Recruiting Note & Stadium Comments

[Mean Green Matt]

Why don't we tell them that the stadium will be a pot growing venue.?

...Or that it will host music festivals, that might not even be a lie!

[FirefightnRick]

Though I do not agree with it one bit....in fairness to former students/alumni and the current ones....for the majority of them, they have earned the right to do whatever they want as far as giving a damn about the university or not. They worked their butt off to earn their degree and it did not come for free. They had to pay for it and they did or they are currently paying for it. And the ones that got full academic scholarships, well they earned it too with their own hard work put in it. So I can see people having a legitimate reason not caring because in reality they really dont owe anything to the university.

So regardless of the fact that an environment exists that doesn't inspire loyalty, as our competition does, you think it's ok to continue in that way? Imagine running a company in the business world in that way. You produce a product that the customer pays for and he leaves with it, uses it but doesn't become very inspired to ever return for a repurchase because it's just a so so product and in getting it, he/she thought your customer service sucked too? Your basically saying, go on, take what you paid for and go away. I'll find someone else to buy the next one.....I hope? You just gave your competition a leg up, just like North Texas has done with TCU, SMU, Tech and the likes.

By the way, the last vote, to the best of my memory was one of the better turnouts for a student vote that I ever remember. 2200-2400 Against the fee vs around 1500 for a fee.

Again, it's not a good idea.

Rick

[UNTflyer]

By the way, the last vote, to the best of my memory was one of the better turnouts for a student vote that I ever remember. 2200-2400 Against the fee vs around 1500 for a fee.

Again, it's not a good idea.

Rick, I've researched this and by law I think we have no choice... it must be approved by the students or the SGA, according to the Texas Education Code. Unless the legislature passes an exemption like UT received.

Also, I understand that in the vote of 2002, the administration was not clear about the need for the fee increase and the students felt they were trying to slip one by them, disguising a stadium project under a vote fro Title IX funding.

Edited June 14, 2008 by UNTflyer

[TIgreen01]

Because it is the law.

"(f) If the total compulsory fee[0] charged under this section is more than $150, the increase does not take effect unless the increase is approved by a majority vote of the students voting in an election held for that purpose or by a majority vote of the student government at the institution. In subsequent years, an election authorizing a fee[0] increase must be held before the fee[0] can be increased by more than 10 percent of the fee[0] approved at the last student election."

Texas Education Code Chapter 54

Of course, the same code identifies The University of Texas as an exception.

"( b ) Subject to Section 54.514 of this subchapter and subsections (j) and (k) of this section, the board of regents of The University of Texas System may charge and collect from students registered at The University of Texas at Austin fees[0] to cover the cost of student services that the board considers necessary or

desirable in carrying out the educational functions of the university."

Excellent research, Flyer. From the sound of it, though, our BOR could pass a fee that was under $150 and increase it by 10% each year...which seems like what many on this board have been proposing from the get-go. An additional $150 per student would generate over 4 million if you just count undergrads.

...or am I reading this wrong? I am no lawyer...

[hickoryhouse]

The endowment is money given to the university by indviduals, trusts, wills, companies, etc. Except in rare cases, that money is invested and only the interest can be used by the university. Some specify that the donation is to endow a chair in a specific department, school or college. Some may give for a building, landscaping, project, etc. but much of it is for general operations such as adding courses of study or supplementing an academic gift.

There are a number of Division 1-A schools with endowments of more than one billion dollars. North Texas got a comparatively late start and our endowment stands in the vicinity of $100 million.

By the way, none of this money can be used for athletics; however, athletics can start their own foundation.

So essentially it is a running tally of how much has been donated, not so much a bank account sitting with that money to be used? Thanks by the way

[MeanMag]

So essentially it is a running tally of how much has been donated, not so much a bank account sitting with that money to be used? Thanks by the way

Not really, it's a bank account with money sitting in it that is invested so that it grows, and the interest can be spent on whatever the university sees fit... scholarships usually

[NT80]

Because it is the law.

"(f) If the total compulsory fee[0] charged under this section is more than $150, the increase does not take effect unless the increase is approved by a majority vote of the students voting in an election held for that purpose or by a majority vote of the student government at the institution. In subsequent years, an election authorizing a fee[0] increase must be held before the fee[0] can be increased by more than 10 percent of the fee[0] approved at the last student election."

