Boosting bottom feeders a priority for C-USA

Aldo · June 9, 2016

21 minutes ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

How? We have most of the old Sun Belt in the C-USA. It's was like getting a divorce, but then marrying into the same family again.

That was my joke. By removing LT, USM, and Marshall you're left with the Sun Belt.

Ben Gooding · June 9, 2016

13 minutes ago, Aldo said:

That was my joke. By removing LT, USM, and Marshall you're left with the Sun Belt.

And probably not by any coincidence they are also typically the steady hand in CUSA.

GrandGreen · June 9, 2016

Yes, the conference needs to substantially improve; but that includes every team. It is not like the top half of the conference is playing for national championships.

The problem with this type of non-goal is that there is always going to be a bottom and top and those teams changing positions doesn't do much for the league.

UNTFan23 · June 9, 2016

2 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

WKU institutional support is around $15M, UNT $9M. I hope UNT is ready to increase that number fairly substantially to cover the TV revenue shortfall as well as COA. Not to mention baseball.

My understanding is that UNT has already made budget adjustments regarding COA. The shortfall due to the smaller TV revenue payout will also be dealt with using minimal additional institutional support.

Arkstfan · June 9, 2016

6 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

Agree, the reckoning is coming.

In many reports, the larger schools seem to be getting larger and the smaller schools losing students. It will be interesting, and possibly painful to watch unfold.

The expectation is that over the next decade college enrollment will be flat or decline on a national basis.

Competition for each kid is going to increase.

Politically, the "greatest generation" when they held power as much as they felt government could support it, lavished money on higher ed. The "boomers" have held political control since around 1998 (ie. they are the ones elected) and they have figured out that 88% of the voters do not have a college degree and aren't that likely to run you out of office if you freeze or cut higher ed spending and you get weird situations like Louisiana where much of the budget is protected from cuts by the constitution but higher ed isn't so bears the brunt of cuts every time they cut taxes or the oil and gas market tanks.

Politically it is "more fun" to appropriate money for scholarships (example Arkansas and Georgia dedicate lottery revenue to scholarships) so it helps the kids pay but the school if revenue is flat or declining raises tuition and fees to offset shortfalls eating up the scholarship.

Pell grants have long ago lost much of their value with appropriations not keeping pace. So we have created the borrowing system which works great when college grads find good jobs.

Now schools like Alabama and Arkansas have concluded that it is in their best interest to get bigger by enrolling more students, they really like those students to be out-of-state so they will pay more in tuition. Fall 2015 both schools had more out-of-state freshman enrollments than in-state freshmen.

While those schools add students, the pool of potential students is finite. That means other schools enroll fewer students. We are already seeing small liberal arts colleges close. Chicago State is barely hanging on and there is some talk of closing it and using some of the buildings as an extension of Northeastern Illinois.

In Arkansas the state passed a law that allows colleges to merge on approval of the two school's governing boards without the state having to get involved. There wasn't a lot of action (AState picked up two technical schools that were quasi-jucos with limited offerings and merged them into one of our jucos and one other juco that stands alone with its own chancellor, UArk picked up five). Now the impact of the economy and 0% state funding growth for the past five years or so two more have joined UA and another joined AState. Rumor mill indicates that at least one four year school (with an affiliated juco) is putting together the numbers and looking at joining AState or UArk because they need to consolidate to survive.

It's a rough environment out there in higher ed right now.

Aquila_Viridis · June 10, 2016

7 hours ago, Aldo said:

That was my joke. By removing LT, USM, and Marshall you're left with the Sun Belt.

No not so much. stAte and Salabama for example. Anyway no I am not too interested in most past or current Belt members. From the current Belt I would take GA State and Salabama. I know you're groaning because of the proud tradition of the 3 mentioned above (and I am only being about half sarcastic about that cause they do have something) but unless after decades NT is finally going to go All In on athletics - and I am doubting that, then we have to come up with an entire different mindset. That means codgering together a different league of schools who share a common vision and institutional goals. I will call it the Urban Stoner League of which we should expect to usually be in the top half. Maybe a San Jose State for example would want to join.

