Barrett - Who Voted for This Jerk?

[Spanky]

75....I remember Newburn well. Not a good period for UM athletics....

 

[UMGriz75]

Switching out the human sacrifices for toys has proven to be quite popular, however...

I am not convinced it was an improvement overall ....

 

[Griz Man]

Excellent point. Shares in "Sacrifices 'R Us" haven't performed nearly as well as shares in "Toys 'R Us".

Switching out the human sacrifices for toys has proven to be quite popular, however...

I am not convinced it was an improvement overall ....

If you were to visit Toys R Us today (God help you), I can see how a little doubt could creep in :lol:

 

[jacobj6]

Necessary reading. Lefty obviously missed Business 101; ideas would destroy GrizNation as we know it. His office needs to get flooded with responses.

http://billingsgazette.com/sports/college/big-sky-conference/university-of-montana/football/griz-athletic-department-receives-m-in-public-subsidies/article_3f4a0df2-0aa0-513a-995b-634b30376413.html

It's Barret's policies that are shooting himself in the foot. Title 9 and socialistic policies are the reason we have so many different subsidised sports. Barrett is basically standing against his own self.

 

[NorthwestFresh]

they did run the table showing that the U's subsidy is far lower than those of every other school in the conference.

That's not true, though. ISU and Southern Utah both have lower subsidies than UM, and Weber State is basically the same with just a bit higher.

Here is a neat link that is sortable. I don't understand why UM is in such financial trouble when you compare their numbers to peer schools.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

 

[Hammer]

Hammer....so, is it correct that you don't believe in God?

George Carlin says it way better than I ever could LOL
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo[/youtube]

 

[El Griz]

A student of Barrett it the late eighties. Decent professor. Meaning he knew his level very well. When he is out of his element, he is agenda driven. Very agenda driven.

 

[kemajic]

One of the problems with UM at the moment (that Barrett seems oddly oblivious to) is the continuing ineptness of the administration in recruiting and public relations results in increasing incremental costs for all of the auxiliary services, even as incremental revenues decline. THAT is the core of the current budget crisis at UM, and if he were really interested in attacking the problem, that is what he would be focusing on instead of the long-standing Lefty obsession with sports which has absolutely nothing to do with UM's current problems and governance.

The impact of the Engstrom administration on UM enrollment is well documented in this forum. But the problem had its roots within Dennison's watch in which he grabbed money from wherever he could to build buildings for his legacy. As a result, even more so with declining enrollment, UM is over built and is paying the price. Extra buildings carry heavy expenses even if the capital is paid off. Expenses that are not providing a return and are a burden. UM has invested for an enrolment of about 20,000 and has about 12,000. So let's eliminate athletics - logical.

 

[Copper Griz]

One of the problems with UM at the moment (that Barrett seems oddly oblivious to) is the continuing ineptness of the administration in recruiting and public relations results in increasing incremental costs for all of the auxiliary services, even as incremental revenues decline. THAT is the core of the current budget crisis at UM, and if he were really interested in attacking the problem, that is what he would be focusing on instead of the long-standing Lefty obsession with sports which has absolutely nothing to do with UM's current problems and governance.

The impact of the Engstrom administration on UM enrollment is well documented in this forum. But the problem had its roots within Dennison's watch in which he grabbed money form wherever he could to build buildings for his legacy. As a result, even more so with declining enrollment, UM is over built and is paying the price. Extra buildings carry heavy expenses even if the capital is paid off. Expenses that are not providing a return and are a burden. UM has invested for an enrolment of about 20,000 and has about 12,000. So let's eliminate athletics - logical.

Take a look at the national average for debt upon graduation. That is a real problem and one that should be discussed in every political arena. Left, right, tea party, independent, etc. Education is unaffordable, does not provide a decent return on investment, and takes way too long because institutions of higher learning just have to get their $$$$ out of the students. The system is broke and athletics is part of the problem. Should athletics be the target and main focal point - no. I applaud anyone who is at least talking about the issue of funding. His agenda may not be rational and his political leanings not the same as yours, but good for him. We need more discussion in this country about what is wrong with higher education. I also applaud your rebuttal of his opinion.

 

[UMGriz75]

Tad its roots within Dennison's watch in which he grabbed money form wherever he could to build buildings for his legacy. As a result, even more so with declining enrollment, UM is over built and is paying the price. Extra bhe impact of the Engstrom administration on UM enrollment is well documented in this forum. But the problem huildings carry heavy expenses even if the capital is paid off. Expenses that are not providing a return and are a burden. UM has invested for an enrolment of about 20,000 and has about 12,000. So let's eliminate athletics - logical.

