WBB Coaches

[azfan]

Over on the week 3 WBB discussion there was interesting discussion on the competition in Iowa, which prompted me to think about that issue here in AZ. I started with the thought the 4 major schools might play regularly. Of course I was unable to channel my frustration over my alma mater so -

	Molly Miller Grand Canyon	Loree Payne Northern Az	Natasha Adair Oh how we have fallen	Aida Barnes Kitties
Overall record	265-52 .836	248-167 .597	186-163 .504	154-100 .606
Record at current school	87-37 .702	118-109 .520	19-40 .322	154-100 .606
Salary	250,000	150,000	650,000	1.3 million
5 Year record of school prior to arrival of current coach	69-73 .486	41 - 103 .284	88-63 .586	55-99 .357

Perhaps this provides context for my frustration that quickly turns to rage went thinking about ASU. So, when the 4 schools went hunting for a head basketball coach, only one institution had a 5 year record above average. The other three schools were in the dumpster fire stage, although Grand Canyon had success in the past. 2 of the schools found head coaches with demonstrated success, hired them, and haven't looked back. Both Miller and Payne were and are well respected in the profession, had great success and have elevated the programs at their schools. Of the two "flagship" institutions, the kitties took a chance on a talented former player with 0 head coaching experience and that chance PAID OFF BIG. So these 3 schools employed a thoughtful, well considered process and, while the kitties took a road not traveled by the Lopes and Jacks all three programs are much better off and the prospects look good. Grand Canyon and NAU are much less impacted by the business turmoil than that school in the dirty T, but all three had have to deal with transferring and all have been fine.

Then we have . . . . dum da dum - theI Mike Crowe created zombie program. Oy. I didn't understand the hire then and as time goes on this hire makes the Urban Meyer debacle at Jacksonville look smooth, like cool jazz. Why anyone thought that this mid Atlantic coach with deep ties to players of mid major ability would be in a position to maintain the success at ASU defies understanding, belief, comprehension. (Note; I wound if the AD is thinking about SDS as a replacement for the losing culture in place, Sky is a well known figure here in the valley and maybe her approach would work . . . although would have to pay her more than 650.000)

The result of the "process" to replace CTT who left both Pac 12 level players and a .500+ program is really unspeakable. Early this year, Grand Canyon beat the small Devils by 11 on a neutral site in Phoenix. The kitties will certainly do unkind things to ASU next year.

While the odds are on for a third consecutive 20 loss season for Adair and her "team" who in their right mind would say, hey they only lost 18, they are better than the Houston Cougars so, lets stand pat - I'll tell you who (although they are not in their right mind - Build it Crowe and AD Graham Rossini ((who?...he replaced Ray Anderson). The agony continues in Tempe.)

Interestingly, Grand Canyon having beaten ASU, also plays both NAU and the kitties this season.

BTW - I keep waiting for Payne to move on - she is a tremendous coach and ready for the next step. Might Miller at some point be headed to Baylor? Barnes future still shines. Wonder if Adair is destined to return to the mid Atlantic region . . .

 

[Bigboote]

(Note; I wound if the AD is thinking about SDS as a replacement for the losing culture in place, Sky is a well known figure here in the valley and maybe her approach would work . . . although would have to pay her more than 650.000)

I dunno whether that was tongue-in-cheek, but Skyler was pretty angry when she left Phoenix. I'd think that, coupled with what's going on in Seattle, would make neither side particularly interested in her coaching at ASU.

Great post, BTW. Many of us East Coasters don't know much about basketball in Arizona beyond what you post.

 

[12au]

Over on the week 3 WBB discussion there was interesting discussion on the competition in Iowa, which prompted me to think about that issue here in AZ. I started with the thought the 4 major schools might play regularly. Of course I was unable to channel my frustration over my alma mater so -

	Molly Miller Grand Canyon	Loree Payne Northern Az	Natasha Adair Oh how we have fallen	Aida Barnes Kitties
Overall record	265-52 .836	248-167 .597	186-163 .504	154-100 .606
Record at current school	87-37 .702	118-109 .520	19-40 .322	154-100 .606
Salary	250,000	150,000	650,000	1.3 million
5 Year record of school prior to arrival of current coach	69-73 .486	41 - 103 .284	88-63 .586	55-99 .357

BTW - I keep waiting for Payne to move on - she is a tremendous coach and ready for the next step. Might Miller at some point be headed to Baylor? Barnes future still shines. Wonder if Adair is destined to return to the mid Atlantic region . . .