On the other hand, by going All In, I don't mean they are going to pour additional state or student money. I mean that they make public statements about a serious goal of consistently winning soon against high level opponents and a commitment to get people working on developing a broad base of other support for the program, that can achieve a budget that will enable such winning. I have never heard any such thing from NT. I don't expect to.

The LTs and USMs, Marshall and stAte etc have a higher relative commitment to their programs. They are tiny schools by comparison. But the athletics is a much bigger percent of their whole being. Hanging with that type crowd with our big stoner mindset is not working out. It will not work out in the long run without a basic change in institutional mindset. So right now I see us on a path to nowhere.

Army of Dad · June 10, 2016

18 hours ago, Arkstfan said:

The expectation is that over the next decade college enrollment will be flat or decline on a national basis.

Competition for each kid is going to increase.

Politically, the "greatest generation" when they held power as much as they felt government could support it, lavished money on higher ed. The "boomers" have held political control since around 1998 (ie. they are the ones elected) and they have figured out that 88% of the voters do not have a college degree and aren't that likely to run you out of office if you freeze or cut higher ed spending and you get weird situations like Louisiana where much of the budget is protected from cuts by the constitution but higher ed isn't so bears the brunt of cuts every time they cut taxes or the oil and gas market tanks.

Politically it is "more fun" to appropriate money for scholarships (example Arkansas and Georgia dedicate lottery revenue to scholarships) so it helps the kids pay but the school if revenue is flat or declining raises tuition and fees to offset shortfalls eating up the scholarship.

Pell grants have long ago lost much of their value with appropriations not keeping pace. So we have created the borrowing system which works great when college grads find good jobs.

Now schools like Alabama and Arkansas have concluded that it is in their best interest to get bigger by enrolling more students, they really like those students to be out-of-state so they will pay more in tuition. Fall 2015 both schools had more out-of-state freshman enrollments than in-state freshmen.

While those schools add students, the pool of potential students is finite. That means other schools enroll fewer students. We are already seeing small liberal arts colleges close. Chicago State is barely hanging on and there is some talk of closing it and using some of the buildings as an extension of Northeastern Illinois.

In Arkansas the state passed a law that allows colleges to merge on approval of the two school's governing boards without the state having to get involved. There wasn't a lot of action (AState picked up two technical schools that were quasi-jucos with limited offerings and merged them into one of our jucos and one other juco that stands alone with its own chancellor, UArk picked up five). Now the impact of the economy and 0% state funding growth for the past five years or so two more have joined UA and another joined AState. Rumor mill indicates that at least one four year school (with an affiliated juco) is putting together the numbers and looking at joining AState or UArk because they need to consolidate to survive.

It's a rough environment out there in higher ed right now.

I'm going to guess that the school bureaucracies won't be retracting at the same rate for some time...

Edited June 10, 2016 by Army of Dad

Cerebus · June 10, 2016

6 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

I'm going to guess that the school bureaucracies won't be retracting atvthe same rate for some time...

Well since the state and federal regulations are also not going to retract, schools would be loath to do that since it would put them at increased risk of running afoul of them. Most schools would rather spend 5 dollars on oversite, rather than being accused of misusing or losing $1.

Aquila_Viridis · June 11, 2016

Well I have to take UAB and Saladbama off my list. Those schools are tiny too. Nationwide, large urban public universities that have such a proportionally miniscule approach to athletics as NT (but do have a football team of some sort) are very very rare.

Arkstfan · June 11, 2016

On 6/10/2016 at 11:17 AM, Cerebus said:

Well since the state and federal regulations are also not going to retract, schools would be loath to do that since it would put them at increased risk of running afoul of them. Most schools would rather spend 5 dollars on oversite, rather than being accused of misusing or losing $1.

BINGO!

And if you don't hire those people to make sure you meet health, safety, employment, environmental, legal requirements it can cost much more than not hiring them. I expect in a year or two juries will be hearing how Baylor was told to hire a Title IX compliance director and failed to do so for years or maybe Baylor will weigh the situation and conclude they don't want a jury hearing that and will start writing checks.