Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 16594
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:56 am

Bay Area UMie wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:11 pm Ok, when people make assertions about financial or quantitative matters they typically accompany their claims with evidence/reasons based on hard data not some abstract claim that we are expected to accept at face value as a given. Let’s start with your “it’s been a smarter financial move for the U vs being FCS” comment. I challenge you to back up your claim with some comparative financials-sources included. Looking forward to hearing back from you. I am very curious and open minded about this claim, but I need to be convinced. I have seen numerous people make this claim that operating within the FCS is more costly, but no one seems to provide any data to support their position. Feel free to caucus with “Jack” since he is so adamant that your comments are “excellent.”

I don't have them handy, I'm sorry. They've been talked about here (pretty confident McKinney did a full breakdown in the past), on Twitter (ZachIsGod is a good person to check in with), on the more Football focused UMass board(s), and in-person discussions I've hard with Athletic Department people. I don't have that sort of time to rehash what has already been discussed, but you can feel free to do some digging. In short, I will be declining your "challenge." Considering the University is a state entity, a FOIA request would also get you what you seem to think you need. Good luck.


Also, please don't ever lump me in with Jack. You've been posting here since 2017... you should know better.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

User avatar
Merlin Samuels
Sophomore
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 12:29 pm

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by Merlin Samuels » Tue Nov 29, 2022 10:55 am

One financial advantage we have is the ability to count as an FBS opponent. This is huge when scheduling games against power conference schools. Believe it or not, before Whipple was run out of town, the team went toe to toe with infinitely better resourced SEC programs (Vanderbilt, Tennessee, and Miss State). I believe Don Brown will get this program back on track, and perhaps the flexibility of an independent schedule will work out better than membership in a lesser conference.

classof62-64
Sophomore
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:36 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by classof62-64 » Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:23 pm

If we were 8-4 and headed for a bowl, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The numbers cited in the original post are, I'm sure, valid - but represent a failed effort. If you want to make the football program part of the interview process for Chancellor, the more appropriate question is if they support continuing pursuit of the current objective (which I assume is to have a competitive program). That's the policy question. We know what the answer has been for a long time now. Is it still the same answer?

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 4989
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by eldonabe » Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:38 pm

classof62-64 wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:23 pm If we were 8-4 and headed for a bowl, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The numbers cited in the original post are, I'm sure, valid - but represent a failed effort. If you want to make the football program part of the interview process for Chancellor, the more appropriate question is if they support continuing pursuit of the current objective (which I assume is to have a competitive program). That's the policy question. We know what the answer has been for a long time now. Is it still the same answer?
What I would find interesting in that question is what is the desired answer for those asking

classof62-64
Sophomore
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:36 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by classof62-64 » Tue Nov 29, 2022 6:49 pm

eldonabe wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:38 pm
classof62-64 wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 1:23 pm If we were 8-4 and headed for a bowl, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The numbers cited in the original post are, I'm sure, valid - but represent a failed effort. If you want to make the football program part of the interview process for Chancellor, the more appropriate question is if they support continuing pursuit of the current objective (which I assume is to have a competitive program). That's the policy question. We know what the answer has been for a long time now. Is it still the same answer?
What I would find interesting in that question is what is the desired answer for those asking
I was clueless regarding the functioning of the University as an undergrad. I knew we had a President (Jean Paul Mather), who seemed to have the authority to ban alcohol use in the fraternities and who resigned in a spat with the legislature over funding. I didn't know what the Chancellor did or if we even had one back then. I have not elevated my level of understanding. So, without knowledge of the lines of authority between the university presidents and the Chancellor, if I were on the committee, my desired short answer would be something like ".... yes, I believe the Flagship Campus should have nationally respectable programs in all sports, including football." If the Chancellor has direct hire/fire authority over the presidents, I might be looking for something more proactive, such as "... if they don't get their shit together some heads will roll."

McKinney
Senior
Posts: 1373
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:12 pm
Location: New Brunswick, NJ

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by McKinney » Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:16 pm

^
President oversees the university system. Chancellor oversees the campus.

The Board of Trustees hires an executive recruiting firm and forms a search committee of trustees, faculty, alumni, and students to recommend finalists to the President. The President appoints a candidate from these finalists. The candidate is then approved as Chancellor by the Board of Trustees. Board members are appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts and can serve up to two 5-year terms.

https://www.umass.edu/news/article/nati ... r-launched
https://www.umassp.edu/bot
Class of 2019 - @StatsMass

classof62-64
Sophomore
Posts: 96
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 11:36 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by classof62-64 » Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:04 am

McKinney wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:16 pm ^
President oversees the university system. Chancellor oversees the campus.

