• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

UM's Next President - Search Committee - Athletics?

grizpack said:
I don't think it should be the deciding factor at all. Academics, research, administrative abilities should always be the first and deciding factors.

But I do think that the new president should be a strong supporter of athletics. I think that the strong athletic program, and specifically the football program brings a LOT of interest and attention to UM.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with the highlighted statement -- at least that's how it should be.

HOWEVER, that overlooks one important skill (more in a sec). Out of curiosity, I Googled some variations of "college president search criteria" and learned something we should have expected -- the successful candidate needs to be a good fund raiser. You might be surprised at how many different "code phrases" there are for "Show me the money!"

You might think this criteria should apply only to private schools -- but you'd be wrong. A public university president must, obviously, be able to lobby the legislature for money. But even they must also be ready, willing, and able to stroke the big corporate, foundation, and private (read, Rich) donors. Once upon a time, private schools bitched loudly when public schools competed with them for big donations -- they lost that war and hardly bother to complain any more.

My point: A college president who does not recognize the PR value of a successful athletic program in wooing big donors is an idiot, or seriously out of touch with how things really are in higher education today. (FYI: The president of Boise State is really good at stroking big donors.)

So I'm less worried about athletics getting slighted in the search for a new president.
 
Prominent athletic teams = more HS applicants. Bigger pool of applicants = more students/$ or the option to be more selective depending on how many the school can admit. Either way, # of applicants is extremely important.
 
IdaGriz01 said:
My point: A college president who does not recognize the PR value of a successful athletic program in wooing big donors is an idiot, or seriously out of touch with how things really are in higher education today. (FYI: The president of Boise State is really good at stroking big donors.)

So I'm less worried about athletics getting slighted in the search for a new president.
Click to expand...


I hate to say it, but Gamble has totally kicked Dennison's ass in collecting private funding for research and did so without a successful athletic program. George did well with his capital campaigns, but not so well with continued funding for research. We need that.
Biochemistry, neuroscience, toxicology, fish and wildlife biology, forestry--- which are all Phd research programs at UM--should have better partnerships with private business than they do currently. The school should also be agressively placing undergrads and post grads in internship programs. MSU's research funding has gone from $20 million a year in 1999 to about $120 million a year currently. Montana's research funding is kicking around $70 million.
 
griz4life said:
I hate to say it, but Gamble has totally kicked Dennison's ass in collecting private funding for research and did so without a successful athletic program. George did well with his capital campaigns, but not so well with continued funding for research. We need that.
Biochemistry, neuroscience, toxicology, fish and wildlife biology, forestry--- which are all Phd research programs at UM--should have better partnerships with private business than they do currently. The school should also be agressively placing undergrads and post grads in internship programs. MSU's research funding has gone from $20 million a year in 1999 to about $120 million a year currently. Montana's research funding is kicking around $70 million.
Click to expand...
Those research funding numbers are really impressive, and You bet! UM needs to get with the program. The search committee has to know those numbers too, and unless they're all academic purists, they'll be looking for somebody with some impressive creds in that area. Question is, will UM offer the buck$$$ to get someone like that? (Takes money to make money.) Two depts I'm particularly familiar with -- pharmacy and physical therapy (both health-care disciplines) -- have a lot of potential for expansion, just like the ones you mentioned.

Relevance to this thread: A successful athletic program is not necessary for effective fund-raising, but it's a foot in the door -- and that's all a good money-hustler can ask for.
 
griz4life I hate to say it said:
A successful athletic program has nothing to do with landing research dollars. Your point has nothing to do with the main discussion in this thread. Most researach dollars are federal grants.

One of the reason's MSU has done well with research dollars is that MSU has engineering and ag program.

Your figures for MSU research dollars are not correct. As of Sept. 2009, the amount was just under $100 million.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=montana+state+university+research+dollars&fr=ush-news&ygmasrchbtn=Web+Search
Click to expand...
 
Good grief, you're turning to Yahoo to decipher university research funding? Unless you're ready to crack open the MUS budget, I suggest you stick to football gossip, old man.
 
griz4life said:
Good grief, you're turning to Yahoo to decipher university research funding? Unless you're ready to crack open the MUS budget, I suggest you stick to football gossip, old man.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to open the link, you would have seen that it was to an MSU press release which was on the MSU edu website. How dumb are you? I am constantly amazed at the number of UM grads on this site who can't read.

"Montana State University wins $98.4 million in research dollars for fiscal year
September 11, 2009 -- By Evelyn Boswell, MSU News Service

BOZEMAN - Research funding won by Montana State University rose $2.2 million in the past year, totaling $98.4 million for the fiscal year that ended June 30.

...."
 
Grizpack-

In order to have great academics, you have to have EXPOSURE to the university in general. That doesn't come from bragging about how great your geology or nuclear science programs are, even if they are amongst the best in the country. That exposure comes from winning athletics. Now granted, there are schools who have been around so long they have a reputation unto themselves academically (see: the Ivy League and the Big Ten...and I'm not kidding, we have an academic reputation that almost rivals our athletic traditions).

Compare 1990 University of Miami when they were an established football power to 1975 University of Miami, when they were so pathetic they seriously considered dropping to 1-AA. Now Miami in the pre-Greatest Dynasty Ever-era had an academic reputation and some considered it to be the Ivy of the South because its academics were so good. After 1990 when Miami was an established football power, the school had one of the largest enrollments of any private school and had a larger enrollment than some of the other schools in the area.

You have to be very careful in choosing a president. Miami went the wrong direction when they chose Edward Tad Foote II to be their president. He had a major disdain for the program and never acknowledged athletics' role in making Miami a major university from a university that had a little reputation but not much.
 
