Who owns the NFL football team that wears burgundy and gold? The team is officially called the Washington *&^%$. But, it has its stadium in Maryland and its headquarter and training facility in Virginia.
The answer to my question would seem obvious. The whole metro area does. Of course, this being the DMV, a land where everything is subject to politics, it's not so simple.
DC House Delegate Eleanor Norton Holmes calls the team "Washington's football team." She refuses to use the team's official name on the grounds that it is offensive. But, she'll still claim it for the city.
A few days ago Washington Post Sport columnist Jonathan Wise disagreed, suggesting the team really belonged to Virginia. The state's new governor, Terry McAuliffe, feels the same way. In fact, unlike Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley and DC mayor Vince Gray, McAuliffe isn't wading into the name controversy. He's happy to claim the team for Virginia with its current name, and while he's at it to take a political contribution from its owner.
My husband, who follows just about every sport known to man, couldn't disagree more. (Ok, he doesn't follow golf or cricket, but he's got everything else covered, which is why he's the Maryland sports representative for this blog). When I asked him who owned the team and told him Wise claimed Virginia did, his first response was an incredulous 'huh?' A man of few words, his comment was akin to a "what you talkin' about Willis?" Sensing my need for more commentary, he followed up. "They play in MARYLAND."
Here's my question? Why, at the moment, would any of these jurisdictions want to claim the team. And, by claim, I don't mean claim the tax revenue that comes with the franchise. I mean claim in a broader, cultural sense. As in, this is part of who I am, and who my people are. It is part of my tradition and history.
I'm no fan of the NFL (see here and here for why), but I'll accept that you can love a team even when you hate the league it is a part of. And, unfortunately, the NFL would hardly be the first sports organization corrupted beyond repair (FIFA anyone?). But, that aside, the burgundy and gold have something else working against them. The owner, Dan Snyder. You know, the man who sues weekly magazines (The Washington City Paper) because no one but Dan Snyder can take the piss out of Dan Snyder. He's also the guy who charges outrageous prices for tickets and then robs you a second time when you buy a hot dog, coke, or beer. And, let's not forget that pesky habit of micromanaging the front office, coaches, players, and maybe even a cheerleader or two (just kidding about the cheerleaders--please don't sue me Mr. Snyder). This man would give Shakespeare or Shonda Rhimes (Grey's Anatomy, Scandal) a run for the money.
Hubby's not ready to give the team up, but for me, I'm happy to let outer space claim them.
Showing posts with label Martin O'Malley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Martin O'Malley. Show all posts
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Maryland Colleges are Cheap (sort of).
Yesterday the Washington Post's GovBeat Blog gave Maryland its weekly 'top state' award. Why? Because Maryland has managed to keep increases in its in-state tuition rates in check for several years.
How did Maryland do this? Big props go to Governor Martin O'Malley. After he took office he enacted a 4 year tuition freeze at all Maryland state schools. After the 4 year freeze was over, the General Assembly kept annual tuition hikes at 3%. O'Malley was also willing to increase the money the state spent on higher ed (34% according to the WAPO article) by raising some taxes and moving money from other parts of the state budget.
Let's pause for a minute to consider just how remarkable this is. Most states are slashing higher education budgets. A 34% increase is virtually unheard of. Many states have also seen tuition rates more than double in the last decade. In 7 states (New Hampshire, Arizona, Kentucky, Alabama, Hawaii, Louisiana, Illinois) tuition increases were over 100%. The highest increase (a whopping 162%) was in New Hampshire. Virginia's rate managed not to double (97.6% increase), but just barely.
This is a win for Maryland, but only in a relative sense. Why? Because Maryland's behavior only looks exceptional by comparison. Tuition still increased by 47% in Maryland over the last decade. And, that rate is still huge when you consider that earnings haven't kept pace. In fact, they're mostly flat when you adjust for inflation. It is also worth noting that Maryland's yearly tuition plus fees, room and board (for the 2012-2013 academic year) was about 18k a year. That means a person who pays the full price tag will go 72k into debt. That's a lot of debt to saddle graduates with. Not everyone can work on Wall Street loot and pillagewhen they graduate.