Is your feeling that Collen's on the hot seat? She just signed an extension this offseason. I also don't get the fit, unless Mack Rhoades is going discount shopping...

 

[Bone Dog]

GCU is a mystery to me. It was floundering in 2004, was purchased by a for-profit education corporation and was turned around. Enrollment went from around 1,000 to something more like 17,500 in just a few years. Apparently it’s been really good for real estate values in its neighborhood. But, like many for-profit schools, has run up huge loan debt to the tune of $5.9 billion for its students many of whom are veterans. More recently, they tried reclassification under non-profit status to reduce property taxes that were strangling the overall budget. The Dept of Veterans Affairs opposed this, being a major funder of all the student loan debt. Their accreditation agency also refused on the grounds that its academic programs are largely purchased from outside vendors. The courts recently ruled in GCUs favor and they are being reassessed.

Sorry for dumping so much information but this is the history of GCU’s recent emergence as an athletic power. It also says something about ASU’s refusal until recently to schedule any games with them. As for me, as a college professor I am wary of for-profit schools. But GCU seems to be something more than the typical vo-tech and may offer some real value to students and student-athletes. It’s just really hard to read what’s going on there from a distance.

 

[azfan]

college professor I am wary of for-profit schools. But GCU seems to be something more than the typical vo-tech and may offer some real value to students and student-athletes. It’s just really hard to read what’s going on there from a distance.

Observation: non-profit and for-profit labels for colleges need to be considered very carefully as both sets of institutions are heavily subsidized by the federal government and receive significant loan advantages unavailable to other institutions in our society.

As a former member of higher education it speaks very highly of you that you have both the humility to recognize the limits of your understanding of higher ed as well as to acknowledge that as with any institution there are positives as well as negatives. Such is the case with GCU and such as the case with ASU.

The Grand Canyon situation is an extraordinarily complex one particularly when examining the intersection of the role of the state in general and the role of the state in higher education in particular and the impact of the various tax advantages that are provided to colleges and universities. The impact of all of that government involvement in higher education is multi-faceted and it's tempting to focus more on the perverse negative consequences than on other aspects of issues surrounding higher ed.

As to the issue of Grand Canyon's historical changes in structure there are a couple of issues I think that are relevant to those who are not close to the controversy. The expansion in enrollment from a tiny Baptist college to its current status is a result of a myriad of issues that include demographics, evolution of higher education, and the impact of competing institutions. Over a longer time horizon Arizona Normal school now Arizona State University increased enrollment by a similar percentage if one looks at a more lengthy time horizon.

1. After conversion to for profit Grand Canyon was the only institution of higher ed in the state of Arizona that paid property taxes. When one drives by the campus on 29th Avenue and Camelback the new construction and build out took place within the taxable world and was not subsidized by taxpayers. Contrast that with Michael Crowe's Arizona State University which used the tax advantage offered by the federal and state governments and it's non-profit status to become a major developer throughout the state. Crow has also used legal machinations to extend this non-profit status to private development and is one drives around Tempe Town Lake in North Tempe one can see the results. While one can have a conclusion whether this is positive or negative it's quite clear that the taxpayers of Arizona have financed this. it's worth reflecting about the optimal use of tax dollars and some might argue that issues of homelessness, water, direct classroom education, housing affordability, well the list goes on and on might be better use of taxpayer monies in this kind of private development.

The new construction that one sees over Tempe was all financed with the help of taxpayers through the subsidy granted to tax exempt, non-profit organizations such as Arizona State.

Conclusion: a part of the underappreciated story of Grand Canyon is this difference in contribution back to the state through taxes. I would guess most who look at the negative press are either unaware or choose to ignore the significant difference between Grand Canyon and the tax deferred institutions in the state ASU, NAU and the kitties. That is Grand canyon paid taxes in the form of those on property as well as transactions and the tax exempt so-called public institutions did not. Basic economics tells us that when you subsidize something you get more of it and when you tax something you get less of it. It's worth thinking about that in terms of the resource allocation for higher ed and which institutions are better serving the public.

