No competitive student athletic fee will doom ANY new AD

DallasGreen · May 30, 2016

Only 3 per cent of that large alumni base gives anything at all back to the university. With lack of a competitive athletic program even in a mid tier league like CUSA, there is no reason to think this will change. Unless you can count on the administration to continue to supplement the lack of an adequate student fee and become even more supportive than it is now, nothing is going to change with a new AD. He will become just as disenchanted as the last one when he realizes all the " potential " here is just an illusion. Apathy in the faculty, community, and students is too entrenched to allow the administration to continue to support an athletic program. The choice is to drop back to FCS or give up your major revenue sport. NT will definitely keep its title as the cheapest, but it will also be the least prestigious and least funded school by its administration and most of all insure that it will remain in the bottom tier of Texas university endowments. The most disappointing thing is we have chosen to be in this position.

TreeFiddy · May 30, 2016

^^^

I disagree. This administration has proven a lot of naysayers wrong lately. I think they keep pushing, at least for a little while longer. It has become apparent that athletics helps drive donations/endowment growth in all areas, when done correctly.

Wag Tag · May 31, 2016

1 hour ago, DallasGreen said:

Only 3 per cent of that large alumni base gives anything at all back to the university. With lack of a competitive athletic program even in a mid tier league like CUSA, there is no reason to think this will change. Unless you can count on the administration to continue to supplement the lack of an adequate student fee and become even more supportive than it is now, nothing is going to change with a new AD. He will become just as disenchanted as the last one when he realizes all the " potential " here is just an illusion. Apathy in the faculty, community, and students is too entrenched to allow the administration to continue to support an athletic program. The choice is to drop back to FCS or give up your major revenue sport. NT will definitely keep its title as the cheapest, but it will also be the least prestigious and least funded school by its administration and most of all insure that it will remain in the bottom tier of Texas university endowments. The most disappointing thing is we have chosen to be in this position.

$80m stadium, Mc $2m buyout, a top oc from a top 20 program hired, AD fired. It is amazing how people can not realize change! Win and maybe that attitude goes away for some! You will always have nay sayers!

UNT90 · May 31, 2016

3 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

^^^

I disagree. This administration has proven a lot of naysayers wrong lately. I think they keep pushing, at least for a little while longer. It has become apparent that athletics helps drive donations/endowment growth in all areas, when done correctly.

Have they? Have they really?

Let's recap. They refused to fire RV BEFORE the football coach hire, saddling the new AD with a football coach he may or may not want, but certainly didn't get to choose. So we won't know whether this new AD can hire football coaches, and he has a valid excuse if Littrell is not a success. No other university would have waited to fire RV. He would have been fired along with McCarney and a new AD would have made the football hire. A terrible misstep that only happens at UNT.

Although I have hope, Benford still sits in the head coach's chair of men's basketball. He should have been fired 4 years ago, but this university refuses to fire him with only one year left on his contract. He would have been gone at least 3 years ago at any other FBS university if he had destroyed a successful basketball program like he did at UNT. And UNT has done nothing for 4 years. Maybe this changes in the next month, but we only know what we know.

We don't know if Hank Dickinson or the dude from Pedo St gets the AD position or not. Hank is mounting a public campaign and will have the backing of good ole boy Denton friends. This could so be a reality.

So, to say the UNT administration is out there "proving people wrong" is about as big an overstatement as calling UNT football successful over the last 10 years.

Edited May 31, 2016 by UNT90

Harry · May 31, 2016

4 hours ago, DallasGreen said:

Only 3 per cent of that large alumni base gives anything at all back to the university. With lack of a competitive athletic program even in a mid tier league like CUSA, there is no reason to think this will change. Unless you can count on the administration to continue to supplement the lack of an adequate student fee and become even more supportive than it is now, nothing is going to change with a new AD. He will become just as disenchanted as the last one when he realizes all the " potential " here is just an illusion. Apathy in the faculty, community, and students is too entrenched to allow the administration to continue to support an athletic program. The choice is to drop back to FCS or give up your major revenue sport. NT will definitely keep its title as the cheapest, but it will also be the least prestigious and least funded school by its administration and most of all insure that it will remain in the bottom tier of Texas university endowments. The most disappointing thing is we have chosen to be in this position.