So, what else can we cut so Maryland can freeze tuition again? I'd suggest Maryland's next governor and its General Assembly start by looking at the salaries of its university's top level administrators. Over the last 20 years university administrators have started compensating themselves as if they work on Wall Street (ok, maybe 'off-Wall Street'). According to a Chronicle of Higher Education survey the median presidential salary at public universities was $421,395 in 2011. You can search here for Maryland's figures.
Universities have also increased the number of upper level administrators on their staffs. Apparently, provosts and deans now multiply like rabbits. Just ask their offspring--the vice provosts, associate deans, assistant deans, and chief research officers that now litter higher ed's upper management ranks. Not surprisingly, these guys are also compensated well enough to afford something besides tweed jackets with threadbare elbow patches (see here).
Universities will tell you they need these people, and this is the price it takes to get them. That sounds awfully self-serving when you realize these are the same people who presided over the 'crisis in higher ed'--defined here as the toxic combination of state retrenchment and ballooning tuition.
So, Maryland, why not cut some administrators' salaries, or cut some upper level administrator positions. Hell, you could even cut both. I suspect we'd all be better off without the extra layer of fat cat bureaucracy.
Note: in the first edition of this post I mistakenly put Maryland's average annual tuition at 12k. That amount was for the 2002-2003 year. The correct figure for 2012-2013 is 18k.
How did Maryland do this? Big props go to Governor Martin O'Malley. After he took office he enacted a 4 year tuition freeze at all Maryland state schools. After the 4 year freeze was over, the General Assembly kept annual tuition hikes at 3%. O'Malley was also willing to increase the money the state spent on higher ed (34% according to the WAPO article) by raising some taxes and moving money from other parts of the state budget.
Let's pause for a minute to consider just how remarkable this is. Most states are slashing higher education budgets. A 34% increase is virtually unheard of. Many states have also seen tuition rates more than double in the last decade. In 7 states (New Hampshire, Arizona, Kentucky, Alabama, Hawaii, Louisiana, Illinois) tuition increases were over 100%. The highest increase (a whopping 162%) was in New Hampshire. Virginia's rate managed not to double (97.6% increase), but just barely.
This is a win for Maryland, but only in a relative sense. Why? Because Maryland's behavior only looks exceptional by comparison. Tuition still increased by 47% in Maryland over the last decade. And, that rate is still huge when you consider that earnings haven't kept pace. In fact, they're mostly flat when you adjust for inflation. It is also worth noting that Maryland's yearly tuition plus fees, room and board (for the 2012-2013 academic year) was about 18k a year. That means a person who pays the full price tag will go 72k into debt. That's a lot of debt to saddle graduates with. Not everyone can work on Wall Street
So, what else can we cut so Maryland can freeze tuition again? I'd suggest Maryland's next governor and its General Assembly start by looking at the salaries of its university's top level administrators. Over the last 20 years university administrators have started compensating themselves as if they work on Wall Street (ok, maybe 'off-Wall Street'). According to a Chronicle of Higher Education survey the median presidential salary at public universities was $421,395 in 2011. You can search here for Maryland's figures.
Universities have also increased the number of upper level administrators on their staffs. Apparently, provosts and deans now multiply like rabbits. Just ask their offspring--the vice provosts, associate deans, assistant deans, and chief research officers that now litter higher ed's upper management ranks. Not surprisingly, these guys are also compensated well enough to afford something besides tweed jackets with threadbare elbow patches (see here).
Universities will tell you they need these people, and this is the price it takes to get them. That sounds awfully self-serving when you realize these are the same people who presided over the 'crisis in higher ed'--defined here as the toxic combination of state retrenchment and ballooning tuition.
So, Maryland, why not cut some administrators' salaries, or cut some upper level administrator positions. Hell, you could even cut both. I suspect we'd all be better off without the extra layer of fat cat bureaucracy.
Note: in the first edition of this post I mistakenly put Maryland's average annual tuition at 12k. That amount was for the 2002-2003 year. The correct figure for 2012-2013 is 18k.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)