Report: C-USA won't keep UAB without football

untjim1995 · May 4, 2015

If the citizens in Canada can carry the heavy burden of universal health care, then we can here in Denton too. This sports thing is our own little lobby. It is upon us to fund it if we wish it to ascend to higher standards.

That's the law there --and here now. You gotta follow the law and pay the taxes that your leadership drops on you, whether you agree or not. Same thing applies here, just as it does to take care of our precious College of Music. If the university wants a fee to support this, than you gotta pay for it. I had to pay several fees at UNT that I couldn't care less about nor saw any benefit for me, but I also know the university used those fees to either better those particular programs or the whole university.

Edited May 4, 2015 by untjim1995

Mean Green 93-98 · May 4, 2015

There is zero argument in this thread whatsoever that will change my perception that people here are saying, "I want this thing! Make other people pay for it!"

Despite the fact that (I assume) everyone in this thread already contributes toward that "thing"?

greenit · May 4, 2015

Since it no longer applies to me, I suggest that we impose an athletic fee on all alumni that graduated in the last 20 years. There is no reason they should not pay since increased athletic success will increase the value of their degree.

untjim1995 · May 4, 2015

What if the ticket office ddi put a surcharge on tickets, above the MGC donation that is needed for certain season tickets, to support the AD? What if the indivual tickets were sold at $3 or $5 more, just to cover these extra costs? Would attendance get crushed below what is already is or would we even really notice? That way, the fans share in the needed increase of funds, too? What if funds to join the MGC are increased by $25 a year or $50 a year at the minimum?

I'm not advocating any of it, just wondering if it would have merit.

Edited May 4, 2015 by untjim1995

Ben Gooding · May 4, 2015

Up the fee. If future or current students don't like it then they can go elsewhere. BS fees are scattered all throughout the tuition, but when the debate if the athletic fee should be raised there are people arguing it and arguing it on a sports forum no less. It's just too UNT-esque of people to argue something of this nature regardless of the forum it being spewed on. I don't know why I act like I'm surprised.

Cerebus · May 4, 2015

In what other aspect of life would this student fee in which everyone is so enamored not be a unilaterally imposed tax without representation?

It is patently unfair and not right to demand the standards that some of our alumni do, then put the burden on the backs of students.

Your position is nonsensical.

There are plenty of fees that get imposed on students without their consent. You think the majority of the students use the rec center? There is a fee to electronically handle payments, you think the students had any say in that? Departments get to decide what fees they charge for what classes, zero student input. The administration constantly creates and changes fees and the students have no input. The average students is paying thousands of dollars in fees every year and they had zero say in ANY of them, except one.

The students voted in the athletics fee, and they voted in a fee structure that allowed the admin to raise the fee above the initial cost. The admin is choosing not to raise that fee, the students already said they could if they needed.

You in fact arguing that we should disregard the vote on the one fee any student had a say in. This is the only fee they actually had any "representation" in. At the same time you are implying that the student fee should be like the other fees, the fees that they have zero say in.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Cerebus

Cerebus · May 4, 2015

There is zero argument in this thread whatsoever that will change my perception that people here are saying, "I want this thing! Make other people pay for it!"

Except of course that the students voted to say "I want this thing, make me and other students pay for it."

MeanGreenTexan · May 4, 2015

Except of course that the students voted to say "I want this thing, make ~~me and~~ other students pay for it."

FIFY.

Remember, the wording/execution of the proposition was to enact the fee hike after the students who voted it in were long gone (3-4 years later, I believe. Flyer could probably clarify if he wanted to). We were able to take out bonds on it right away (getting Apogee built), but I'm pretty sure it didn't go into effect until a few years ago.

Cerebus · May 4, 2015

FIFY.
Remember, the wording/execution of the proposition was to enact the fee hike after the students who voted it in were long gone (3-4 years later, I believe. Flyer could probably clarify if he wanted to). We were able to take out bonds on it right away (getting Apogee built), but I'm pretty sure it didn't go into effect until a few years ago.

I think it started 2 years after, and underclassmen are allowed to vote.

MeanGreenTexan · May 4, 2015

I think it started 2 years after, and underclassmen are allowed to vote.

Of course they are. But don't you think (if in-fact it was only 2 years later) that the Juniors & Seniors who voted would vote FOR this as it would help their University's football team & not cost them a dime? I'm betting most of the dissenting votes came from the underclassmen who were concerned about money.

Edited May 4, 2015 by MeanGreenTexan

untjim1995 · May 4, 2015

Its just the cost of admission at a university that plays college football at the FBS level. No different than the cost of admission for a university that chooses Art as its primary window and charges a fee per semester hour to help that school to get the best future artists and make sure they can compete with the best artists at other universities.

