ADLER

A Dedicated Athletics Fee was already approved by the Student Government Association in March 2002 when the last minimal 'emergency increase' for athletics was added to the student service fees. SGA Fees Proposal of March 2002 The problem is that it appears that it was never implemented. Therefore North Texas has not been able to keep pace with athletic spending at competing universities Athletic Fees. Worse yet, unlike the competion, there is no long term structure for continuous improvement. The only way for North Texas athletics to survive would be to sporadically pop further student service fee increases whenever there was dire situation; NCAA Title IX non-compliance, Fouts Field being declared structurally unsound within the decade, etc. A Dedicated Fee for Athletics would instantly stop the fees from spontaneously being dumped on students. Fee increases would be structured as far as a decade in advance so that students interested in enrolling at North Texas would have accurate information when comparing universities and could make their selection based on accurate information. A Dedicated Fee for Athletics would also help the university by alleviating the need for athletics to ask for increased amounts from student services fees to cover expenditures. Those funds are likely required by other departments and it's a shame to see them diverted to athletics.

I find it funny that I am painted as the bad guy for not only protecting the best interest of the students, but for also suggesting the method for creating and maintaining a successsful athletics program which will significantly raise the value of the degree that those students receive.

Wow, where is the leadership for the university when it's needed. How come nobody has posted about this? I hate to say "I told ya' so", but....... Look, here's the cold hard fact. Even if the student fee is increased by a minimal amount during the first 4 years after the stadium is completed (just enough to partially cover the cost of bonding the stadium) it could be the proverbial nail in the coffin for North Texas athletics. This will be the first increase since the minimal 2002 emergency refendum because underfunded North Texas couldn't even comply with NCAA Title IX restrictions. Increasing enough to only cover the bond guarantees that all athletics will be held to those same underfunded 2002 levels though 2014. If you think North Texas has had limited success lately.... There needs to be a long term plan for athletic excellence, there needs to be a commitment to match the student investment being made at other schools that are competing for the same goal (successful mid-major status 'CUSA membership'), and there needs to be leadership from campus 'leaders' to help the university reach it's potential. Once again, I hate to say "I told ya' so", but.......

During the 2007-2008 fiscal year the UNT-Dallas campus reached 814 full-time enrollment. When the UNT Dallas Campus' on-site enrollment reaches the full-time equivalent of 1,000 students, the system will establish the free-standing University of North Texas at Dallas. No student service fees, including athletic fees, will be contributed to UNT-Denton. This will happen well before any 2010 fee increase. Please don't tell me that the "recent growth of the last several years" is what the current plan is based around. We know where those additional 2000 students are. Other than that the Denton campus has taken 24 years (1984-2008) to increase by 10,000 students. I can't prove that UNT-Denton definitely will not increase another 10,000 students to (42,000 enrollment by 2014) over the next 6 years, but I find it highly unlikely. Comparing Athletic Fees

Padron gives up football for health reasons Justin Padron, a former Southlake Carroll linebacker and member of UNT’s 2007 recruiting class, has given up football due to complications from diabetes, Dodge said. Padron spent last season as a redshirt. Dodge will meet with Rice transfer and fellow Carroll graduate Evan Fentriss today to discuss his future with the team. The wide receiver has struggled to recover from a knee injury, but Dodge said he expects him to return. Brett Vito story and notes

Here are the official Fall 2007 enrollment figures as provided by the Texas Education Agency. North Texas - UNT-Denton and UNT-Dallas have a combined enrollment of 34,153 but 1,844 of those reside at the Dallas campus and don't pay athletics fees. North Texas - Denton...32,309 UT-San Antonio...28,533 Difference in campus enrollment: 3776 or UTSA is 8.55% smaller than North Texas-Denton Yes, I would certainly call that comparable when comparing 30,000 student universities. But all facts say otherwise. But so are other schools, and with the help of proactive student government associations working with extended long tem plans, they are doing it at a very fast pace.

