favorite HATE teams.

[MU Avenue]

"Pardon my French, but MUAvenue is so tight that if you stuck a lump of coal up his ass, in two weeks you'd have a diamond."---Ferris Bueller.

A quote from f*ckin' "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? Holy sh*t, you really unloaded the f*ckin' heavy artillery, ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy.

Let me f*ckin' guess: "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" is your favorite f*ckin' movie. And you especially love that f*ckin' line about a f*ckin' "lump of coal."

F*ckin' hysterical.

[KenoshaWarrior]

How many hands is your horse today?

Apparently you need to step on Yousephs Mbao's shoulders to get on that horse!!

[brewcity77]

A quote from f*ckin' "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"? Holy sh*t, you really unloaded the f*ckin' heavy artillery, ZiggysF*ckinFryBoy.

Let me f*ckin' guess: "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" is your favorite f*ckin' movie. And you especially love that f*ckin' line about a f*ckin' "lump of coal."

F*ckin' hysterical.

Wow...you're skin's so thin it's translucent!

[muhs03]

I def. dont hate anything about college bball, even opposing teams.

HOWEVER, I am kinda sorta starting to warm-up to hate the following:

1) the ncaa's inability to identify cheaters AS they cheat (as opposed to years later when the damage has already been done). I know its a tough job but if the infractions committee can issue the 'lack of institutional control' violation against a school, they should also think to label itself with it.
2) fanbases that shrug off cheating.
3) the nationwide athletic department armsrace. When athletic programs are more funded than degree programs, we have a problem. The Ivy League schools are laughing.
4) fans who think that it takes athletics to stay "relevant." Are these fans 'throwing in the academic towel,' so to speak? A lot of coaches' salaries would recruit a lot of new professors. I always thought universities were for education.

[Untucked]

I hate the teams that have a philosophy of foul as much as possible, because they won't call all of them(eventhough they should). Huggins' teams lead the way with Wisconsin right behind.

[StillAWarrior]

I don't hate anyone or any thing.  There are much healthier ways to obtain self-esteem. 

For example, some people take things entirely to seriously, act really pompous, and imply that harmless internet message board topics actually mean something and that those who post in them are trying to boost their self-esteem.  Or so I've heard...

[HouWarrior]

For example, some people take things entirely to seriously, act really pompous, and imply that harmless internet message board topics actually mean something and that those who post in them are trying to boost their self-esteem.  Or so I've heard...

lol lol

[HouWarrior]

I'm sorry i caused such a stir with the word Hate.   which team's style of play do you dislike? and yes i know i broke my rules by putting florida on the list for no real reason besides joakim noah and his lack of personal hygiene and billy donovan. 

Like you, I wouldnt have thought the word choice was so incendiary. It appears "hate" is moving up toward top of the  chain of politically incorrect words --- you may have to modify the caption to teams you most like to see fail, ...to slow the tide of the other postings.

I hope you arent restrictive to college teams. I admit to enjoying seeing losses of the Yankees, Cowboys, Duke, UK, and ND. Periodically, another team joins the pantheon. ....oh yes, and I really hate the Dutch.lol

[rocky_warrior]

and I really hate the Dutch.lol

But I like their islands...

[MU Avenue]

I def. dont hate anything about college bball, even opposing teams.

HOWEVER, I am kinda sorta starting to warm-up to hate the following:

1) the ncaa's inability to identify cheaters AS they cheat (as opposed to years later when the damage has already been done). I know its a tough job but if the infractions committee can issue the 'lack of institutional control' violation against a school, they should also think to label itself with it.
2) fanbases that shrug off cheating.
3) the nationwide athletic department armsrace. When athletic programs are more funded than degree programs, we have a problem. The Ivy League schools are laughing.
4) fans who think that it takes athletics to stay "relevant." Are these fans 'throwing in the academic towel,' so to speak? A lot of coaches' salaries would recruit a lot of new professors. I always thought universities were for education.

Priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities. Look at the many schools where the highest-paid employees are coaches -- not presidents, not topnotch professors who motivate students, not brilliant researchers.

At the Division I level, many schools treat athletics as king. Sports are viewed as the means to boosting schools' names and reputations.