What is so often lost in the story is that Grand Canyon University as a taxpayer contributed financially to the State of Arizona in general, the local community in particular and its payment of taxes represented a that benefit beyond the university community. Arizona State University like the other public institutions in not paying taxes on net was a user of taxpayer funds. I'm always baffled why this basic reality seems lost in all of the hoopla.

A slight correction to your observation regarding real estate values. While I haven't been to Southern Cal in years the university like the University of Chicago was surrounded by low-income disadvantaged areas with high rates of crime the last time I was there. This is also true of Grand Canyon, the surrounding area is extremely low income with marginal real estate value. There has in fact been no significant appreciation in real estate around Grand Canyon and like Southern Cal and University of Chicago the entire campus is surrounded by fences and security guards.

As to the issue of debt whether it's held by the institution or by the students who attend, Grand canyon is not appreciably different than any other College. That is all institutions of higher learning whether they adopt the label profit or nonprofit are heavily subsidized by direct and indirect loans from the federal government and students who attend all these colleges I think are relatively equally subsidized and encouraged to assume student debt. As tuition at Grand canyon University is comparable to the end State institutions and much less than allied institutions around the country the level of debt assumed by students at that institution would be the same or less than in the nonprofit environment.

Conclusion: Grand Canyon is not significantly different than so-called nonprofit colleges in the area of subsidies, loans, and student loans. In fact they contribute more back into the state through the payment of taxes.

2. Competition. Through most of the '80s and '90s as Arizona State began a trajectory of rapid growth Grand Canyon offered no competition either in state or out of state enrollment. Two factors occured in sequence that had profound consequences: first Michael Crow arrived in Tempe from Columbia University with a vision that I've discussed in previous posts.

Subsequently Grand Canyon had a change in mission and perspective and ownership. For a number of years Grand Canyon was ignored by ASU but once it became apparent that Grand Canyon was moving into the health sciences, online delivery, and aggressively recruiting in-state students Crowe took notice. A part of the backlash and negative publicity surrounding Grand Canyon is well deserved. Just like the negative publicity and backlash against Arizona State University are well deserved, and under reported due to the outsized influence of the crow administration. However what remains to be explored is the role that Michael Crowe and his development minions at Arizona State University played both in the general negative press received by Grand Canyon and given Crow's deep and long-standing connections to the federal government, that may have played a role in Grand Canyons challenges. Given the decline of investigative journalism both locally and nationally and the reluctance to explore power brokers such as Crow as well as the obstacles that are obvious and attempting to examine these kind of interwebbed relationships I would expect that the focus would remain on Grand Canyon and be deflected from Arizona State. It's a narrative that sells well and serves Crow's interest.

One of the conclusions that I've always come to is I think about the for-profit versus non-for-profit status in higher education is the same as the school choice movement. It's a significantly complex issue and the role of the state involvement is one that deserves reflection.

As a retired member of the higher education community I like you have developed humility and like you I'm not really certain about the full level of costs and benefits in higher education whether for profit or not for profit. Grand Canyon's nursing program, education program, health sciences program, and online program certainly do appear to be meeting needs within the state of Arizona. Likewise Arizona State university's massive expansion supports issues of research and development particularly innovations in technology. It's worth noting however that Arizona State University has become deeply involved in issues of development, politics, and social policy. While this is not uncommon in research one institutions it certainly worth reflecting upon institutions that widen the scope and breadth of their reach.

Finally I think sport is illustrative of the different impact that incentives have. As I indicated in my post regarding coaches Molly Miller earns a salary of $250,000 while her counterpart at ASU makes slightly more than three times that. I guess I'm saying this reflects both stewardship of funds and efficiency. As a former season ticket holder for ASU and current season ticket holder at Grand Canyon University I have attended games at both institutions over the past 10 years and the experience is wildly different. As are the results.

 

[cancontent]

I dunno whether that was tongue-in-cheek, but Skyler was pretty angry when she left Phoenix. I'd think that, coupled with what's going on in Seattle, would make neither side particularly interested in her coaching at ASU.

Great post, BTW. Many of us East Coasters don't know much about basketball in Arizona beyond what you post.

The situation in Phoenix was more than just what happened with Diggins. Let's not forget they also cut Tina Charles and no one really knows why, especially when you see how she did this past season in Atlanta. It's unfair to bring that situation up without providing the full picture.