@DallasGreen - since I know this is a subject near and dear to you, and I believe you are sincere in terms of how much we need it, I have a few questions I would like to ask you.

If they were to raise the fee, what level would you like to see it raised to, and how much annual revenue would your percentage raise generate based on current enrollment projections? Also -- where would you spend that additional money and how is it going to raise our profile? I think you make some valid points about increasing the fee especially with us losing the ESPN money. I do not recall seeing specifics on where you believe that money needs to go. If your suggestion is to place it in some general fund, that lord knows who controls -- I'm out. If it could affect us ramping up football success or starting up a baseball program etc. I think you would have some interest.

Christopher Walker · May 31, 2016

7 hours ago, DallasGreen said:

Only 3 per cent of that large alumni base gives anything at all back to the university. With lack of a competitive athletic program even in a mid tier league like CUSA, there is no reason to think this will change. Unless you can count on the administration to continue to supplement the lack of an adequate student fee and become even more supportive than it is now, nothing is going to change with a new AD. He will become just as disenchanted as the last one when he realizes all the " potential " here is just an illusion. Apathy in the faculty, community, and students is too entrenched to allow the administration to continue to support an athletic program. The choice is to drop back to FCS or give up your major revenue sport. NT will definitely keep its title as the cheapest, but it will also be the least prestigious and least funded school by its administration and most of all insure that it will remain in the bottom tier of Texas university endowments. The most disappointing thing is we have chosen to be in this position.

That is not the choice and you know it.

Given your position with the UNT Foundation, your constant nagging of the student body and community's commitment strikes as both odd and hypocritical. It's the lack of alumni giving and development that hurts the institution the most. If you and yours (Development in general) has come up short, that doesn't mean that failure should be passed on to the students. That's not how you engender proper school pride and buy-in which you oh-so-desire. Try again.

untjim1995 · May 31, 2016

IIRC, Lamar also charges a higher fee for students than we do. We are under UTSA, UTEP, Texas State, and Lamar.

It is what it is. The students are not going to keep paying the current fee with absolutely no return. If we cannot get this turned around Littrell--its going to be that soon, by the way--that fee, which is the absolute life blood of this program, will get overturned. When that happens, our days as a FBS program end, assuming it hasn't already occurred because of the Power Conferences pulling away by then.

We have to win in football within the Littrell window. Everyone outside of the homers recognize that this next season isn't when to expect that to happen. But we have to see that last year was the absolute bottom for the program and that we are moving upward from here. We have to be a winner by year 3 here or the grumblings of keeping the funding for athletics in its current situation will not continue. That's your lasting legacy of keeping a lazy AD around 5 years beyond when he should have been fired.

What nobody really knows is if winning here will cure the situation to the point of getting a season attendance average up to over 20k a game at Apogee. We want to believe it will happen, but we really don't know for sure. 2014, coming off the HoD Bowl win in front of 35k+ UNT fans, really disappointed so many of us, with its drop in season tickets and attendance that followed what should have been at least an increase in both. And we can blame it completely on the AD, which is fine, but it may just speak to the fact that our culture here just doesn't fit with big time football. Same with the SBC glory days that saw us average right around 15k at Fouts. Hell, Fry's teams of the 70's couldn't draw well here which is basically why he left to go to Iowa. Maybe it changes if we put together a couple of winning seasons now in CUSA and playing at Apogee, but we just don't know for sure.

Arkstfan · May 31, 2016

Fees are perfectly acceptable ways to give an athletic department a fairly predictable income stream.

But when an athletic department is overly dependent it makes you wonder if they are wasting their time having athletics that no one seems to care about, if the athletic department is hungry enough to build revenue, and whether the athletic department is stable enough to be viable long-term as it becomes more challenging to fill classes as we head into an era when overall enrollment is likely to decline and major name brand schools are often turning to enrollment to replace lost funding from states.

In the latest USA Today I count these FBS schools getting 75% or more of budget from the school/students.

