Thanks Reporter, as usual.

An interesting discussion. I can understand the athletics folks being concerned.
Everyone has reasons for concern. Within the framework of that concern, it would be constructive for us to discuss our concerns as a community rather than as a bunch of highly specialized interests.

I just wish Power Eagle wouldn't feel the urge to put this in an us vs them frame -- I think it more complicated than that.

Many faculty are athletics fans. To name three I know -- Myron Henry has season football tickets. I went to every football game this year and try, even with a busy schedule, to hit a few other games and I yell my head off. Amy Young is a basketball nut. Because some faculty raise questions about priorities (and remember, we have no way of knowing, dollar for dollar, what athletic spending is vs academic spending because we don't really see the real revenue figures) it does not follow that we view athletics as the enemy. The issue with this President isn't, for faculty, about athletics. It is about leadership as a whole. It may be that many boosters feel this administration has been good to athletics and worry that a new administration might be less generous. Some of us in academics might have feelings that academics may well have been neglected in significant ways -- particularly in terms of the issue of fundraising.
This President has, in the view of some, pushed hard on grantsmanship and pork barrel not simply to replace funding decreases from the state, but because this administration is not a very energetic fundraising team in any area other than athletics and some areas of the sciences. The concern is that perhaps enthusiasm for a few areas close to the heart of this administration displaced a sense of loyalty to institution as a whole.

No single entity at the university is the university. Athletics isn't. Neither is polymer science. Neither is theatre. We rise and fall as a university based on our collective pride in our institution -- one thing an athletic program is in one of the best positions to make visible in a public sense. But the raison d'tre of the university is still its teaching and its research. There needs to be a balance -- and certainly the role of athletics (or of the arts, to cite the other highly visible public venue for university visibility) should not be given attention at the expense of the very activity that gives the university its reason for being.

We have to be in this together -- I hope that all members of the community will take every advantage to get to know our preferred candidate as best as possible. She is not going to be perfect -- no one can be. But the question must be -- does she offer a strong hope for improving the university as a whole? If the answer to that is yes, then we all, from our individual perspectives as atheltics boosters, as academics, as supporters of the arts, etc. -- must find our own place within that whole and from that place work to do our part to make the university better for our students and the people of Mississippi.

I heard yesterday that the "expansion" will cost $31,000,000, yet add fewer than 400 additional seats.  It sure is pretty, though.

Picture of Proposed Expansion

"How do I do it?  I'm up to my eyeballs in debt. Somebody, please help me."

ram wrote:

---

I heard yesterday that the "expansion" will cost $31,000,000, yet add fewer than 400 additional seats.  It sure is pretty, though.

Picture of Proposed Expansion

"How do I do it?  I'm up to my eyeballs in debt. Somebody, please help me."

---

Actually it will add about 6000 I believe. The figure you are citing might apply to the sky boxes, I'm not sure. There are bleacher sections being added to bring the total up as well.

I'm not as convinced as some that this might not work. I do have concerns that we are going into debt to do it and I have deep concerns that faculty have never been brought on board in terms of understanding how all of this expansion will help academics. It might -- but I'm not seeing studies or plans. I only hear anecdotal  stuff -- and even that isn't official. In light of the many public reports that paint a less than rosy picture it doesn't seem unfair for faculty to raise questions about what the university administration expects to achieve by this expansion. If it expects greater visibility to draw more students, influence faculty coming here; generate greater revenues for the university and community; or create a larger donar pool for non-athletic venues then say so -- and show us some data that help us to understand that these plans are being run on some kind of model that makes sense  . . . .

Beck is right. The editorial in the HA citing the "profit" athetics departments bring to campus is incorrect. Its own parent Gannett ran a major series of articles within the past two months in USA Today citing the number of profitable programs as less than a dozen. And even those figures are misleading if you include the indebtedness for facilities.

However, I think there is an appropriate place for athletics -- there are lots of things a strong athletic program that is well managed can do for a university. The problem currently at USM is that the intersection of athletics and academics is not a public one -- there has never been a discussion with faculty about the plans the administration has and what the larger benefit it projects might be.
I don't blame athletics for that problem -- I blame an administration that has always been secretive about everything it does.

I actually respect what Director Giannini is trying to achieve -- after all, he is doing his job. I don't think he helped the cause during the aborted attempt to get the city involved in bonding for the rennovations. It was probably a good idea -- that is a model other cities have followed. But it was handled badly and when the result went against the university the tantrum that ensued certainly didn't help the cause in quarters of the town beyond the business interests that had a direct concern in the bond issue. It makes complete sense that the business community has an interest in this - after all, anything that draws people to Hattiesburg potentially helps business and that seems like a good thing for all of us. But unless those discussions occur in the open, it is difficult to get support from those who don't necessarily see, or have good reason to be suspicious that the majority of the accrued benefits will go to a small group of interests.

Thanks Godless Liberal, for that reassurance. I guess I wish that things -- to the degree that supporters are comfortable -- could be more transparent so that we could see that crossover. I think it would really help to see the breadth of support for all of the activities in which the university engages.

I have met and worked with a number of people who have been incredibly generous with their resources on behalf of the university and I'm grateful for their support.