 

[Bone Dog]

Observation: non-profit and for-profit labels for colleges need to be considered very carefully as both sets of institutions are heavily subsidized by the federal government and receive significant loan advantages unavailable to other institutions in our society.

As a former member of higher education it speaks very highly of you that you have both the humility to recognize the limits of your understanding of higher ed as well as to acknowledge that as with any institution there are positives as well as negatives. Such is the case with GCU and such as the case with ASU.

The Grand Canyon situation is an extraordinarily complex one particularly when examining the intersection of the role of the state in general and the role of the state in higher education in particular and the impact of the various tax advantages that are provided to colleges and universities. The impact of all of that government involvement in higher education is multi-faceted and it's tempting to focus more on the perverse negative consequences than on other aspects of issues surrounding higher ed.

As to the issue of Grand Canyon's historical changes in structure there are a couple of issues I think that are relevant to those who are not close to the controversy. The expansion in enrollment from a tiny Baptist college to its current status is a result of a myriad of issues that include demographics, evolution of higher education, and the impact of competing institutions. Over a longer time horizon Arizona Normal school now Arizona State University increased enrollment by a similar percentage if one looks at a more lengthy time horizon.

1. After conversion to for profit Grand Canyon was the only institution of higher ed in the state of Arizona that paid property taxes. When one drives by the campus on 29th Avenue and Camelback the new construction and build out took place within the taxable world and was not subsidized by taxpayers. Contrast that with Michael Crowe's Arizona State University which used the tax advantage offered by the federal and state governments and it's non-profit status to become a major developer throughout the state. Crow has also used legal machinations to extend this non-profit status to private development and is one drives around Tempe Town Lake in North Tempe one can see the results. While one can have a conclusion whether this is positive or negative it's quite clear that the taxpayers of Arizona have financed this. it's worth reflecting about the optimal use of tax dollars and some might argue that issues of homelessness, water, direct classroom education, housing affordability, well the list goes on and on might be better use of taxpayer monies in this kind of private development.

The new construction that one sees over Tempe was all financed with the help of taxpayers through the subsidy granted to tax exempt, non-profit organizations such as Arizona State.

Conclusion: a part of the underappreciated story of Grand Canyon is this difference in contribution back to the state through taxes. I would guess most who look at the negative press are either unaware or choose to ignore the significant difference between Grand Canyon and the tax deferred institutions in the state ASU, NAU and the kitties. That is Grand canyon paid taxes in the form of those on property as well as transactions and the tax exempt so-called public institutions did not. Basic economics tells us that when you subsidize something you get more of it and when you tax something you get less of it. It's worth thinking about that in terms of the resource allocation for higher ed and which institutions are better serving the public.

What is so often lost in the story is that Grand Canyon University as a taxpayer contributed financially to the State of Arizona in general, the local community in particular and its payment of taxes represented a that benefit beyond the university community. Arizona State University like the other public institutions in not paying taxes on net was a user of taxpayer funds. I'm always baffled why this basic reality seems lost in all of the hoopla.

A slight correction to your observation regarding real estate values. While I haven't been to Southern Cal in years the university like the University of Chicago was surrounded by low-income disadvantaged areas with high rates of crime the last time I was there. This is also true of Grand Canyon, the surrounding area is extremely low income with marginal real estate value. There has in fact been no significant appreciation in real estate around Grand Canyon and like Southern Cal and University of Chicago the entire campus is surrounded by fences and security guards.

As to the issue of debt whether it's held by the institution or by the students who attend, Grand canyon is not appreciably different than any other College. That is all institutions of higher learning whether they adopt the label profit or nonprofit are heavily subsidized by direct and indirect loans from the federal government and students who attend all these colleges I think are relatively equally subsidized and encouraged to assume student debt. As tuition at Grand canyon University is comparable to the end State institutions and much less than allied institutions around the country the level of debt assumed by students at that institution would be the same or less than in the nonprofit environment.

Conclusion: Grand Canyon is not significantly different than so-called nonprofit colleges in the area of subsidies, loans, and student loans. In fact they contribute more back into the state through the payment of taxes.

2. Competition. Through most of the '80s and '90s as Arizona State began a trajectory of rapid growth Grand Canyon offered no competition either in state or out of state enrollment. Two factors occured in sequence that had profound consequences: first Michael Crow arrived in Tempe from Columbia University with a vision that I've discussed in previous posts.