The Board of Trustees hires an executive recruiting firm and forms a search committee of trustees, faculty, alumni, and students to recommend finalists to the President. The President appoints a candidate from these finalists. The candidate is then approved as Chancellor by the Board of Trustees. Board members are appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts and can serve up to two 5-year terms.

https://www.umass.edu/news/article/nati ... r-launched
https://www.umassp.edu/bot
With that understanding I would be looking for the more proactive response: ".... this is how I'll fix it ..."

Bay Area UMie
Sophomore
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:47 pm
Location: Silicon Valley/Bay Area

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by Bay Area UMie » Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:27 pm

InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:56 am
Bay Area UMie wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:11 pm Ok, when people make assertions about financial or quantitative matters they typically accompany their claims with evidence/reasons based on hard data not some abstract claim that we are expected to accept at face value as a given. Let’s start with your “it’s been a smarter financial move for the U vs being FCS” comment. I challenge you to back up your claim with some comparative financials-sources included. Looking forward to hearing back from you. I am very curious and open minded about this claim, but I need to be convinced. I have seen numerous people make this claim that operating within the FCS is more costly, but no one seems to provide any data to support their position. Feel free to caucus with “Jack” since he is so adamant that your comments are “excellent.”

I don't have them handy, I'm sorry. They've been talked about here (pretty confident McKinney did a full breakdown in the past), on Twitter (ZachIsGod is a good person to check in with), on the more Football focused UMass board(s), and in-person discussions I've hard with Athletic Department people. I don't have that sort of time to rehash what has already been discussed, but you can feel free to do some digging. In short, I will be declining your "challenge." Considering the University is a state entity, a FOIA request would also get you what you seem to think you need. Good luck.


Also, please don't ever lump me in with Jack. You've been posting here since 2017... you should know better.
Innervisions, Thanks for the honest reply. Your correct, “the FCS option is financially unfeasible and less attractive from a pure cash flow basis than the current FBS situation” narrative has been postulated on this board by several posters for the last 3-5 years. The reality is no one has provided any hard data supporting this claim-somebody please reference a historical post with link to prove me wrong. This assertion is obviously an extremely important justification for supporting the FBS initiative. If anybody has the data to support this assertion please post the info. My apologies if you were offended by my suggestion that you collaborate with Jack on this point. I thought you both were philosophically in unison on the FCS is financially unfeasible point.

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 16594
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Wed Nov 30, 2022 2:09 pm

Bay Area UMie wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:27 pm
Innervisions, Thanks for the honest reply. Your correct, “the FCS option is financially unfeasible and less attractive from a pure cash flow basis than the current FBS situation” narrative has been postulated on this board by several posters for the last 3-5 years. The reality is no one has provided any hard data supporting this claim-somebody please reference a historical post with link to prove me wrong. This assertion is obviously an extremely important justification for supporting the FBS initiative. If anybody has the data to support this assertion please post the info. My apologies if you were offended by my suggestion that you collaborate with Jack on this point. I thought you both were philosophically in unison on the FCS is financially unfeasible point.

As mentioned, you can feel free to look into what has already been posted here and elsewhere. As far as more current/up-to-date details, a FOIA request is your best bet. I wish you the best of luck.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

PreecherJenkins
Senior
Posts: 1448
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:41 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by PreecherJenkins » Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:58 pm

Bay Area UMie wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:27 pm
InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:56 am
Bay Area UMie wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:11 pm Ok, when people make assertions about financial or quantitative matters they typically accompany their claims with evidence/reasons based on hard data not some abstract claim that we are expected to accept at face value as a given. Let’s start with your “it’s been a smarter financial move for the U vs being FCS” comment. I challenge you to back up your claim with some comparative financials-sources included. Looking forward to hearing back from you. I am very curious and open minded about this claim, but I need to be convinced. I have seen numerous people make this claim that operating within the FCS is more costly, but no one seems to provide any data to support their position. Feel free to caucus with “Jack” since he is so adamant that your comments are “excellent.”

I don't have them handy, I'm sorry. They've been talked about here (pretty confident McKinney did a full breakdown in the past), on Twitter (ZachIsGod is a good person to check in with), on the more Football focused UMass board(s), and in-person discussions I've hard with Athletic Department people. I don't have that sort of time to rehash what has already been discussed, but you can feel free to do some digging. In short, I will be declining your "challenge." Considering the University is a state entity, a FOIA request would also get you what you seem to think you need. Good luck.


Also, please don't ever lump me in with Jack. You've been posting here since 2017... you should know better.
Innervisions, Thanks for the honest reply. Your correct, “the FCS option is financially unfeasible and less attractive from a pure cash flow basis than the current FBS situation” narrative has been postulated on this board by several posters for the last 3-5 years. The reality is no one has provided any hard data supporting this claim-somebody please reference a historical post with link to prove me wrong. This assertion is obviously an extremely important justification for supporting the FBS initiative. If anybody has the data to support this assertion please post the info. My apologies if you were offended by my suggestion that you collaborate with Jack on this point. I thought you both were philosophically in unison on the FCS is financially unfeasible point.
Bay Area you think 1-aa is a smart play? What side of this are you on?