OK, let's pretend that the current athletic revenue really is the $15 million that was fabricated for a 2006 Austin news story. From where does that money come? Please tell me where there are any inaccuracies. Student fees for the previous year amounted to 4.3 million. Let's pretend they're up to 6 million now even though that's not really possible without any interem increase. Guarantees and Conference/NCAA distribution have been less than a million per year. Ticket sales dollars have been, well let's not even post that figure. Let's just say under a million. Keeping up? Best case scenario is $9 million so far. So, if by default, you are claiming a total $15 million budget, that must mean that alumni and corporate sponsors are contributing a disproportionate $6 million per year. It would be nice but I don't think it's happening. Or let's go with a more realistic model using the Carr Athletics Report which states that 75% of athletic revenue at large regional universities is derived directly from student fees/government sources. (They used budgets from 10 large regional public colleges from CUSA, WAC, and Sun Belt but didn't name which schools). Let's apply those figures to your 2015 model which has a $22.5 million budget. 75% of the budget should be expected, on average, to be derived from student fee revenue. That's $16.875,000 North Texas has a projected enrollment of 42,000 but 5000 will be at the Dallas campus and not paying athletic fees. FY 2015 fee contributing students 37,000. (let's not even raise the fact that many of those will be part time) $16.875,000 divided amongst 37,000 students is $456 per student per year. That's $228 per semester. That's $19 per credit hour base on 12 hour course load. That's pretty darn close to what I have been saying all along. That is also what reports commisioned by the other universities have been saying. That is what student referendums at both references have based their $20 per credit hour fees upon. If your long-term plan truly is based around getting the student athletics fee to $19 per credit hour by 2015 then I guess this whole debate isn't even necessary. That's much quicker than even I was advocating.

I don't see what calculation could possibly show North Texas having a higher budget in the 2014-2015 fiscal year. The student population is relatively close at both schools. UTSA will have higher student athletic fees, and should have at least equal external funding through local government support, ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, and alumni donations. That facility contribution approved in the May 10 vote was significantly larger than anything North Texas athletics has ever received. UTSA still needs a field house for football, and North Texas still needs a stadium. Both North Texas and UTSA have an enormous amount of potential, you can even throw Texas State in as well. Each can be incredibly succesful with the right long-term plan. I have seen the UTSA and Texas State plans but have not yet seen the long-term plan for North Texas.

Wow, I thought I had addressed ad nauseam the fact that Bexar County is contributing millions for the new UTSA Athletic Complex. and how the contribution was approved by voters in May of this year. Have I really spent too little time explaining this? UTSA already has a stadium available (and a fairly nice one at that). UTSA is having practice facilities built that will be paid for by the county (sufficient external revenues). UTSA plans to have Bowl Championship Subdivision football by 2014. UTSA intends to have a much larger budget than North Texas based on higher student athletic fees and external revenues. UTSA plans to make a push at CUSA membership if a spot was to become available. So please stop the "We don't want to be like UTSA! We don't want to be like UTSA! We don't want to be like UTSA!" stuff. They have formulated a long term plan while.......

Those type of things are certainly possible. Taco Bell has a $4 million, 15 year deal with Boise State for naming rights on their basketball arena that is paid in yearly installments. It was a benefit of Boise State making a commitment to their football program. Taco Bell Arena Corporations like to be associated with successful programs.

This is exactly why the student athletics fees need to be structured into a long term plan instead of announcing every few years "Hey, who wants to pay additional fees?" That's a recipe' for disaster. Please review the Carr Sports Associates UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study that was commissioned prior to the student athletics fees referendum. It defines the process for raising revenues over an extended period to get the school positioned in the competitive range with 10 other large regional schools of CUSA, the WAC, and the Sun Belt. The results are especially interesting because UTSA has almost the same amount of full-time undergrads as North Texas does on it's Denton campus. UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study - Fiscal Issues The study was based on 2004-2005 budgets and the report was completed in February 2006. The result was that UTSA students overwhelmingly supported the necessary referendum to raise the athletics fee to $20 per credit hour by the middle of the next decade. Their plan is to be competitive with the succesful teams in those mid-major leagues by 2015. A long-term plan works much better than multiple knee-jerk reactions. The SGA should structure the plan so it defines where North Texas will be a decade from now, not just springing another 'desparately needed' increase on the students every several years. You're right, that can't be too popular.

In 1997 new North Texas basketball coach Vic Trilli was determined to get UNT into the then new Conference USA. CUSA didn't give North Texas any consideration because North Texas had no commitment. Upstart program South Florida leapfrogged North Texas and quickly gained CUSA membership because they made the necessary commitment. Prior to 1998 South Florida didn't even have any football. South Florida has since left CUSA for the Big East. National rankings and bowl games have been the result. Central Florida followed a similar path to CUSA. Look what they've accomplished in the last few years. They too aspire to join the BCS Big East. Should North Texas take these two newbies seriously? If a spot in CUSA were to become available in 2013 who do you think they would want, a historically bad North Texas team with no historical commitment, or a new school with much larger budget, plays in the Alamodome, and that can deliver a new market? If you say North Texas then you haven't followed this program long enough.