Texas Education Code Chapter 54

Of course, the same code identifies The University of Texas as an exception.

"( b ) Subject to Section 54.514 of this subchapter and subsections (j) and (k) of this section, the board of regents of The University of Texas System may charge and collect from students registered at The University of Texas at Austin fees[0] to cover the cost of student services that the board considers necessary or

desirable in carrying out the educational functions of the university."

Most universities do have student fees dedicated to athletics. How those fees are obtained and their size, either voted on by students or mandated, vary by state and institution. One thing most agree on is making the fee public record and not buried for parents, legislatures or media to find out about later and complain. RV has said before he only wants enough fees to fund what is currently needed, nothing extra to be held back. But that can backfire when future projects as big as a stadium face needed extras not thought of during some lame student vote three years prior. I believe in letting everyone know what is needed, but some contingency for extras must also be included.

Some articles about TSU's fee, one about general athletic fees being hidden, and several about mandated fees...

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/b...ml/SB00161F.HTM

http://www.highereducation.org/crosstalk/c...06-meyers.shtml

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=s...ated+by+regents

Edited June 14, 2008 by NT80

[greenminer]

Relating to intercollegiate athletics fees at institutions within the Texas State University System.

link to bill summary

Do I take it this only applies to schools part of the UT system, or all public schools within the state of Texas?

Edited June 14, 2008 by greenminer

[3XNTGRAD]

link to bill summary

Do I take it this only applies to schools part of the UT system, or all public schools within the state of Texas?

No this is specific to the "Texas State University System", which is the system that includes TSU-San Marcos, Sam Houston, Stephen F. Austin, Sul Ross (I think) and others that are not part of the UT, A&M, UH, Texas Tech, UNT systems and also do not have their own board of regents (like TWU and Midwestern do).

[UNTflyer]

Excellent research, Flyer. From the sound of it, though, our BOR could pass a fee that was under $150 and increase it by 10% each year...which seems like what many on this board have been proposing from the get-go. An additional $150 per student would generate over 4 million if you just count undergrads.

...or am I reading this wrong? I am no lawyer...

But it says TOTAL compulsary fee. That means our total student services fee, which goes to fund lots of things. Athletics comes out of that and it currently maxes at $210. State law does not allow UNT to have a dedicated athletics fee. That has to be passed in the legislature.

I suppose the BOR could set a $9 per hour fee stadium fee maxed at 15 hours, which would be $135 and that would get around it.

[UNT_playmaker]

Students will vote for the damn thing and heres why.

We demolish Fouts to make more parking

The last vote was before the 4 straight conference championships, including our big wins such as Baylor and Cincy

The student body before was very anti-athletics, as the dorm associations and other organizations brought people out in the droves from the dorms to vote against it specifically.

The original vote was to keep Fouts in take, take up more student parking, and go ahead and renovate the original stadium

The new proposal is to build a new stadium and add much more parking and redevelop Fouts into more parking and academic buildings.

The Athletic Dept did a horrible job marketing the idea to students, there were no tshirts, stickers, and promos at all. They should have hired the people who pushed through the health and rec center

The Athletic Dept was the reason the proposal tanked. They did nothing.... and whats worst is it is now taking another 9 years to have a revote on the damn thing.

So I guess it is safe to say that fundrasing to build a stadium, failed miserably once again, as did trying to get help from the BOR. So that makes it 0-3 for the AD...

Edited June 14, 2008 by UNT_playmaker

[Mean Green Matt]

The student body before was very anti-athletics, as the dorm associations and other organizations brought people out in the droves from the dorms to vote against it specifically.

You are Right. The Hall Associations and RHA in general will push for a YES vote this time. I was part of it last year and will be again this year, and the atmosphere is pleasantly pro-athletic. Greek Life will be on board too. I honestly think it would pass, maybe 55% to 45%...

[FirefightnRick]

The last vote was before the 4 straight conference championships, including our big wins such as Baylor and Cincy

Actually, the vote was the same year this photo above was taken in November 2002, which was of the second straight championship propelling us back to the N.O. Bowl.

Rick

[UNTflyer]

We need something like this:

[meanrob]

Students will vote for the damn thing and heres why.

