a week, with no outside consulting
contracts, or government stipends for researching such socially
important things as the mating habits of liberals and other brain
dead vermin. But lets see if I can understand the article clearly
written for university professors and administrative folks.
Somehow, they manage to damn a $79 million a year total
athletic program at Ohio State, which they admit is totally
privately funded. They preen themselves, criticize the program as
requiring "an avalanche of money" -- although private money -- and
announce with profound concern their indignation that sports at
Ohio State should have the audacity to do so well as to pay:
"[t]he university roughly $12.5 million this year to
cover overhead costs, income tax, and other expenses.
Included in that amount is $8 million to cover the
cost of 400 athletic scholarships.",
while they had to suffer because of state budget cuts, and did not
get their normal automatic 5 percent "cost of living" increases,
their automatic "merit" raises, and their normal 5 percent pension
benefit raise contributions, thusly:
"People on the campus outside of athletics are not
entirely comfortable with the Buckeyes' rapid expansion,
particularly in light of cuts in statewide
appropriations. The university placed a moratorium on
new athletic buildings in 2000, following the completion
of stadium renovations and the construction of the
Schottenstein Center." (Emphasis added).
The Ohio folks should trade the "People on the campus outside of
athletics", their automatic raises for their tenure, this year, and
then seriously consider the resumes of all the bright young recent
grad school graduates salivating for the opportunity of a job, and
willing to work more than 10 hours a week at it, if they were
hired. They would probably even agree to stay in their offices in
the afternoons for student consultations.
And please note, they draw their authority from the fact that
they are: "People on the campus", and contend in the process, that
all people on the campus who are not in athletics -- all but the
athletic department's 220 full time employees -- agree with each
other on the issue. I don't know the enrollment at Ohio State, but
I suspect it is about 40,000. So, there should be a considerable
number of faculty, staff, and folks outside of the athletic
department, but the writer assumes to speak for all of them. If
so, it says more about clone attitudes, than it does about their
criticism.
And, the program pays for 400 scholarships at about $8
million, or an average of about $20,000 per scholarship. With
40,000 students, there are 100 times more students than student
athletes. Do they ----- and moan about the 100 times more students
at $20,000 each that some of the same Ohio folks who are supporting
football, have to pay in taxes to support the other 39,600 students
at Ohio State. Not hardly. The lipsticked pigs -- no gender
intended, its a stock commercial comment -- get 100 times the
private money going to support athletics at Ohio State, in forced
state taxes and private tuition costs, but it doesn't occur to them
that their program is the pig, not the athletic program. They
aren't satisfied, they want all the money. And, the fact that it
is private money given to and produced by the athletic program, is
no barrier. The pigs just want all the money, even though if they
tried to get the athletic money, it would cease to exists, and so
would public support to some degree, for their whole education
program. The effect is synergistic, and you can't cut off one
hand, without having an effect upon the other.
Next, they criticize: "rapid expansion", and we are all to
assume that because it is alleged to be "rapid", and involves
athletics, it has to be a bad thing. If it was rapid for academic
facilities, it would be a good thing, but since it is athletics, it
must of necessity be a bad thing. That is the university
indoctrinated clone politically correct position, for which the
article is meant to support, not just for Ohio State, but
nationwide for all universities. Athletics is bad, and the
education folks, in their stridently defended independent opinions,
have to all genuflect to the clone position.
The Ohio State football stadium was built in 1922 with a
capacity of 89,841 seating. Says the article:
"A 1926 photograph of a game against the University
of Michigan shows 90,000 people packing the horseshoe."
In the Penn State game this year the article says they had 105,103
fans in the stands. From 1922 to 2002, 80 years; and from 89,841
to 105,103 fans in the stands, doesn't shock my conscience as
consisting of "rapid expansion", at least not for football that
pays the bills. The question that ought to be asked is: who were
the bright folks with foresight who determined to build the stadium
in the first instance, and who paid for it. I suspect that the
answer is the education folks in 1922 didn't have to deal with the
politically correct liberal crowd gnawing on their leg, and I also
suspect it was the legislature of Ohio with the foresight to spend
tax dollars to build the stadium, not only for Ohio State, but for
the tax paying folks of Ohio.