Along with the Ivy League schools, there are several outstanding colleges and universities whose names and excellent reputations have been built solidly on their academics. A small sampling: Washington University in St. Louis, Rice University, Emory University, Carnegie Mellon University, the College of William & Mary, New York University, Brandeis University, Case Western Reserve University. ...

I have a friend who works at a prestigious liberal arts college in the Northeast. He told me only days ago that his college is "snapping up" big-name professors from major universities. He said many of these professors have spoken of how their former employers were whacking budgets for academic departments and academic staffing while sports remain sacred and untouchable.

[BubbaWilliams]

Well, I hate the Packers and every team in Minnesota. In college basketball, I hate coaches more than the teams or schools. Bob Huggins is one, Tom Crean is another. This is probably why I like some teams. i.e. Michigan State and Tom Izzo

[Lennys Tap]

Priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities. Look at the many schools where the highest-paid employees are coaches -- not presidents, not topnotch professors who motivate students, not brilliant researchers.

At the Division I level, many schools treat athletics as king. Sports are viewed as the means to boosting schools' names and reputations.

And actors make more money than nurses. Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could. Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about.

[muhs03]

And actors make more money than nurses. Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could. Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about.

Ridiculous. Profit-generating athletic programs support non-revenue generating programs. If, as you claim, there is money left over, are you certain it goes to salaries of professors and administrators? Evidence of that? Furthermore, if athletic departments subsidize their salaries, then why the heck did Villanova's staff vote against moving football up? In fact, the vote was 29-0 - not exactly close...I guess they dont want a pay raise. http://www.thenovablog.com/2010/12/1/1848490/philadelphia-inquirer-villanova-football-upgrade-to-big-east-would-be
Also, were professors at Boston University, Hofstra and Northeastern (all schools that recenty dropped football) picketing an admin building in opposition? I dont think so.

[Husker4MU]

A very startling database that shows what each public school ponied up in student fees, university $$ and state $$ to balance athletic budgets.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

[HouWarrior]

A very startling database that shows what each public school ponied up in student fees, university $$ and state $$ to balance athletic budgets.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2011-06-23-2011-athletic-department-subsidy-table_n.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Great pickup.
It had been 4 years since USA ran the last one, and figures were becoming dated. Its a vital tool in conf realignment posts, as it shows the skewing/inaccuracy of just looking at gross income figures. Here, the lesser percentage of subsidy, the stronger the program is , on a stand alone basis.

Example--Rutgers high percentage subsidy of 42% makes it a relative weak sister for those thinking of its joinder with Big Ten, where the subsidy average is near zero%.

Regretably, is also shows the BE teams require the highest subsidy % among the BCS conferences, with the ACC, as next weakest.(its sortable by conference--for easy comparison). Too bad--but as it relies on public info., and FOI act, it lacks most private school coverage.

[muhs03]

You would have to go through the list to make those general assumptions. For example, I believe Rutgers recently finished the construction of a new practice facility and player lounge/locker rooms. That isnt a recurring cost and Rutgers likely received state money for it. Some of these numbers could just be bad timing that make some schools to be in worse shape than they are. Nonetheless, the overall picture is ugly.

[HouWarrior]

You would have to go through the list to make those general assumptions. For example, I believe Rutgers recently finished the construction of a new practice facility and player lounge/locker rooms. That isnt a recurring cost and Rutgers likely received state money for it. Some of these numbers could just be bad timing that make some schools to be in worse shape than they are. Nonetheless, the overall picture is ugly.

Thanks, I did review the list--maybe you didn't.

Its not really an assumption--Rutgers subsidy % is not temporary or cyclical..in the last -2006-survey, it was at a 49% clip...its worth looking at the link, and figures. Few of the percentages have changed much over the last 4 years, for anyone.

Rutgers currently leads the USA in the $ amount of subsidies. Even with the huge strong BCS boys skewing the analysis, 1 of every 3 dollars in collegiate athletics is from subsidies, which have increased at faster clip than the budgets...see this June 27 article on point:

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20110627/NJNEWS10/306270020/Rutgers-leads-nation-athletics-subsidies

[muhs03]

Ok. I asked Mr. Google and he said I am wrong. Rutgers borrowed $102M for facility expansions; the state did not contribute a dime. I figured they would financed some of it. 

[HouWarrior]

Ok. I asked Mr. Google and he said I am wrong. Rutgers borrowed $102M for facility expansions; the state did not contribute a dime. I figured they would financed some of it. 