We demolish Fouts to make more parking

The last vote was before the 4 straight conference championships, including our big wins such as Baylor and Cincy

The student body before was very anti-athletics, as the dorm associations and other organizations brought people out in the droves from the dorms to vote against it specifically.

The original vote was to keep Fouts in take, take up more student parking, and go ahead and renovate the original stadium

The new proposal is to build a new stadium and add much more parking and redevelop Fouts into more parking and academic buildings.

The Athletic Dept did a horrible job marketing the idea to students, there were no tshirts, stickers, and promos at all. They should have hired the people who pushed through the health and rec center

The Athletic Dept was the reason the proposal tanked. They did nothing.... and whats worst is it is now taking another 9 years to have a revote on the damn thing.

So I guess it is safe to say that fundrasing to build a stadium, failed miserably once again, as did trying to get help from the BOR. So that makes it 0-3 for the AD...

i don't know what vote you are talking about. the last vote had nothing to do with fouts or student parking. the AD pushed it as a vote to upgrade facilities (not football) and get us title 9 compliant.

and if you asked me, last time the AD and others did too much. instead of quietly letting the vote come, people put ads in the paper and advertised it. too much promotion was done.

tired of saying this but the student body was and/or is not anti-athletics. less than or around 10% of the student body population voted. if i remember right about 1200 voted against it, out of a student population of around 30k. the student body might be apathetic, but to characterize it as anti-athletics is wrong.

in the end, the failure of the athletic department to raise enough funds to get this project off the ground is what is killing us. not saying doing that would be easy but i would rather see us use the student fees to get the project finished, not started.

[UNTflyer]

i don't know what vote you are talking about. the last vote had nothing to do with fouts or student parking. the AD pushed it as a vote to upgrade facilities (not football) and get us title 9 compliant.

Incorrect:

"The money from student fees will first be used to renovate Fouts Field, which will have luxury suites and possibly a restaurant, Villarreal said."

1/31/02

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage...m-1883896.shtml

[FirefightnRick]

NT should not allow alumni donated money to persuade students to “Vote Yes”

Although it's gonna cost you, NT Daily Staff supports the fee.

(AD) Department does not deserve the money.

1214 NT Students reject athletic fee, 994 supported the fee..."It’s not something that I expected,” Rick Villarreal, athletics director, said.

SGA to revisit fee.

Debate over adjusted fee.

Students, officials debate athletics fee at open forum

Editorial betrayal.

Petition stating that students felt betrayed by it's SGA.

Regents to vote on fee.

Impeached SGA Senators reinstated.

Rick

Edited June 15, 2008 by FirefightnRick

[NT80]

Incorrect:

"The money from student fees will first be used to renovate Fouts Field, which will have luxury suites and possibly a restaurant, Villarreal said."

1/31/02

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage...m-1883896.shtml

Much confusion on the past vote as to what the money would be used for....

"A number of students have said that they believe the failure of the Student Service Fee increase referendum intended to raise money for athletics was due to confusion about how the money would be used.

Was it to be used primarily for facilities, or would it be used to address women's athletics and Title IX issues?

For example, many students were in favor of improving women's athletics and addressing Title IX issues, but were not in favor of a new stadium. "

http://media.www.ntdaily.com/media/storage...l-1884570.shtml

Edited June 15, 2008 by NT80

[UNT_playmaker]

There was a picture that was in the NT daily and/or DRC that showed a replica of what the stadium was to look like, it was NICE.

Fouts was to have 40,000+???, luxury boxes, and a club/restaurant.

It was excellent at the time, since we didnt have Eagle Point to the capacity as we do now.

Man, I just can't believe it is 8 years and are going back to step 1.... That means we never really had any progress with the stadium issue this whole time. It sucks..

Gene Stallings said for us to wait to get a stadium, but not for this long.