Here's a video that UTSA used prior to the refernedum that raised their student athletic fees from $10 per credit hour to $20. You be the judge as to if they have a concrete plan as to where they want to go, and a method to get there. UTSA Athletics Fee Referendum Video (click here) "A budget of $18.5 million is the bare minimum required to field successful programs at the mid-major level" Here's a copy of Q&A: UTSA athletics fee student referendum which was posted in UTSA Today, the student paper. Q&A: UTSA Athletics Fee Student Referendum (click here) On Sept. 11 and 12, current UTSA students can vote on a student referendum to increase athletic fees. Increased fees would be used to take Roadrunner Athletics to the next level of NCAA competition. (The student referendum has since passed and been approved) Possible improvements include new athletic facilities, the addition of football and a move to a new conference. The referendum would authorize increasing athletics fees over the next several years from a current maximum of $120 per semester to a maximum of $240 per semester. Each student now pays $10 per hour for the first 12 credit hours each semester. Athletics fees are charged only on 12 hours per semester; therefore, the fee currently is capped at $120 per semester. If the student referendum passes, athletics fees would increase over five years to no more than $20 per hour. Q. What conference is UTSA moving to? A. The Division 1A conferences that may be attainable by UTSA during the next 10 years are the Sun Belt Conference, Western Athletic Conference (WAC) and Conference USA. Conference USA is the most prestigious and attractive with nearby opponents Houston, Rice, SMU, UTEP, Tulsa and Tulane in its western division. Q. How much would students pay for football tickets? A. The Athletics Department expects that students would be admitted to football games free with their student IDs. Even though it is likely UTSA would plans to play its home football games in the Alamodome, Athletics would plan to admit students to games at no charge as a result of paying athletics fees. (And according to the UTSA paper, Bexar County and the City of San Antonio are suggesting free use of the Alamodome as incentive for the university to start a football program.) Q. Who would UTSA play in football? A. If UTSA moved into a new conference, it would play that conference's member schools such as Houston, Rice, SMU and UTEP in Conference USA. Q. Why do students have to pay athletic fees if they don't go to the games? A. The athletics fee is similar to the library, medical services, University Center, Recreation Center and other fees. All students pay to cover the costs of these services whether they use them or not. In return for paying athletics fees, the UTSA Athletics Department makes three promises to students -- to provide fun, affordable entertainment; build pride and tradition in UTSA and increase equity in a UTSA degree. Students receive benefits from these promises while in school and after graduation even if they don't attend athletics events. And after the student referendum there was this: Bexar County provides $50 million for UTSA sports complex Which passed on May 10 of this year: Venue Prop 2 Amateur Athletic Facilities (WITH 622 OF 622 PRECINCTS COUNTED) FOR (a favor) . . . . . . . . . 41,002 AGAINST (en contra) . . . . . . . 16,170 The facilities are scheduled to be completed by 2012. It doesn't take the Hubble Telescope to detect the big Whooosh! coming.

What has North Texas done in the past 30 years to build on that success? Surely there has been a long term plan, and not just a bunch of band-aids to cover immediate needs.

I think the students that are opposed to a stadium fee have a legitimate point. Many of them aren't sports fans and many will not attend football games no matter how nice the stadium. It's not going to stop them from contributing because even the most critical of them knows that the reason that the fee is being raised is because the it has been far too low for too long and North Texas has been unable to build facilities or comply with NCAA regulations (Title IX in 2002) without tacking on a small increase. That is exactly why the Student Government Association should look closely at how they structure this fee. Here is my suggestion for what may be the best format for raising the fee. $1 per credit hour incerase in 2008-2009 $1 per credit hour incerase in 2009-2010 $1 per credit hour incerase in 2010-2011 $1 per credit hour incerase in 2011-2012 then a year without any increase $2 per credit hour incerase in 2013-2014 $2 per credit hour incerase in 2014-2015 $2 per credit hour incerase in 2015-2016 $2 per credit hour incerase in 2016-2017 Now I can hear all of you saying "Hey, wait Adler, you're wanting to impose the higher parts of the fee on people that aren't even at North Texas yet. Those 2016-2017 incoming Freshmen are just starting fourth grade his year. You're not being fair to them." That is where you are wrong. A small increase is needed right now, there's no debating it and it is going to happen because a new stadium is needed. The current stadium is a dilapidated structure built in 1952 that has a history of structural problems. The property where the current stadium resides is required for academic purposes and the future Interstate-35 expansion is going to be too close to the current structure. Many of the other colleges in the Sun Belt, schools that North Texas is desperately trying to outperform, already have student athletic fees in the $200 - $300 range per semester. A couple of other large Texas colleges that desire a national presence have also raised their athletic fees to be $240 - $300 per semester by 2012. North Texas needs to be in a position to be able to meet these challenges or it will potentially keep being passed over in any future conference realignments. But to impose a larger fee, one equal to what other 'emerging national schools' pay, one that would substantially improve athletics, one that could result in more attractive conferences, on current students would be wrong. It would be like raising someone's car payments after they have already started to pay for their vehicle. New students in 2013 and subsequent years would be selecting their college fully aware of all fees . If the fees make North Texas a more costly option than another college (very highly unlikely, but I had to say it) then that will be a factor in their decision. What would be unfair is to wait until 2013 or 2014 and then spring another 'necessary, fee on unsuspecting students. We all know that an adjustment will be necessary. Like buying a car, "The price on the sticker is what you pay" is the most honest way to help prospective students forecast their college costs. And all North texas would be doing is raising 2016 athletic fees to what many other students are already paying.