Troy 75.45%, Buffalo 75.67%, Georgia State 76.85%, UMass 78.55%, Eastern Michigan 80.43%, FIU 82.55%

For contrast, the list of FBS in 2011.

Ohio 76.9%, Kent State 77.9%, South Alabama 80.2%, FIU 80.3%, Eastern Michigan 82.1%

I understand heavy reliance starting out or undertaking a limited term construction project but at some point you have to make some money. What I find interesting is that terrorists could attack EMU or FIU games and not manage to hurt anyone but both seem to be pretty solid in enrollment (and in EMU's case they are BAD to mediocre in the two biggest sports). I question whether they are getting any real value from athletics to justify the cost.

GrandGreen · May 31, 2016

16 hours ago, DallasGreen said:

Only 3 per cent of that large alumni base gives anything at all back to the university. With lack of a competitive athletic program even in a mid tier league like CUSA, there is no reason to think this will change. Unless you can count on the administration to continue to supplement the lack of an adequate student fee and become even more supportive than it is now, nothing is going to change with a new AD. He will become just as disenchanted as the last one when he realizes all the " potential " here is just an illusion. Apathy in the faculty, community, and students is too entrenched to allow the administration to continue to support an athletic program. The choice is to drop back to FCS or give up your major revenue sport. NT will definitely keep its title as the cheapest, but it will also be the least prestigious and least funded school by its administration and most of all insure that it will remain in the bottom tier of Texas university endowments. The most disappointing thing is we have chosen to be in this position.

I really don't understand your argument. NT's budget is more than competitive in CUSA. Students fees both in terms of dedicated athletic fees and institution support are much higher than the norm of fb football despite your unsupported ascertainment to the contrary. By the way, NT despite their recent ad campaign is not the cheapest and there is not a significant different in cost of most Texas state schools.

As far as donation level, you are right; but why not just assess all alumni a few hundred extra dollars a year whether they support athletics or not. That is exactly what you are advocating NT to do to the students who unlike the alumni would have no choice.

NT is not as unique as your comments portray. Most schools but the elite of P5's have substantial support problems manifested in attendance and overall support.

NT has substantially increased their budget, make changes to the two most important athletic positions, and no longer has bottom level facilities. Seems a strange time to make a case that it is all gloom and doom on the athletic front.

DallasGreen · May 31, 2016

What untjim95 says above is well said, and I agree with all of it for the most part. In answer to others who would criticize development I would say look at the figures under our relatively new VP for Development. He is doing an excellent job. In fact our planned gifts area is the highest it has been in history. In answer to Harry's point on spending increased revenue that will never be realized from a competitive student fee. RV told me at WingSpan that he could build a baseball stadium tomorrow, but it costs close to $1 million a year to operate a college baseball team. The money is not there and never will be w/o a constant revenue stream that can be counted on each year. With a competitive student fee ( which will never ever happen IMHO) you eliminate the need for your revenue sports to have to completely subsidize your non revenue sports. An increased fee would allow NT to keep talented assistant coaches, generate money for expanded recruiting travel, allow us to upgrade scheduling ( there is no way we can assure we make the guarantee to get a P5 to play in Apogee), and finally pay salaries in the athletic department to keep talent rather than have the constant turnover that now exists. As I come up on 60 years of supporting this program with volunteer time as well as all the money I could personally comitt w/o taking from obligations to support my family I am highly insulted that I be accused of being hypocritical. To just give you an example of how stupidly this student fee legislation was drawn if the debt on Apogee is paid off the student fee reverts to $3 per hour. You can bet any new AD will be forced to keep it refinanced or there is no way our athletics programs can exist.