Well, Dennison was building for the University that UM was likely, very likely, to become. It was an appropriate vision with an appropriate record to build on -- 30 years of increasing enrollments. In my career, UM grew from 7,500 students to 15,000. Indeed, at the rates of growth experienced under Dennison, UM would be approaching 17,500 students this year.

Barrett is doing, however, what I detest among ideologues. He is exploiting a period of exceptionally poor management and, instead of doing what is necessary to change directions, he is using it as an excuse to pursue his ideological goals -- ultimately the elimination of collegiate sports.

Indeed, his goal is so ideological that he fails or refuses to note that his ultimate solution would further damage, not assist, the University of Montana and schools like it. "Economists" know this with certainty because study after study shows that successful and prominent sports programs have positive budgetary effects, increase enrollments, and increase the quality of applicants.

So, when someone like Barrett proposes cutting the role of collegiate sports, he is proposing to assist in accelerating the rate of enrollment decline, resulting in more layoffs, and more budget cuts. And he claims to be an economist? No he is simply being irresponsible.

"The Impact of College Sports Success on the Quantity and Quality of Student Applications," Devin G. Pope and Jaren C. Pope, Southern Economic Journal 2009, 75(3), 750-780:

Key findings include the following: (1) football and basketball success significantly increases the quantity of applications to a school, with estimates ranging from 2% to 8% for the top 20 football schools and the top 16 basketball schools each year, (2) private schools see increases in application rates after sports success that are two to four times higher than public schools, (3) the extra applications received are composed of both low and high SAT scoring students, thus providing potential for schools to improve their admission outcomes, and (4) schools appear to exploit these increases in applications by improving both the number and the quality of incoming students.

This underscores my continuing criticisms of UM's "ad" campaigns, which generally consist of sending inexperienced camermen wandering around campus to find "diverse looking" students to interview, and who, when found, manage to usually blurt out something profound like "I really like it here," and other moving testaments to educational rigor, life enhancement and athletic challenge, without much about fantastic athletics, high quality research, and outstanding faculty.

UM produces fatuous twaddle for promoting itself, and that is just part of the problem in a Main Hall that can't figure out that it IS the problem.

 

[Spanky]

Engstrom likely realizes that he is the problem, but doesn't know what should be done.

 

[kemajic]

Engstrom likely realizes that he is the problem, but doesn't know what should be done.

I doubt it; he considers himself a victim of circumstances. But it's obvious he doesn't have the horsepower to pull us out of it.

 

[UMGriz75]

Tad its roots within Dennison's watch in which he grabbed money form wherever he could to build buildings for his legacy. As a result, even more so with declining enrollment, UM is over built and is paying the price. Extra bhe impact of the Engstrom administration on UM enrollment is well documented in this forum. But the problem huildings carry heavy expenses even if the capital is paid off. Expenses that are not providing a return and are a burden. UM has invested for an enrolment of about 20,000 and has about 12,000. So let's eliminate athletics - logical.

Well, Dennison was building for the University that UM was likely, very likely, to become. It was an appropriate vision with an appropriate record to build on -- 30 years of increasing enrollments. In my career, UM grew from 7,500 students to 15,000. Indeed, at the rates of growth experienced under Dennison, UM would be approaching 17,500 students this year.

Barrett is doing, however, what I detest among ideologues. He is exploiting a period of exceptionally poor management and, instead of doing what is necessary to change directions, he is using it as an excuse to pursue his ideological goals -- ultimately the elimination of collegiate sports.

Indeed, his goal is so ideological that he fails or refuses to note that his ultimate solution would further damage, not assist, the University of Montana and schools like it. "Economists" know this with certainty because study after study shows that successful and prominent sports programs have positive budgetary effects, increase enrollments, and increase the quality of applicants.

So, when someone like Barrett proposes cutting the role of collegiate sports, he is proposing to assist in accelerating the rate of enrollment decline, resulting in more layoffs, and more budget cuts. And he claims to be an economist? No he is simply being irresponsible.