Why can't North Texas be like this? (Yes, Click Here) It can. That school was not even in Division 1 until 1997. They played in relative obscurity and drew vey few fans. North Texas has more potential than just about any school in the country to build a winning program. But we all know what 'potential' means. It's not just about a stadium, North Texas needs to seize the opportunity to make a name for itself.

Big wheels keep on turning Carry us home to see old kin Singing songs about the Southland Cause we'll be playin' there again And I think its a sin, yes

Congratulations Joey.

Yes, I know that I am sometimes portayed as the eternal optimist, but that may be the reason why I have never given up hope for North Texas to be able to accomplish something more than it has; to become something better than it is. But I like to think of myself as more of a realist. The method to success is so clearly mapped out by the other large state schools which have already made the move and those that are soon planning to. Why can't the same thing happen for North Texas?

I too don't think Texas State has any problems with North Texas althouth I do believe they use UNT as a model of ineptitude. It's not changing at Texas State by sheer luck, an aggressive agenda from the very top is making change happen. I wish the same could be said for North Texas. Here is a link to the Texas State University: Poised For Greatness The Rising Star of Texas Bobcat Club fundraising video.

You know, people often ask how things got so bad at North Texas. They want to know what method these formerly unknown newcomers used to pass North Texas so quickly. But then people stick their heads in the sand when concrete evidence is being shown as to exactly what method these schools are using to pass North Texas. Whooosh! Whooosh! Whooosh! Well there goes Eastern Carolina, South Florida, and Central Florida all disappearing out in front. Florida Atlantic and Florida International have just recently passed, and Texas State and UTSA are closing quickly from behind with full intents to blow the doors off 'wallowing' North Texas.

No, what I am saying is that there are students that are not interested in what benefits North Texas. They would oppose anything that benefits the university, and many would inflict harm on it if given the opportunity. They do exist and they will be vocal when a referendum is proposed. That is why North Texas needs strong vocal leadership from it's University President, Student Government Association leaders, and the leaders of campus organizations; dorms, Greek organizations etc.

You can mock their commitment to improve themselves. But many people did the same to Florida State, Eastern Carolina, Central Florida, and South Florida who did the same thing. Where has North Texas gotten by not making a commitment? Are North Texas graduates that much wealthier because they didn't pay a competitive athletics fee?

There are times when it's easy to define who cares about the well-being of the university, and who does not.

Unfortunately the hole in the ship needs to be fixed first. For decades North Texas has seen very few bail water and the overwhelming majority bail out. Asking what few remain to bail faster hasn't made any progress. Hopefully. This year a wake-up coffee was served when the Dallas Morning News ran the story that North Texas had a total of ZERO points in this years Director's Cup standings which compares how well all 300 Division 1 schools compete on a national level. And if that didn't get her attention, then certainly the cold herring with which Texas State just slapped her should have done the trick. But even if built by 2010 a new stadium is not the panacea, it's just masking a symptom of a much larger problem. Has the "Fabulous' Super Pit been able to keep North Texas Basketball from only having 5 seasons of winning records against Division 1 teams in the last 25 years? There has to be a real commitment along with the facility improvements. Otherwise you're just flushing the money away. Oh, and then North Texas can blame the 'bad' alumni, the 'bad' fans, and the 'bad' community support.