MeanGreenTexan · May 31, 2016

37 minutes ago, DallasGreen said:

What untjim95 says above is well said, and I agree with all of it for the most part. In answer to others who would criticize development I would say look at the figures under our relatively new VP for Development. He is doing an excellent job. In fact our planned gifts area is the highest it has been in history. In answer to Harry's point on spending increased revenue that will never be realized from a competitive student fee. RV told me at WingSpan that he could build a baseball stadium tomorrow, but it costs close to $1 million a year to operate a college baseball team. The money is not there and never will be w/o a constant revenue stream that can be counted on each year. With a competitive student fee ( which will never ever happen IMHO) you eliminate the need for your revenue sports to have to completely subsidize your non revenue sports. An increased fee would allow NT to keep talented assistant coaches, generate money for expanded recruiting travel, allow us to upgrade scheduling ( there is no way we can assure we make the guarantee to get a P5 to play in Apogee), and finally pay salaries in the athletic department to keep talent rather than have the constant turnover that now exists. As I come up on 60 years of supporting this program with volunteer time as well as all the money I could personally comitt w/o taking from obligations to support my family I am highly insulted that I be accused of being hypocritical. To just give you an example of how stupidly this student fee legislation was drawn if the debt on Apogee is paid off the student fee reverts to $3 per hour. You can bet any new AD will be forced to keep it refinanced or there is no way our athletics programs can exist.

I think you need to DEFINE "competitive student fee", because ALL students who attend the University are shelling out $11/credit-hour (assuming 2 15-hour semesters = $330/year.) believe the existing student fee is "competitive" enough.... and it is. And if you're basing it off of UTSA's or TXSt's (which, in my opinion are ridiculously too high), then that's short-sighted and greedy.

Just take a look at the MGC #'s and you'll see that each and every student pays more per year in Athletic Fees than the majority of MGC members (at the $250/yr level or less). THIS is the problem sir. Not the Athletics Fee. Stop pushing the heavy burden on the students and demand more from your athletic director who is tasked with drumming-up this kind of money via donations.

And you're mis-informed on your point about paying off Apogee to stop the Athletics Fee. The athletics fee can be in place as long as there is a project where bonds are issued & it's needed. So once Apogee is paid off, if there is any other kind of facilities project going on... like say, an expansion of any building, or adding a new one, the fee stays in place. I certainly hope that there is continual growth for the remainder of our lives. If we sit pat for 15 years (isn't this how long the bonds are for? ...maybe longer) on ALL athletic facilities without touching a single one, we're worse-off than any of us thought.

UNTFan23 · May 31, 2016

A "competitive athletics fee" shouldn't mean we charge our students the same amounts that other schools offer. I struggle with the idea that being competitive means charging a similar amount for what is basically the same product.

" A competitive advantage is an advantage over competitors gained by offering consumers greater value, either by means of lower prices or by providing greater benefits and service that justifies higher prices. "

I'd say we already have a competitive fee since we charge less than many other Texas schools (not named Texas or aTm).

oldguystudent · May 31, 2016

22 minutes ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

Just take a look at the MGC #'s and you'll see that each and every student pays more per year in Athletic Fees than the majority of MGC members (at the $250/yr level or less).

You just don't get it, do you? We GOT ours! We got through school with virtually NO athletic fees, and now we're alumni with no responsibility to pay for the product that we want! Put it on the backs of students unilaterally! F 'em! Make 'em pay! For OUR wants!

untjim1995 · May 31, 2016

I do think DallasGreen's point about us charging half of what the state allows for a university to charge for an athletics fee, which is what UTSA and Texas State charge, and probably near what UTEP charges, is fair.

But I also look at it from the standpoint of the students and their parents who chose UNT because of the university's own use of advertising of charging less or because it was the creative heartbeat of the state and I view it as the reality that what we charge is actually right. We don't need to charging only $3-$7 per semester hours for athletics, but we don't need to go up to $20 either.

What I look at is this. If we cannot make our program a place that can attract alumni dollars and fans attention, no amount we charge the students will fix this. Its the biggest reason that I think that if we cannot turn this thing around in football within the next 4-5 years, that student fee will get redone in some fashion, whether eliminated or reduced by complaining students and parents, as well as the anti-athletics crowd in the faculty, administration, and within Denton.

You cannot charge people for something they don't want for very long...eventually, they will catch on. Either the fee will get rolled back somewhat or some other university will step in to take advantage of it. I have to imagine that UTA and UTD can easily use this fee against us when looking at attracting the "value" student--and that "value" student is who UNT has traditionally depended on and went hard after.