Subsequently Grand Canyon had a change in mission and perspective and ownership. For a number of years Grand Canyon was ignored by ASU but once it became apparent that Grand Canyon was moving into the health sciences, online delivery, and aggressively recruiting in-state students Crowe took notice. A part of the backlash and negative publicity surrounding Grand Canyon is well deserved. Just like the negative publicity and backlash against Arizona State University are well deserved, and under reported due to the outsized influence of the crow administration. However what remains to be explored is the role that Michael Crowe and his development minions at Arizona State University played both in the general negative press received by Grand Canyon and given Crow's deep and long-standing connections to the federal government, that may have played a role in Grand Canyons challenges. Given the decline of investigative journalism both locally and nationally and the reluctance to explore power brokers such as Crow as well as the obstacles that are obvious and attempting to examine these kind of interwebbed relationships I would expect that the focus would remain on Grand Canyon and be deflected from Arizona State. It's a narrative that sells well and serves Crow's interest.

One of the conclusions that I've always come to is I think about the for-profit versus non-for-profit status in higher education is the same as the school choice movement. It's a significantly complex issue and the role of the state involvement is one that deserves reflection.

As a retired member of the higher education community I like you have developed humility and like you I'm not really certain about the full level of costs and benefits in higher education whether for profit or not for profit. Grand Canyon's nursing program, education program, health sciences program, and online program certainly do appear to be meeting needs within the state of Arizona. Likewise Arizona State university's massive expansion supports issues of research and development particularly innovations in technology. It's worth noting however that Arizona State University has become deeply involved in issues of development, politics, and social policy. While this is not uncommon in research one institutions it certainly worth reflecting upon institutions that widen the scope and breadth of their reach.

Finally I think sport is illustrative of the different impact that incentives have. As I indicated in my post regarding coaches Molly Miller earns a salary of $250,000 while her counterpart at ASU makes slightly more than three times that. I guess I'm saying this reflects both stewardship of funds and efficiency. As a former season ticket holder for ASU and current season ticket holder at Grand Canyon University I have attended games at both institutions over the past 10 years and the experience is wildly different. As are the results.

Thanks for the greater detail. And sorry for derailing the thread. If I understand you correctly, ASU is 'owned' in some sense by Michael Crowe. Is that right? If so, it is puzzling indeed that it counts as a non-profit.

The primary question for me about for-profits is whether they have an actual faculty of their own. In other words, is the campus a living intellectual and scholarly community. It is worrisome that much of GCU's academic programs are provided by external 'vendors.' This is what HLC focused on in their original determination that GCU was still for-profit. A related question concerns the value-added side for students. They take out loans, subsidized in one way or another, and it is an important question whether they get what they pay for. In the case of a for-profit that offers mainly training in trades and professions, I'd want to know if their students graduate at a good rate and if their graduates are successful in getting jobs that match their training. Federal rules require schools to track this information and accreditors focus on it. I was on the accreditation committee for my college for a number of years and saw this up close. An added fillip is drawing in veterans, since they can have access to even more student loan subsidies than ordinary students. For-profits tend to recruit from this group quite heavily, more than non-profit schools, and GCU was no different. The Dept of Veterans Affairs pays close attention to this on the value added side of the equation. If the loans they are subsidizing do not yield degrees or jobs at a good enough rate, they naturally become concerned.

My impression of GCU is that they do a pretty good job on the value added side, though their Nursing School (which is a major component for them) was cited recently for having a low graduation rate, below 80%. I'm not opposed to for-profits as long as they offer good value for students. It sounds like GCU offers a better value than ASU, and I wonder what shenanigans went into getting the state to charter them in the first place.

Back to the first point, about developers and universities, I'd want to compare ASU to a school like UC Irvine, which was initially funded by Donald Bren and used to make his development of the town of Irvine (which he largely owned at the time) much more attractive and profitable. But UC Irvine is an R1 institution and a major research institution in both the humanities and the sciences. It houses a major medical school, as well as a law school and a business school. I'd say AU and NAU really are comparable institutions, both R1 schools with the sort of faculty and student support that goes along with that. GCU is not an R1 institution, and may not even qualify as R2, nor should it have to in order to provide good value to students. But ASU really ought to be at least R2, and if it isn't that seems like a scandal in the making.