[stebo]

Actually, Stallings said that there was absolutely nothing wrong with Fouts and that we should worry about filling it consistently before trying to build another. Well, we fill it once or twice a year now and I consider that consisently (by fill, I mean 2/3rds full - that is a huge step up from when Stallings did his analysis). Also, we have the first half of the athletics village completed over there - including endzone complex... they will NEVER leave it just sitting there overlooking an empty field. The thing will get built, it is a matter of when (and how hush hush they can keep it). The Athletics Center was built with about $2 million in donations (for an $8.7 million dollar project). We need to raise about 20% to get it off the ground... we have raised about half that. It isn't that far off and the student fee will be voted on by SGA, not the general population. There is no way that they put that to a general vote again. They will put it to a student vote via SGA. Why would they not talk about it yet? Because the artsy-fartsy's would make sure that they took over SGA so that it didn't happen. This thing will be voted on smoothly and with only a couple weeks of backlash. It is badly needed and I think that parking and stadium age/safety will be the angle this time.

[UNTflyer]

The thing will get built, it is a matter of when (and how hush hush they can keep it).

It will be built. If the students vote no, the SGA will step up and pass it. But it's a smart move to try to get the student support first, it just needs to be done the right way.

[hickoryhouse]

Keeping it hush hus... is probably not the best of ideas either. It is going to get out and when it does the fact that no one was talking about it is going to make much of the student body feel as though the school is pulling the wool over their eyes again and we will end up exactly where we are right now, trying to figure out what to do because the students voted this down again...

What we need to do is get out there and build support in the student body, isn't that what we want anyway, a proud student boday and dedicated alums? We need the support of the students if this is going to work.. Maybe the best way is to say that the fee won't take effect for two more years, maybe we need shirts, maybe a town hall meeting, anything. We need pride in the green and the only way to get that is to make students feel like they are a part of somethign, not that they are kept out and told to be quiet...

[NT80]

It will be built. If the students vote no, the SGA will step up and pass it. But it's a smart move to try to get the student support first, it just needs to be done the right way.

Can the SGA vote on it and pass it first without it even going to a full student vote? If so, that is the way to do it.

[UNTflyer]

Can the SGA vote on it and pass it first without it even going to a full student vote? If so, that is the way to do it.

Yes, they can.

[untgirl04]

Students will vote for the damn thing and heres why.

We demolish Fouts to make more parking

The last vote was before the 4 straight conference championships, including our big wins such as Baylor and Cincy

The student body before was very anti-athletics, as the dorm associations and other organizations brought people out in the droves from the dorms to vote against it specifically.

The original vote was to keep Fouts in take, take up more student parking, and go ahead and renovate the original stadium

The new proposal is to build a new stadium and add much more parking and redevelop Fouts into more parking and academic buildings.

The Athletic Dept did a horrible job marketing the idea to students, there were no tshirts, stickers, and promos at all. They should have hired the people who pushed through the health and rec center

The Athletic Dept was the reason the proposal tanked. They did nothing.... and whats worst is it is now taking another 9 years to have a revote on the damn thing.

So I guess it is safe to say that fundrasing to build a stadium, failed miserably once again, as did trying to get help from the BOR. So that makes it 0-3 for the AD...

Ummm... no. That's not what happened at all. Under which rock do you get your information, seriously?

The last vote was in 2002, during our conference run. That was after our first trip to the New Orleans Bowl. Most of the residence halls were actually pro-athletics. I was a Wing Senator for one of the residence halls at the time and made many posters to vote and support the fee, so I can say that with some degree of confidence. What happened, in fact, was that many students in the School of Music (and subsequently Bruce Hall) were against the fee, mostly because of a misunderstanding of what the fee meant. The fee was not for anything with the stadium. It was, in fact, a vote for money so that the school could become Title IX compliant. Many students who were against the fee were against it because they mistakenly thought that the fee was specifically for a stadium. The Athletics Department did try to correct the misinformation through articles in the NT Daily and by visiting General Assemblies (I know, because Rick himself attended one of our GAs) at residence halls to answer questions. There were no T-shirts or stickers, but frankly, I don't think that would have made a difference. I was also at school when the fee for the Rec center was passed, and I don't recall ever seeing any T-shirts or stickers for that either.

You are, however, partially correct in stating that the residence halls did bring people out in droves. However, that was mostly in support of the fee. I think the fee failed because of a lack of turnout from Greek life and a large turnout by the School of Music. In addition, I fault the SGA for not clearly stating the purpose of the fee from the get-go. The SGA tried to pass the fee anyway (and I commend them for that), but all that ended up happening is that lot of Senators were removed from their positions. From what I've read about the atmosphere now though, I think that the fee could pass, if properly explained and publicized - even if it really is for a new stadium.