Ask yourself this. Why do Texas State, UTSA, and UTEP all charge the full athletic fee that is allowable under state law for their programs? Every single principle applies to their student body as it does here. If Austin came out and said that they have to follow a UNT model for funding, then so be it. We bitch on here about the P5 Texas public schools with such an unfair advantage, as well as UH just because of their SWC inclusion, but UTEP, UTSA, and Texas State don't have any problem charging this fee because they have chosen to use football as the primary window for their school. As a matter of fact, only one school in the region, that plays at FBS chooses to keep funding low for their program, at the administrative level...and this is why my argument of increasing the fee has exactly zero chance of happening. In the end, the argument is really one-sided--it ain't gonna change here. It was done with gritted teeth to have to institute this fee to begin with, because of the student vote in 2009--and it was watered down as soon as it could be.

Cerebus · May 4, 2015

I'm betting most of the dissenting votes came from the underclassmen who were concerned about money.

I'm betting it was actually communist insurgents who wanted to reduce the important of the football game in order to make their favorite part of the day, tailgating, more important. Since neither of us has access to the voting data, who is to say which is more likely?

Forgetting all that, this is one of the very few fees the students got a voice on and passed ( plenty of other fees have been put forward and voted down), and most fees get imposed with zero student voice on the matter. To say that this fee disregards the student voice when it is in fact one of the few fees they had an voice in... doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

MeanGreenTexan · May 4, 2015

I'm betting it was actually communist insurgents who wanted to reduce the important of the football game in order to make their favorite part of the day, tailgating, more important. Since neither of us has access to the voting data, who is to say which is more likely?

Forgetting all that, this is one of the very few fees the students got a voice on and passed ( plenty of other fees have been put forward and voted down), and most fees get imposed with zero student voice on the matter. To say that this fee disregards the student voice when it is in fact one of the few fees they had an voice in... doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

I agree with this (that wasn't my argument). Black & White? You're absolutely right. But, of course, there is more to it than that...

All I'm trying to say is that the wording in the proposition was carefully crafted to have minimal impact on those students who were on campus at the time. And, I think you and I honestly know which of our super-snazzy scenarios are more likely.

Cerebus · May 4, 2015

And, I think you and I honestly know which of our super-snazzy scenarios are more likely.

We do, I just didn't want to offend the "tailgating is the only thing that matters" faction on here.

untjim1995 · May 4, 2015

We do, I just didn't want to offend the "tailgating is the only thing that matters" faction on here.

Are you talking about the BOR and RV again?... :ph34r:

Arkstfan · May 4, 2015

If you had ever been on campus at FIU you would see just how utterly stupid that remark truly is. Light years ahead of UNT in beautiful Miami on the Florida Gold Coast. Twice as big with student fees that support the program unlike the paltry $7. increase that UNT lauded its dumb ass students for passing. UTSA & TX STATE @ San Marcos have double the UNT student fee. Wonder why we can't compete?

Here is the downside of being hugely reliant on student fees (I think FIU is north of 70% of revenue from student fees).

We know that over the next decade or so total national college enrollment will dip. Now some schools will stay steady, some will even grow, but many will lose students. If student population falls 2% and 70% of budget is from student fees, you have to cut 1.4% from your budget. You won't cut contracted salaries, chances are your cost of employee benefits will rise (they have risen for decades so no reason to expect that to change). Your school will probably increase tuition which means you get billed more athletic scholarships. Very quickly to get a 1.4% cut in budget you are looking at cutting about 10% of a budget area that is discretionary because much of your budget is not discretionary.

Right now the trend is for states to not increase or even cut higher ed funding. So budget shortfalls in the general university budget have to be made up elsewhere, money spent to help athletics will be on the chopping block.

We also know that student loans are starting to become a political issue. If student loans become harder to get or more expensive, again we are looking at possible declines in enrollment along with more price sensititivty from students and parents. Having a high athletic fee is not good in a price sensitive market.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Arkstfan

Arkstfan · May 4, 2015

"UAB and Southern Mississippi are the only remaining C-USA charter members that have never left."

I wonder how this leaves Southern Miss feeling? They always wanted to "take it to the next level". I guess having winning seasons 14 years in a row and going bowling 10 out of 11 seasons gets you fired there (Jeff Bowers). Meanwhile, the rest of Conference USA, past and present, has passed them by. But its crazy to think there will only be one remaining charter member left.

Southern Miss is the only school to play every year of CUSA football.

I once saw a comic who juggled as part of his act. He held up a hatchet and said "This is the hatchet George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree...... well the handle has been replaced....... and the head, but it occupies the same space."