"The Impact of College Sports Success on the Quantity and Quality of Student Applications," Devin G. Pope and Jaren C. Pope, Southern Economic Journal 2009, 75(3), 750-780:

Key findings include the following: (1) football and basketball success significantly increases the quantity of applications to a school, with estimates ranging from 2% to 8% for the top 20 football schools and the top 16 basketball schools each year, (2) private schools see increases in application rates after sports success that are two to four times higher than public schools, (3) the extra applications received are composed of both low and high SAT scoring students, thus providing potential for schools to improve their admission outcomes, and (4) schools appear to exploit these increases in applications by improving both the number and the quality of incoming students.

This underscores my continuing criticisms of UM's "ad" campaigns, which generally consist of sending inexperienced camermen wandering around campus to find "diverse looking" students to interview, and who, when found, manage to usually blurt out something profound like "I really like it here," and other moving testaments to educational rigor, life enhancement and athletic challenge, without much about fantastic athletics, high quality research, and outstanding faculty.

UM produces fatuous twaddle for promoting itself, and that is just part of the problem in a Main Hall that can't figure out that IT is the problem.

 

[UMGriz75]

Engstrom likely realizes that he is the problem, but doesn't know what should be done.

Unfortunately, the Board of Regents inadvertently provided a $500,000 possible bonus if he hangs on. There's another part of "management" here that managed to incentivize incompetence in a big way.

"Big Business" often is criticized, by Lefty's and investors alike, for offering "golden parachutes" -- large incentives -- to inept executives to "just go away." Here's "Big Government's" version: a huge incentive to inept executives to just hang on and keep spreading the damage. Lefty's like Barrett don't utter a peep about how twisted and damaging this is in this instance.

 

[kemajic]

its roots within Dennison's watch in which he grabbed money from wherever he could to build buildings for his legacy. As a result, even more so with declining enrollment, UM is over built and is paying the price. Extra bhe impact of the Engstrom administration on UM enrollment is well documented in this forum. But the problem huildings carry heavy expenses even if the capital is paid off. Expenses that are not providing a return and are a burden. UM has invested for an enrollment of about 20,000 and has about 12,000. So let's eliminate athletics - logical.

Well, Dennison was building for the University that UM was likely, very likely, to become. It was an appropriate vision with an appropriate record to build on -- 30 years of increasing enrollments. In my career, UM grew from 7,500 students to 15,000. Indeed, at the rates of growth experienced under Dennison, UM would be approaching 17,500 students this year.

While it's probably not right to second-guess Dennison's actions or motives many years later, it is fair to question the quality of his vision. There are forces working against the growth of liberal arts universities that were becoming visible even in Dennison's time. And his projects did not help the cost of a UM education. While you imply UM enrollment growth had been positive every year for 30 years, that is not actually the case. There have been peaks and valleys before. While we are hopefully in a valley today, nevertheless UM enrollment is only about double what it was 50 years ago. With that type of growth rate, brick and mortar investments need to be made much more carefully that they were in the Dennison era.

 

[Spanky]

Kem.....not certain, but I think the enrollment was 8000 when I graduated in 1963.

 

[UMGriz75]

While we are hopefully in a valley today, nevertheless UM enrollment is only about double what it was 50 years ago. With that type of growth rate, brick and mortar investments need to be made much more carefully that they were in the Dennison era.

True. The method of education is changing dramatically. Many Law Schools are seeing enrollment declines of 10-30%. Some are increasing. The reasons aren't consistent, but interestingly, the ones that are have higher profile conservative faculty, and ... more electronic education.

Dennison's projections were based on very long term trends, really, the trend began in 1943. It's always possible to second guess the future, but I think Dennison would have been remiss if he had not recognized very long term trends at work, combined with the driver of very public athletic success, combined with ... modern facilities and a first class campus. The fact that "something or someone" changed all of those drivers and so thoroughly changed the trend line is the significant event.

 

[kemajic]

Kem.....not certain, but I think the enrollment was 8000 when I graduated in 1963.

In my time there ('64-8) it progressed from 5400 to 6000.

 

[UMGriz75]

James Koch, September 1986 - June 1990

"In the long run, the increased enrollment "may be the most important thing I have done."

Despite the brief length of his administration, Koch increased enrollment to near-record levels and launched a massive campaign to improve the University's image. He traveled extensively to Montana communities promoting the University at more than 74 high schools. During his administration, the number of student activities and participants increased dramatically. Koch's legacy was his determination to improve the University's status, diversity, and enrollment. He also worked proficiently to reform the University's financial structure and encouraged more funding from the Legislature.

 

[Spanky]

$500,000 bonus for Engstrom. If that actually happens, the BOR should be responsible for paying the money.