My 1997 NCAA records indicate that, thanks to their stadium
and their football program, Ohio State was 4th in the nation in
attendance with 564,167 for 6 games and an average of 94,028, while
K-State was 40th in the nation in attendance with 260,885 for 6
games and an average of 43,481 -- just to give you a comparison of
the magnitude of the programs. Lets work the problem backwards.
$79,000,000 at least in income; divided by 6 games is $13,166,667
a game in income; divided by 94,028 is $140.00 per game per person.
Query: if Ohio State tax payers who support 39,600 students
and the teachers teaching them, both directly through tuition
payments and/or indirectly through taxes; want for their
entertainment to spend $140 per game, and $840 per a season of 6
home games, to support another 400 student athletic scholarships;
why is it do you suspect it is any business of the politically
correct liberal crowd "on the campus outside of athletics".
These folks are employees of the tax payers, they work for the
tax payers, "we bring them along for times in the afternoon when
there is nothing else to do except teach our kids, not to listen to
them talk".
Says the article:
"Very few faculty understand that the athletic program
is completely self-supporting." (Emphasis added).
Are they dumb, and can't read or understand english, or are they
just prejudiced against athletics, because they themselves can't
walk straight, or chew gum at the same time, and are further just
pigs wanting all the money, both public and private?
Says the article:
"With 105,103 fans in the stands, an enormous flag is
raised and, with almost-military precision, "The Best
Damn Band in the Land" marches to form a script "Ohio."
Then comes the kickoff."
These education folks probably don't focus upon the fact that
without a football team, they would not have "The Best Damn Band in
the Land", or any marching band at all. Probably neither did
President Armstrong -- when he cut a deal with the K.U. Board of
Regents in 1986, to "suspend" our football program, in exchange for
three doctorate programs we had been trying to get without fruition
for 20 years -- focus upon the loss of our recognized and quality
marching band, and the effect upon the music school, or the
subsequent massive bleeding and loss of students, for which we have
still not recovered, or the effect upon revenues from the state,
given that we were then no longer perceived as a traditional
university.
Complains the article:
"In 1995-96, the football team cost $2.9 million and
generated $13.2 million, according to the university's
Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act report that year.
By this year, the cost had tripled and the revenue
had doubled." (Emphasis added).
Lets see if I understand the complaint. The athletic department
football program made $10.3 million profit in 1995-96, and that was
bad enough, but the costs have tripled by this year, $8.7 million,
and the revenue only doubled, $26.4 million. Accordingly, the
football program profit by this year, i.e. last years numbers, is
$17.7 million. If a $10.3 million profit is bad, then a $17.7
million profit is even worse, as the costs tripled but the revenue
only doubled. Quod Non Fuit Negatum. And, these articles are
written for the folks who are teaching our kids how to reason.
Complains the article:
"Debt service on Ohio Stadium, the Schottenstein Center,
and other projects in the complex will total a cool $20
million this year." (Emphasis added).
So what. The athletic program made a profit and even paid the
university $12.5 million for all the costs and 400 scholarships.
And, it is precisely the foresight of the folks at the university
and the state in 1922, in building the football facility in the
first instance, that today allows for the athletic program last
year to produce $79 million in income, and operate at a profit.
Further, this year, Ohio State is playing Miami in the Fiesta
Bowl for the National Championship. That game itself will pay Ohio
State in excess of $12 million. And, Miami with an enrollment of
about 6,000 who will also be paid $12 million plus, will be trying
to win its sixth national championship. If Miami with an
enrollment of 6,000 can win five national championships and be
playing for a sixth; it is without question possible for Wichita
State to have at least a run of the mill $3.5 million football
program and compete in the middle of the WAC. It is just a matter
of thinking through the problems and resolving the issues, which
problems do not take an engineering degree to solve.
