Athletics’ bowl game budget
An initial scan of the expenditure report for this season’s football bowl game indicates that Ohio Athletics did a good job pinching pennies for its trip to St. Petersburg, Fla., for the Beef ‘O’ Brady’s Bowl.
The trip, which resulted in a 37-20 loss to East Carolina on Dec. 23, cost Ohio University students only $32,642.08 — less than half of last season’s $78,569 for the Advocare V100 Independence Bowl (which Ohio won, by the way).
Bravo, right?
We don’t think it’s that simple for a variety of reasons, which we believe are largely circumstantial.
This season’s bowl was played earlier in the year (Dec. 23 versus Dec. 28 the season prior), presumably saving Athletics money from the fewer days student-athletes were living and training on campus before the game. Plus, hotel arrangements were significantly cheaper in St. Petersburg than in Shreveport, La., the site of the Independence Bowl.
An Athletics official said after the Independence Bowl that Athletics has little say in where the team stays during a bowl trip. He noted Independence Bowl officials specified a “home hotel and visiting hotel.” We have no reason to believe this season’s accommodations were handled differently.
We concede with an Athletics statement emailed to the media that it’s common for football teams to spend more than they receive for playing in bowl games and that Athletics made a good effort to incur “the least expense possible.” What we take issue with, though, is the statement that Athletics broke even on this season’s bowl trip.
The university budgets $120,000 of its General Fee for its athletic teams’ postseason play, but there’s no doubt that the university spent more money on this bowl game than it brought in by playing in it.
Don’t get us wrong: We support the Bobcats and cheer them on as much as the next fan, and we’re glad that they get to compete in postseason play as a culmination of their hard work throughout the season. We don’t take issue with the money that OU pays to finance its postseason play, and we understand the value of the exposure the university receives from bowl appearances. But this season’s bowl expenditures — lesser than the past largely because of circumstance — cost students money. There’s no debate to be had. The university did not break even.
Commencement
Ohio University typically maintains the tradition of booking alumni to deliver the commencement address. But is that necessarily a good thing? To be honest, we’re split.
We see the value in hearing from a successful, prominent alum who can relate to students about living in Athens, bar-hopping on Court Street, strolling through College Green and perhaps walking across the stage inside The Convo at his or her own commencement. An alum’s address has the potential to personalize the recycled “you-will-go-far” sermon that college graduates sit through year after year.
However, we wouldn’t mind a little more hype and impact at commencement. We don’t need to go to the lengths that a certain state school did last year and book the sitting president of the United States, but we think students would appreciate a recognizable name.
Here’s a name: Pete Souza.
Souza’s the official White House photographer and a faculty member in the School of Visual Communication, but he doesn’t hold any degrees from Ohio University. Does that preclude him from speaking at commencement? We hope not. (Souza: If your schedule is clear around, say, May 2 next year, give us a call.)
There are plenty of non-Bobcat authors, businesspeople, journalists, politicians and artists who are great at what they do and are capable of rousing a crowd. Isn’t that the point of the commencement address anyway? Or is hearing from an alum what makes a commencement special?
Like we said, we’re split. And as you can see at the bottom of this page in today’s Post Streetview, students are split too. Some want to relate to the experiences they share with the speaker, while others just want to be inspired by a good speech regardless of who’s giving it. What do you think?
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post’s executive editors