 

[azfan]

Thanks for the greater detail. And sorry for derailing the thread. If I understand you correctly, ASU is 'owned' in some sense by Michael Crowe. Is that right? If so, it is puzzling indeed that it counts as a non-profit.

The primary question for me about for-profits is whether they have an actual faculty of their own. In other words, is the campus a living intellectual and scholarly community. It is worrisome that much of GCU's academic programs are provided by external 'vendors.' This is what HLC focused on in their original determination that GCU was still for-profit. A related question concerns the value-added side for students. They take out loans, subsidized in one way or another, and it is an important question whether they get what they pay for. In the case of a for-profit that offers mainly training in trades and professions, I'd want to know if their students graduate at a good rate and if their graduates are successful in getting jobs that match their training. Federal rules require schools to track this information and accreditors focus on it. I was on the accreditation committee for my college for a number of years and saw this up close. An added fillip is drawing in veterans, since they can have access to even more student loan subsidies than ordinary students. For-profits tend to recruit from this group quite heavily, more than non-profit schools, and GCU was no different. The Dept of Veterans Affairs pays close attention to this on the value added side of the equation. If the loans they are subsidizing do not yield degrees or jobs at a good enough rate, they naturally become concerned.

My impression of GCU is that they do a pretty good job on the value added side, though their Nursing School (which is a major component for them) was cited recently for having a low graduation rate, below 80%. I'm not opposed to for-profits as long as they offer good value for students. It sounds like GCU offers a better value than ASU, and I wonder what shenanigans went into getting the state to charter them in the first place.

Back to the first point, about developers and universities, I'd want to compare ASU to a school like UC Irvine, which was initially funded by Donald Bren and used to make his development of the town of Irvine (which he largely owned at the time) much more attractive and profitable. But UC Irvine is an R1 institution and a major research institution in both the humanities and the sciences. It houses a major medical school, as well as a law school and a business school. I'd say AU and NAU really are comparable institutions, both R1 schools with the sort of faculty and student support that goes along with that. GCU is not an R1 institution, and may not even qualify as R2, nor should it have to in order to provide good value to students. But ASU really ought to be at least R2, and if it isn't that seems like a scandal in the making.

While the thread is coaching I'm not sure that we've run that far a field as with the exception of the top 100 schools coaching is teaching.

R1 institutions have become sprawling enterprises their scope goes far beyond teaching undergraduates. This sprawl in mission creep and involvement far beyond what were traditional educational boundaries is I think also reflected in their sports.

In NAU and Grand Canyon sports are closer to what college athletics were 20 years ago than our ASU and the kitties. That is teaching is intertwined with competition for the Jacks and Lopes although both are very active with transfers and the transfer portal and have diminuous NIL involvement.

As to faculty involvement in higher ed ranging from r1 to the community college level which is where I spent my career that is also changed tremendously. Particularly as the scope of higher ed has expanded beyond teaching that change scope has most certainly impacted the role that faculty play in the overall governance of the institution.

I've always analyzed it in this way. Prior to 1960 as higher ed was involved primarily in education faculty played a critical role both in and out of the classroom.

The dramatic changes in higher ed have certainly changed both the role of faculty and more importantly how faculty are engaged with an Enterprise that extends far beyond teaching and far beyond their disciplinary knowledge.

 

[azfan]

The situation in Phoenix was more than just what happened with Diggins. Let's not forget they also cut Tina Charles and no one really knows why, especially when you see how she did this past season in Atlanta. It's unfair to bring that situation up without providing the full picture.

Full picture

Phoenix has been a dumpster fire since SB left. Ownership and management are criminally incompetent. The relatively recent hiring of the million dollar coach with zero head coaching experience and very limited experience in the women's game (I believe his experience in the women's game is limited to his teenagers following his dad who was a high school women's basketball coach in South Dakota) exemplifies the idiocy that's characterizes this franchise.

No competent management or coaching staff would have brought SDS or Charles into the fold. There was absolutely no match in terms of the roster at the time and the conflicts that were generated can be attributed to a myopic ownership and Management group that has made every effort to keep the dumpster fire raging. It was also no surprise SDS has had a reputation since she entered the league and it was well known and other franchises what her contributions were in the locker room. And those contributions were not positive.