Complains the article:
"The thing that still sticks in the craw of most faculty
is the amount of money that went into facilities,"
(Emphasis added).
So what. It's not their money. Admits the article:
"We have these rabid football fans who fill the stadium
and give us money...They totally support the program.
They pay for tickets. They join the Buckeye Club. And
that's allowed us to do all this."....
"The Buckeyes also generate enough income to service the
debt on the many building they have opened over the last
few years -- debt that would stagger almost all other
athletic departments." (Emphasis added).
As to "Academics Second", criticizes the article:
"The football team's graduation rate has been in the
doldrums for the past several years: Thirty-six percent
of players who entered Ohio State from 1992 to 1996
earned degrees within six years."
This seems like a valid criticism, but can it be stated in a
vacuum? When I entered Wichita University in 1959, there were 460
plus freshman students enrolled in engineering as I recall. 23 of
us graduated in engineering. That is a success ratio of 5 percent.
If 36 percent graduation rate is an argument for dropping football
at Ohio State, apparently a 5 percent graduation rate is an even
better argument for dropping engineering at WSU. And if not, why
not? And, it should be admitted by the faculty that even folks who
did not graduate, at least obtain some benefit of their teachings,
and will be better for it, and better for society, in the course of
their lives. In short, graduation is not the only measure of
success. When I was in engineering school at WSU, I had three
courses for my masters degree that were doctorate level courses,
elasticity, plates & shells, and elastic stability, but I didn't
know that they were doctorate level courses until many years later
dealing with my Dr. expert witnesses. I subsequently asked one of
my engineering professors, who confirmed they were doctorate level
courses and that they were taught at the master degree level
because we didn't have a doctorate program at that time, and that
was what the professors were interested in teaching, so we got the
courses for masters degree credit. I further suspect that my
engineering professors did not consider a 5 percent graduation rate
a failure, but rather an indication of the quality of the
engineering mind they were turning out, and unleashing upon the
engineering world, all of which effected the reputation of the
school as being one of the best aeronautical engineering schools in
the country. And, all of my professors, both undergraduate
engineering and graduate engineering, had doctorate degrees in
engineering.
A psychology professor complains:
"They come here, and are spending an enormous amount of
time on their sport, I think this is a problem."
When I was in engineering school, I spent "an enormous amount of
time" on engineering studies. It's a choice we all make in the
process of determining our lives. But liberals believe they have
a corner on the market of the right to instruct everyone else as to
their priorities and what it is they should do with their lives.
This is America, and we all get to make our own choices, other than
paying government taxes. The truth is these academic types just
want to criticize, with whatever they think sounds good on its
face.
I would like to take some of these university professor
elitist who are convinced of their infinite wisdom on all subjects
based upon their narrow knowledge of the subject they teach; out on
survival in the mountains in the Los Pinos - Conejos river country
in southern Colorado for a week. Along about sunset the first
night they would suddenly be aware that they know very little about
the real world and would be highly concerned about their survival
till morning. I doubt they could even start a fire without a blow
torch or a can of gasoline and a box of matches. And, 10 miles
from nowhere, they would not have the physical stamina to reach
civilization. And it is without doubt they could not catch a trout
or otherwise feed themselves. But they only think they know
everything and have infinite wisdom, because they are narrowly
focused on what they do, and just don't know anything else in the
world exists.
The article is further replete with opportunities to pull down
the shorts of this politically correct instructive, and expose it
for the bias and prejudice it exhibits, but I will stop here as I
have more than made the point and this letter has become much
longer than what I had in mind to accomplish, perhaps to the point
of defending itself from the possibility that it will be read with
focus. It is however, equal in length to the article I was
provided, and I have only touched on the more egregious points.
In the hope you will not let the article effect your judgment
as to whether or not we can resolve our student loss problem and
become a traditional university again, I am
As always, with Kind regards,
Fred Marrs