The statehouse has squirmed at any further athletics subsidy, while its had to cut academic budgets, and layoff peolple at Rutgers. To your point, and possible hope things get better for it: Rutgers did get a one time bump of $6.5 mill for stadium naming rights, its chasing a $100 million fundraising drive and it hopes for bigger checks from the new ESPN TV deal. By BCS standards, though, it remains a weak sister, financially.

[MU Avenue]

And actors make more money than nurses. Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could. Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about.

Lennys Tap, while your comment above is bold and delivered with seeming confidence, it is wrong.

You have written, "Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could."

Really? You have numbers that support this ridiculous claim? Have you any idea how colleges and universities work?

You have written, "Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about."

Really? Since you have done the research needed to support this preposterous claim, please tell us the schools where coaches generate such vast amounts of money that all associated with the schools are flush with cash.

Based on what you have written, there must be many schools where sports pay all of the bills and keep "those poor profs" in tweed jackets and sports cars.

Go past your simple assumptions, Lennys Tap, and look at the facts. Those facts only prove that priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities.

[MUMac]

Lennys Tap, while your comment above is bold and delivered with seeming confidence, it is wrong.

You have written, "Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could."

Really? You have numbers that support this ridiculous claim? Have you any idea how colleges and universities work?

You have written, "Coaches not only earn their own salaries - the good ones help pay those poor profs you're so worried about."

Really? Since you have done the research needed to support this preposterous claim, please tell us the schools where coaches generate such vast amounts of money that all associated with the schools are flush with cash.

Based on what you have written, there must be many schools where sports pay all of the bills and keep "those poor profs" in tweed jackets and sports cars.

Go past your simple assumptions, Lennys Tap, and look at the facts. Those facts only prove that priorities and spending are clearly misplaced at many universities.

Interesting that you ask Lenny to support and back up his "facts", yet you provide none yourself.

[GGGG]

You have written, “Successful athletic programs bring more $ to a university than any president or professor ever could.”

Really? You have numbers that support this ridiculous claim? Have you any idea how colleges and universities work?

LOL....do you?

I've worked at five of them.  Small privates, large publics and am now at a medium-sized public university.  Athletics cannot be viewed in a vacuum.  When UW-Madison won their first Rose Bowl in the early 90s, they raised more money that year than any other public university in the country.  When MU got to the Final Four, they raised more money *that week* than any other week in the university's history.  Hell, even little UW-Whitewater (the wife's alma mater) has seen record enrollment since they've been winning D3 football championships.

Here is an article on VCU's final four appearance and their hopes to benefit like George Mason did a couple of years ago.

http://www.virginiabusiness.com/index.php/opinion/article/vcu-and-richmond-assess-the-value-of-a-moment-in-the-spotlight/

You bring up the elite academic institutions, like the Ivy League.  Well, first those are by far the exception to the rule.  But second, some at those schools have also decried the emphasis on athletics that those schools have seen lately.  Tommy Amaker makes near $1million as basketball coach at Harvard apparently.

The problem is that you do see a lot of schools swing and miss and it ends up costing them a lot of money, but there is no doubt that successful athletic programs benefit the university and if you can get there, are worth the cost.

[bilsu]

Do coaches make to much? I would say yes. Do professors make to much? I would say yes also. I went to MU from 1971 to 1975 and my tuition was $1,800 to $2,000 per semester. It is a lot more now. Sure the campus has many new buildings. The cost of education at MU and all the other Universities has far out paced inflation. While I am sure some university athletic programs run deficits, I believe MU's including the Blue & Gold fund runs a surplus. Try to envision what MU would be now, if instead of highering Al McGuire they had decided to drop down to division III back in the 60's.

[GGGG]

What do you mean by "too much?"  Coaches and professors make what the market says they should make. 

And as far as the costs of attending school, private schools are really good at figureing out your price point.  While the list might be $40,000, hardly anyone pays that.  They will give some students $5,000 per year which basically means "feel free to come here...if you want to spend $35,000 a year."  They'll give another $25,000 per year which means "we really want you here and are going to match public school tuition to get you here."

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

What do you mean by "too much?"  Coaches and professors make what the market says they should make. 

Wow. I think you would have been pretty much the last person on this board who I would have suspected of acknowledging the economic realities of supply and demand.