Let''s look at why from a guaranteed game perspective:
Florida State paid 1AA Alabama State $450k in 2019 (source USA Torday)
Florida State paid UMass 1.5m in 2021. (source Mass live)

It does not cost a 1m to charter a flight from Amherst Regional Airport to Tallnasty. The worst 1a team is making a HELL of a lot more money than a 1AA team.

Sure is it cheaper if we were in the CAA in terms of travel, yes, scholarships (maybe I am not sure we have ever used a full allotment of scholarships since moving up to 1a, coaches' salaries would be slightly less, but by how much?

The preecher's biggest takeaway and I think Bamford has done a terrible job in most aspects but I'll give him credit here. He has found a way albeit through student fees and state funds to run a program that does not run at a deficit.

As a UGA fan and a Herschel supporter told me (please pray for Herschel winning his race), when discussing Kirby Smart's contract, he goes "Preech, its so little of our money who really cares they are winning"
"You are what your record says you are" Coach Bill P.

Bay Area UMie
Sophomore
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:47 pm
Location: Silicon Valley/Bay Area

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by Bay Area UMie » Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:00 pm

PreecherJenkins wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:58 pm
Bay Area UMie wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:27 pm
InnervisionsUMASS wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 8:56 am


I don't have them handy, I'm sorry. They've been talked about here (pretty confident McKinney did a full breakdown in the past), on Twitter (ZachIsGod is a good person to check in with), on the more Football focused UMass board(s), and in-person discussions I've hard with Athletic Department people. I don't have that sort of time to rehash what has already been discussed, but you can feel free to do some digging. In short, I will be declining your "challenge." Considering the University is a state entity, a FOIA request would also get you what you seem to think you need. Good luck.


Also, please don't ever lump me in with Jack. You've been posting here since 2017... you should know better.
Innervisions, Thanks for the honest reply. Your correct, “the FCS option is financially unfeasible and less attractive from a pure cash flow basis than the current FBS situation” narrative has been postulated on this board by several posters for the last 3-5 years. The reality is no one has provided any hard data supporting this claim-somebody please reference a historical post with link to prove me wrong. This assertion is obviously an extremely important justification for supporting the FBS initiative. If anybody has the data to support this assertion please post the info. My apologies if you were offended by my suggestion that you collaborate with Jack on this point. I thought you both were philosophically in unison on the FCS is financially unfeasible point.
Bay Area you think 1-aa is a smart play? What side of this are you on?

Let''s look at why from a guaranteed game perspective:
Florida State paid 1AA Alabama State $450k in 2019 (source USA Torday)
Florida State paid UMass 1.5m in 2021. (source Mass live)

It does not cost a 1m to charter a flight from Amherst Regional Airport to Tallnasty. The worst 1a team is making a HELL of a lot more money than a 1AA team.

Sure is it cheaper if we were in the CAA in terms of travel, yes, scholarships (maybe I am not sure we have ever used a full allotment of scholarships since moving up to 1a, coaches' salaries would be slightly less, but by how much?

The preecher's biggest takeaway and I think Bamford has done a terrible job in most aspects but I'll give him credit here. He has found a way albeit through student fees and state funds to run a program that does not run at a deficit.

As a UGA fan and a Herschel supporter told me (please pray for Herschel winning his race), when discussing Kirby Smart's contract, he goes "Preech, its so little of our money who really cares they are winning"
Trying to gather all data to better understand the financials behind both alternatives, I am not arriving at any final conclusions based on assumptions that on the surface appear to be somewhat reasonable but might be baseless misconceptions …as Innervision suggested this topic probably will require a public records request to arrive at the truth-will get to this when I have time down the road…Candidly, I found your praise about Bamford “running a program without a deficit” to be really bizarre and extremely naive. First, Massachusetts statutory rules require The UMass system to balance its annual budget.Bamford, as AD, relies heavily on revenue /subsidies to balance the total Athletic budget including the Football budget, which by definition, shifts the financial burden in this case from UMass Athletics for failed marketplace activities ie FBS football, on to taxpayers and on to unsuspecting, debt ridden students (do most students really understand what the expense line item called “student fees” is for?)…I have a major philosophical problem with shifting funding from academic pursuits to an athletic endeavor where we are not competitive and one that has unquestionably tarnished our reputation as well as expecting struggling students to support an initiative that attendance records indicate they have minimal interest in…I am curious how your favorite Senate candidate Mr Walker, the economic conservative, would react to your overt support of taxpayer largesse and a regressive tax on poor students…Yes, I will be praying about the runoff election, praying that Walker is defeated.

minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2233
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by minutefanjsf » Wed Nov 30, 2022 9:59 pm

Bay Area UMie wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:00 pm
PreecherJenkins wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:58 pm
Bay Area UMie wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 1:27 pm

Innervisions, Thanks for the honest reply. Your correct, “the FCS option is financially unfeasible and less attractive from a pure cash flow basis than the current FBS situation” narrative has been postulated on this board by several posters for the last 3-5 years. The reality is no one has provided any hard data supporting this claim-somebody please reference a historical post with link to prove me wrong. This assertion is obviously an extremely important justification for supporting the FBS initiative. If anybody has the data to support this assertion please post the info. My apologies if you were offended by my suggestion that you collaborate with Jack on this point. I thought you both were philosophically in unison on the FCS is financially unfeasible point.
Bay Area you think 1-aa is a smart play? What side of this are you on?

Let''s look at why from a guaranteed game perspective:
Florida State paid 1AA Alabama State $450k in 2019 (source USA Torday)
Florida State paid UMass 1.5m in 2021. (source Mass live)

It does not cost a 1m to charter a flight from Amherst Regional Airport to Tallnasty. The worst 1a team is making a HELL of a lot more money than a 1AA team.

Sure is it cheaper if we were in the CAA in terms of travel, yes, scholarships (maybe I am not sure we have ever used a full allotment of scholarships since moving up to 1a, coaches' salaries would be slightly less, but by how much?

The preecher's biggest takeaway and I think Bamford has done a terrible job in most aspects but I'll give him credit here. He has found a way albeit through student fees and state funds to run a program that does not run at a deficit.

As a UGA fan and a Herschel supporter told me (please pray for Herschel winning his race), when discussing Kirby Smart's contract, he goes "Preech, its so little of our money who really cares they are winning"
Trying to gather all data to better understand the financials behind both alternatives, I am not arriving at any final conclusions based on assumptions that on the surface appear to be somewhat reasonable but might be baseless misconceptions …as Innervision suggested this topic probably will require a public records request to arrive at the truth-will get to this when I have time down the road…Candidly, I found your praise about Bamford “running a program without a deficit” to be really bizarre and extremely naive. First, Massachusetts statutory rules require The UMass system to balance its annual budget.Bamford, as AD, relies heavily on revenue /subsidies to balance the total Athletic budget including the Football budget, which by definition, shifts the financial burden in this case from UMass Athletics for failed marketplace activities ie FBS football, on to taxpayers and on to unsuspecting, debt ridden students (do most students really understand what the expense line item called “student fees” is for?)…I have a major philosophical problem with shifting funding from academic pursuits to an athletic endeavor where we are not competitive and one that has unquestionably tarnished our reputation as well as expecting struggling students to support an initiative that attendance records indicate they have minimal interest in…I am curious how your favorite Senate candidate Mr Walker, the economic conservative, would react to your overt support of taxpayer largesse and a regressive tax on poor students…Yes, I will be praying about the runoff election, praying that Walker is defeated.
For someone who states you need to gather all the data, you sure have drawn many conclusions already, especially about the cost to taxpayers and struggling students. How do you arrive at these conclusions about these costs if you do not have the data? Here is an article https://www.masslive.com/umassfootball/ ... utour.html from before Covid and when Bell was hired that includes a comparison in the money from student fees between FBS and FCS . It includes lots of things that didn’t pan out with Bell, as well.

minutefanjsf
Hall of Fame
Posts: 2233
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 am

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by minutefanjsf » Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:04 pm

https://www.extrapointsmb.com/umass-col ... ccess-fbs/ Here is an article from last year as well where Bamford is quoted as saying FBS costs $2 million dollars less than the last year of FCS and that 50% of the costs are program generated.

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 16594
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:17 am

Bay Area UMie wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 8:00 pm ...and one that has unquestionably tarnished our reputation...

How has football "unquestionably tarnished our reputation?" Over the last 10 years, the University has continued to rise up national rankings, in spite of our struggles on the field. Some morons here try to say that FBS football has attributed to that rise, which I think is ridiculous, but it very clearly hasn't hindered the rise either.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

69MG
Hall of Fame
Posts: 10928
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:07 pm
Location: Western Mass

Re: Two Questions Every Candidate for the Chancellor’s Job Should Answer (yes, this post belongs in the football section

Post by 69MG » Thu Dec 01, 2022 10:21 am

I don't comment much on football but I do have a thought on this discussion. I think that a strong football program can help a school's reputation but a lousy football program does very little to hurt a school. It's a strange dynamic but I don't think the outside world takes this as seriously as we do.

Post Reply