SDS in her many stops through the league has been consistent you know what you get with SDS profane, narcissistic, confrontational, and a locker room cancer.

Tina Charles is a wonderful offensive player and for most of her career has been the focal point of both the offense and the team. I'm not sure what genius thought having Charles and Brittany on the same team made in sense but there are no geniuses in the Phoenix organization only idiots.

So the full picture here in Phoenix regarding SDS and your belated mention of Charles is incompetence on management and ownership group that has their head firmly......

As the reporting in Seattle continues to come out and the attitude that SDS demonstrated toward her teammates is revealed one can understand why DT and SDS engaged in the bench confrontation that went viral.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Thanks for the greater detail. And sorry for derailing the thread. If I understand you correctly, ASU is 'owned' in some sense by Michael Crowe. Is that right? If so, it is puzzling indeed that it counts as a non-profit.

The primary question for me about for-profits is whether they have an actual faculty of their own. In other words, is the campus a living intellectual and scholarly community. It is worrisome that much of GCU's academic programs are provided by external 'vendors.' This is what HLC focused on in their original determination that GCU was still for-profit. A related question concerns the value-added side for students. They take out loans, subsidized in one way or another, and it is an important question whether they get what they pay for. In the case of a for-profit that offers mainly training in trades and professions, I'd want to know if their students graduate at a good rate and if their graduates are successful in getting jobs that match their training. Federal rules require schools to track this information and accreditors focus on it. I was on the accreditation committee for my college for a number of years and saw this up close. An added fillip is drawing in veterans, since they can have access to even more student loan subsidies than ordinary students. For-profits tend to recruit from this group quite heavily, more than non-profit schools, and GCU was no different. The Dept of Veterans Affairs pays close attention to this on the value added side of the equation. If the loans they are subsidizing do not yield degrees or jobs at a good enough rate, they naturally become concerned.

My impression of GCU is that they do a pretty good job on the value added side, though their Nursing School (which is a major component for them) was cited recently for having a low graduation rate, below 80%. I'm not opposed to for-profits as long as they offer good value for students. It sounds like GCU offers a better value than ASU, and I wonder what shenanigans went into getting the state to charter them in the first place.

Back to the first point, about developers and universities, I'd want to compare ASU to a school like UC Irvine, which was initially funded by Donald Bren and used to make his development of the town of Irvine (which he largely owned at the time) much more attractive and profitable. But UC Irvine is an R1 institution and a major research institution in both the humanities and the sciences. It houses a major medical school, as well as a law school and a business school. I'd say AU and NAU really are comparable institutions, both R1 schools with the sort of faculty and student support that goes along with that. GCU is not an R1 institution, and may not even qualify as R2, nor should it have to in order to provide good value to students. But ASU really ought to be at least R2, and if it isn't that seems like a scandal in the making.

Much of this is over my head, but Michael Crowe is the President of ASU and has guided much of its development for over 20 years. The school itself is one of the 3 Arizona Universities overseen essentially by the Arizona Board of Regents. The others are the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. I fail to see how this affects a non-profit status.

I'm not impressed with the Regents management, particularly. Bob Robbins ran up a considerable shortfall at U of A, ended up resigning as President - and they are still giving him bonuses while technically being on "sabbatical" and actually teaching at Stanford. Grrrr.

 

[azfan]

.

I'm not impressed with the Regents management, particularly. Bob Robbins ran up a considerable shortfall at U of A, ended up resigning as President - and they are still giving him bonuses while technically being on "sabbatical" and actually teaching at Stanford. Grrrr.

No one should be. I

'm stunned the taxpayers in Arizona aren't engaged in vocal and pointed conversations with the state legislature, auditor general's office, and private attorneys.

Oversight of public institutions is haphazard at best but most often negligent as is the case with most nonprofits. There is a clear and persistent lack of accountability at both the institutions and the governing board level directorships.


The budgetary incompetence at the University of Arizona pales in comparison to the abuse of non profit status by Arizona State University's Michael Crow in his real estate development and activities in non-educational arenas.

Edit: Robbins the kitty president who guided the financial mismanagement stepped down but holds a full professorship at his former president salary. This is exemplary of the cesspool in nonprofits in general and higher ed in particular.