You also might argue that the previous Miami president's irreverence for athletics, specifically football, has played a role in the decline of their program in recent years. A program like the Hurricanes, one of the most successful in college football, should have top flight facilities. They shouldn't be renting broken down stadiums from half-assed pro teams in the area. I think their facilities have negatively affected game-day atmosphere, which I think is a big recruiting disadvantage when you're in SEC-land.
 
General Disarray said:
You also might argue that the previous Miami president's irreverence for athletics, specifically football, has played a role in the decline of their program in recent years. A program like the Hurricanes, one of the most successful in college football, should have top flight facilities. They shouldn't be renting broken down stadiums from half-assed pro teams in the area. I think their facilities have negatively affected game-day atmosphere, which I think is a big recruiting disadvantage when you're in SEC-land.
Click to expand...
Or ACC-land?
 
Spanky said:
General....Miami is in the ACC.
Click to expand...

I think he means that Miami is generally competing with SEC teams like Alabama, Georgia, Florida & Tennessee (maybe Auburn too) for top flight recruits.
 
Posts on there have already suggested this, but I'll say it, up front & loud: UM does not NEED a championship football team, or any other athletic team to survive. Christ, I was at UM in years when the football team did not win a game at all, but the university continued to flourish. I get the impression from several posts, here, that UM depends on athletics (football) to keep it afloat. They are putting the cart before the horse, and it would not surprise me if the hiring committee, the Regents, etc., will not care one whit about the degree of an applicant's commitment to UM athletics, other than they are necessary for a well-rounded campus atmosphere. Frosting on the cake, if you will.

If, along with all the other qualifications, the successful applicant is also interested in a healthy football program, all the better, but it won't be the deciding factor, although a marked indifference to the value of a good football team, along with other sports, might not weigh well with the selection committee, etc. All I'm saying is that the football team will be pretty far down on the list of priorities that the committee will look for in hiring a new president. Yet, a new president would be a fool not to realize the enthusiasm of Griz supporters and utilize it to keep UM in the public eye. But, in the end, UM does not NEED a championship football team to survive, even if you think it does.
 
David2 said:
Posts on there have already suggested this, but I'll say it, up front & loud: UM does not NEED a championship football team, or any other athletic team to survive. Christ, I was at UM in years when the football team did not win a game at all, but the university continued to flourish. I get the impression from several posts, here, that UM depends on athletics (football) to keep it afloat. They are putting the cart before the horse, and it would not surprise me if the hiring committee, the Regents, etc., will not care one whit about the degree of an applicant's commitment to UM athletics, other than they are necessary for a well-rounded campus atmosphere. Frosting on the cake, if you will.

If, along with all the other qualifications, the successful applicant is also interested in a healthy football program, all the better, but it won't be the deciding factor, although a marked indifference to the value of a good football team, along with other sports, might not weigh well with the selection committee, etc. All I'm saying is that the football team will be pretty far down on the list of priorities that the committee will look for in hiring a new president. Yet, a new president would be a fool not to realize the enthusiasm of Griz supporters and utilize it to keep UM in the public eye. But, in the end, UM does not NEED a championship football team to survive, even if you think it does.
Click to expand...


If you don't think the committee "will not care one whit" then that is your opinion. Compare enrollment at msu, v UM and perhaps you might see why it does matter. Like you, I also attended UM for my undergraduate degree. The Griz were not the team to beat in the BSC at the time, nor were they in the State of Montana. msu was ruling the roost, and had about 2000 more in-state students than did UM. Call it the great irony if you will, but when "the streak" gained momentum, the in-state enrollment followed suit, and UM now rules the roost. Direct correlation? That isn't for me to decide, but a good athletic program sure as hell hasn't hurt. If you don't wish to believe it, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the facts, which are pretty clear.
 
Colorado State and Utah have both reported that enrollment surged after sucessful football seasons.
 
Grizbacker1 said:
If you don't think the committee "will not care one whit" then that is your opinion. Compare enrollment at msu, v UM and perhaps you might see why it does matter. Like you, I also attended UM for my undergraduate degree. The Griz were not the team to beat in the BSC at the time, nor were they in the State of Montana. msu was ruling the roost, and had about 2000 more in-state students than did UM. Call it the great irony if you will, but when "the streak" gained momentum, the in-state enrollment followed suit, and UM now rules the roost. Direct correlation? That isn't for me to decide, but a good athletic program sure as hell hasn't hurt. If you don't wish to believe it, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the facts, which are pretty clear.
Click to expand...

As of this fall, UM had a Undergrad/Grad student population of 12,816, and MSU's Undergrad/Grad student population is 12,764. That's a difference of 52 students...hardly ruling the roost, I'd say.
 
wbtfg said:
Grizbacker1 said:
If you don't think the committee "will not care one whit" then that is your opinion. Compare enrollment at msu, v UM and perhaps you might see why it does matter. Like you, I also attended UM for my undergraduate degree. The Griz were not the team to beat in the BSC at the time, nor were they in the State of Montana. msu was ruling the roost, and had about 2000 more in-state students than did UM. Call it the great irony if you will, but when "the streak" gained momentum, the in-state enrollment followed suit, and UM now rules the roost. Direct correlation? That isn't for me to decide, but a good athletic program sure as hell hasn't hurt. If you don't wish to believe it, that is your prerogative, but it doesn't change the facts, which are pretty clear.
Click to expand...

As of this fall, UM had a Undergrad/Grad student population of 12,816, and MSU's Undergrad/Grad student population is 12,764. That's a difference of 52 students...hardly ruling the roost, I'd say.
Click to expand...

WRONG! In the Fall UM had 14,921 students, msu has under 13,000. If you want to argue the numbers call the Registrars Office at both schools. Don't let the facts get in the way of you making an ass of yourself. :jack:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top