Wag Tag · May 31, 2016

53 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

I do think DallasGreen's point about us charging half of what the state allows for a university to charge for an athletics fee, which is what UTSA and Texas State charge, and probably near what UTEP charges, is fair.

But I also look at it from the standpoint of the students and their parents who chose UNT because of the university's own use of advertising of charging less or because it was the creative heartbeat of the state and I view it as the reality that what we charge is actually right. We don't need to charging only $3-$7 per semester hours for athletics, but we don't need to go up to $20 either.

What I look at is this. If we cannot make our program a place that can attract alumni dollars and fans attention, no amount we charge the students will fix this. Its the biggest reason that I think that if we cannot turn this thing around in football within the next 4-5 years, that student fee will get redone in some fashion, whether eliminated or reduced by complaining students and parents, as well as the anti-athletics crowd in the faculty, administration, and within Denton.

You cannot charge people for something they don't want for very long...eventually, they will catch on. Either the fee will get rolled back somewhat or some other university will step in to take advantage of it. I have to imagine that UTA and UTD can easily use this fee against us when looking at attracting the "value" student--and that "value" student is who UNT has traditionally depended on and went hard after.

What does this cost the student that goes to games? Uh maybe a wash?

untjim1995 · May 31, 2016

4 minutes ago, Wag Tag said:

What does this cost the student that goes to games? Uh maybe a wash?

If a student takes 30 hours a year, his $11 per hour athletics fee will cost $330 per year. For a 6 home game season, that cost a student $55 per game, not including any concessions or other stuff. $55 a game--for this collection of opponents the last two years: SMU, Nicholls State, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, Portland State, Rice, Western Kentucky, UTEP, and UTSA. In the coming seasons ahead, we get the CUSA West teams here, plus SMU and Army, Butt Cookman and Lamar, and CUSA East teams Marshall, Middle Tennessee, with the possibilities of games Charlotte, Od Dominion, and Alabama-Birmingham playing here.

There's no way that a student is getting value for this group, especially when we have won exactly 5 games in the last two seasons and probably won't win more than two games this upcoming year.

If we are still talking about having won less than 15 games total between 2014-2018, this fee is gonna be contested in some form or fashion. Its not going to keep on in its current fashion with absolute nothing to show for this. We don't like football enough around here to continue this--its unsustainable.

Wag Tag · May 31, 2016

4 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

If a student takes 30 hours a year, his $11 per hour athletics fee will cost $330 per year. For a 6 home game season, that cost a student $55 per game, not including any concessions or other stuff. $55 a game--for this collection of opponents the last two years: SMU, Nicholls State, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, Portland State, Rice, Western Kentucky, UTEP, and UTSA. In the coming seasons ahead, we get the CUSA West teams here, plus SMU and Army, Butt Cookman and Lamar, and CUSA East teams Marshall, Middle Tennessee, with the possibilities of games Charlotte, Od Dominion, and Alabama-Birmingham playing here.

There's no way that a student is getting value for this group, especially when we have won exactly 5 games in the last two seasons and probably won't win more than two games this upcoming year.

If we are still talking about having won less than 15 games total between 2014-2018, this fee is gonna be contested in some form or fashion. Its not going to keep on in its current fashion with absolute nothing to show for this. We don't like football enough around here to continue this--its unsustainable.

What about BB, soccer, soft ball? All I am saying there is value for participates! Just win!

untjim1995 · May 31, 2016

Just now, Wag Tag said:

What about BB, soccer, soft ball? All I am saying there is value for participates! Just win!

That's true--it is for all sports, so that cost is definitely lower if you go to hoops games. Obviously, very, very few people attend a non-revenue sport, so I won't count those, but you are exactly right about basketball for men and women.

Cerebus · May 31, 2016

There is also the value that a school gets for just having a FBS football team. Right or wrong, schools without them (unless you are one of the Ivy League school) get looked down as small time by much of the public.

MeanGreenTexan · May 31, 2016

10 minutes ago, untjim1995 said:

If a student takes 30 hours a year, his $11 per hour athletics fee will cost $330 per year. For a 6 home game season, that cost a student $55 per game, not including any concessions or other stuff. $55 a game--for this collection of opponents the last two years: SMU, Nicholls State, Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Louisiana Tech, Southern Mississippi, Portland State, Rice, Western Kentucky, UTEP, and UTSA. In the coming seasons ahead, we get the CUSA West teams here, plus SMU and Army, Butt Cookman and Lamar, and CUSA East teams Marshall, Middle Tennessee, with the possibilities of games Charlotte, Od Dominion, and Alabama-Birmingham playing here.

There's no way that a student is getting value for this group, especially when we have won exactly 5 games in the last two seasons and probably won't win more than two games this upcoming year.

If we are still talking about having won less than 15 games total between 2014-2018, this fee is gonna be contested in some form or fashion. Its not going to keep on in its current fashion with absolute nothing to show for this. We don't like football enough around here to continue this--its unsustainable.

Well, good thing they can maximize that value by going to a basketball ga... nevermind.

untjim1995 · May 31, 2016

10 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

There is also the value that a school gets for just having a FBS football team. Right or wrong, schools without them (unless you are one of the Ivy League school) get looked down as small time by much of the public.

Its just so damn sad that we are amongst the 2% of UNT's Family that get this. I just don't understand how little interest our football program has ever been given by the university or the town for the last 50 years, which doesn't even count for the loads of people who actually loathe the existence of UNT football, much less that its FBS.

All one has to do is look at the SWC teams in Texas, as well as UTEP, Tulsa, La Tech, and others who didn't get stuck at the I-aa level for years to see what a difference it has made. Yet, we have stuck to exact opposite viewpoint for so long from the large majority, which is damn near unanimous.

DallasGreen · May 31, 2016

3 hours ago, MeanGreenTexan said:

I think you need to DEFINE "competitive student fee", because ALL students who attend the University are shelling out $11/credit-hour (assuming 2 15-hour semesters = $330/year.) believe the existing student fee is "competitive" enough.... and it is. And if you're basing it off of UTSA's or TXSt's (which, in my opinion are ridiculously too high), then that's short-sighted and greedy.

Just take a look at the MGC #'s and you'll see that each and every student pays more per year in Athletic Fees than the majority of MGC members (at the $250/yr level or less). THIS is the problem sir. Not the Athletics Fee. Stop pushing the heavy burden on the students and demand more from your athletic director who is tasked with drumming-up this kind of money via donations.

And you're mis-informed on your point about paying off Apogee to stop the Athletics Fee. The athletics fee can be in place as long as there is a project where bonds are issued & it's needed. So once Apogee is paid off, if there is any other kind of facilities project going on... like say, an expansion of any building, or adding a new one, the fee stays in place. I certainly hope that there is continual growth for the remainder of our lives. If we sit pat for 15 years (isn't this how long the bonds are for? ...maybe longer) on ALL athletic facilities without touching a single one, we're worse-off than any of us thought.

Apogee bonds were called several years ago. I owned some. Apogee was refinanced with commercial paper. Basically I yield to the majority on this board, just do it quickly and repeal all the student fee and kill athletics at UNT. That is much better than the slow painful death of athletics through the inadequate funding that now exists. Find yourself a new whipping boy. I have better use of my time like volunteer service to UNT and the foundation. May the board and its administrator be wit you I am out of here.

MeanGreenTexan · May 31, 2016

1 minute ago, DallasGreen said:

Apogee bonds were called several years ago. I owned some. Apogee was refinanced with commercial paper. Basically I yield to the majority on this board, just do it quickly and repeal all the student fee and kill athletics at UNT. That is much better than the slow painful death of athletics through the inadequate funding that now exists. Find yourself a new whipping boy. I have better use of my time like volunteer service to UNT and the foundation. May the board and its administrator be wit you I am out of here.

But, just so you know, the majority of us actually believe the real problem is exiting. Funding should increase after an athletic director with some business sense is hired. It's about to get exciting, and I guess the bandwagon will have room for you when it gets going... but, that's what they call being a "fair-weather fan". See you after a while!

Thanks for volunteering and foundation efforts.