DRC - 18.7% Reduction In UNT Athletics Budget

smoothfresh · July 29, 2014

I pledge to drink 18.7% more beer at the games this year to help cover. Who is with me?

Christopher Walker · July 29, 2014

There exists so, so much ignorance on this board.

oldguystudent · July 29, 2014

There exists so, so much ignorance on this board.

I never knew that!

NT80 · July 29, 2014

That makes no sense. Wouldn't the entry fee payments be included in the budget total

". . . part of the change is rooted in the entry fee UNT is paying to Conference USA. We mentioned in our summer series that UNT is about to make the third of four payments to cover the $2 million entry fee this August. That fee will soon be paid off. UNT won’t have to add it in the budget in the future."

I always read and we were told that there would be no payment of entrance fees, that it would be deducted out of incoming revenue from the conference over a few years. It's this twisting of accounting that caused this mess in the first place!

NT80 · July 29, 2014

"...but when added revenue from C-USA, additional funds that come in through fundraising and increased ticket sales are taken into account.."

fundraising, increased ticket sales...? I thought we were talking about UNT Athletics?

Ben Gooding · July 30, 2014

So are Tech, UH, and UTD. Two of those three pay a lot more attention to revenue athletics than we do, plus they have huge endowment advantages over us. UTD has the research and engineering advantages because they don't have DIvision 1 athletics.

I just ask this simple question of four similar universities as ours in Texas. Texas Tech, Houston, UTSA, and UTEP--which one of these schools would drop athletic spending as much as we did? None is the correct answer, but if you want to argue that one of them would, then ask yourself if that is smart for funding. Texas freaking Tech has gotten to where they are SOLELY because of the emphasis they have placed on athletics, specifically on the relationship they cultivated with their alums and with the big player in this state (i.e. Texas). Their academic record is very poor as compared to most other AQ schools, yet they will have a place at the AQ table, almost certainly, due to their fan following. UH is a better academic school--by far, actually--than Tech, but even they had to overcome the stigma of being a "commuter school" in a big city. Yet, even with getting bitch-slapped out of the AQ big time all those years ago with SMU, TCU, and Rice, they have continued to fund their program at a high non-AQ level. Why? I mean, if its gonna keep you from Tier 1 status, who would do this? NO, the correct answer is that when its been done right, even here in Denton in the Fry years and in this past season, fans come out in droves to show their support. UH is moving out of Robertson Stadium because of their successes under Briles and Sumlin. UTSA is moving upward FAST, all because they looked at the obvious advantages of their situation in San Antonio and started funding FBS football. Now look at them, getting big crowds, a nice media following, and the full attention of other conferences and AQ teams who want to play them, both home and away.

Here's a crazy reality to the athletic-haters in Denton: in other college towns, when they win big time at a revenue sport that people want to watch, funding goes up for everything!! So does enrollment, if you want it to go up (see TCU in 2011 and Baylor now). Athletics is a true window to the university--it deserves as much attention and funding as you can feasibly feed it. Billboards and ads proclaiming you as a great value doesn't do it, in case anyone hasn't figured out why our endowment is still woefully small for a school our size that has only been around for almost 125 years. Obviously, if this is wrong, I am not getting it, which may say more about me than I care to admit, but I really don't get why we would cut athletics that much in 2015. Its almost begging Dan McCarney to leave at the first opportunity that he gets. And, believe me, if we have another bowl season here this season, a school like Kansas would be foolish not to go hard after him as their next head coach. It is as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this situation, for both parties. And just like we did in 1978 after Hayden Fry left, we will again have no one else to blame for our ineptness at understanding college athletics at the FBS level. Its just disgusting.

He gets it. Want to improve the University in all facets, improve athletics. It opens up windows that nothing on an academic level will be able to open. We also need to give more. I just graduated and will soon be employed, but when I start working full-time I will pay my dues to North Texas for allowing me the opportunity to attend school there and earn my degree. I want the incoming freshmen to receive an even better education than I did and in better facilities while doing so. Donate, donate, donate.

On a side note, if you want a good laugh and you are at home change it to ESPNU. They are having the top25 games of the year and SMU is on replay. The TV network that this game was originally aired on tried to avoid showing the stands, but you get a peak here and there, pretty funny.

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

If you think athletics brings more dollars into the University of North Texas than the College of Music does, you couldn't be more wrong. Of those ticket revenues from the Heart of Dallas Bowl, how much went into UNT's coffers as clear profit? Yet the College of Music brings in thousands of tuition-paying students every year, and brings in millions of dollars of donations from all kinds of sources.

You constantly make it an "either-or," "us vs. them" thing within the university, and that is just a dumb, losing battle.

He is talking about a culture that basically considers athletics as an extra. As something to be used when times are tough and budget cuts are needed.

What it isn't used as is a window to the university, as it is at so many other universities. They treat it as a necessity, we treat athletics as a luxury.

It's stupid, it's short sighted, and it's oh so North Texas.

That's the reason why we will soon be an afterthought to major college athletics. That is why Benford still has a job. That is why RV faces zero consequences for a ton of bad hires.

The leadership here as a whole simply doesn't care about athletics or value what athletics could bring to the university.

Think how much more the music department could benefit with 24k alumni coming back for every game. Instead we have maybe 9 or 10k. Why? Lack of commitment from multiple administrations to athletics which in turn led to ZERO alumni pride.

This is extremely disheartening. Not because of the budget cut, but because it sends the message that it's the same old same old at UNT. Just a poor old teacher college for the big boys to beat up on.

My away game participation just got a lot lighter this year. If I had the option of not renewing season tickets, I would probably not renew and just buy single game tickets. Why should anyone be committed to UNT athletics when UNT so CLEARLY is not.

Edited July 30, 2014 by UNT90

Ben Gooding · July 30, 2014

I'll commit to them in attendance and financially. I want better. I received a graduation letter a few weeks ago and in it was stated that there are 360K alum in DFW and East Texas. We need to tap into these people and build interest and create fans. It's easy to say that they went to school here if they wanted to be more involved they would be. But sometimes the hand needs to be pushed and that is UNT's job to push that hand. If they want more donations, better attendance, a better future, tap into your alum. Apparently North Texas is struggling with the idea of this, but it needs to happen.

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

The fact that an increase to the student athletic fee, which is half of what students at craphole pay, was never even considered tells you everything you need to know about this situation.

russell360 · July 30, 2014

So are Tech, UH, and UTD. Two of those three pay a lot more attention to revenue athletics than we do, plus they have huge endowment advantages over us. UTD has the research and engineering advantages because they don't have DIvision 1 athletics.

I just ask this simple question of four similar universities as ours in Texas. Texas Tech, Houston, UTSA, and UTEP--which one of these schools would drop athletic spending as much as we did? None is the correct answer, but if you want to argue that one of them would, then ask yourself if that is smart for funding. Texas freaking Tech has gotten to where they are SOLELY because of the emphasis they have placed on athletics, specifically on the relationship they cultivated with their alums and with the big player in this state (i.e. Texas). Their academic record is very poor as compared to most other AQ schools, yet they will have a place at the AQ table, almost certainly, due to their fan following. UH is a better academic school--by far, actually--than Tech, but even they had to overcome the stigma of being a "commuter school" in a big city. Yet, even with getting bitch-slapped out of the AQ big time all those years ago with SMU, TCU, and Rice, they have continued to fund their program at a high non-AQ level. Why? I mean, if its gonna keep you from Tier 1 status, who would do this? NO, the correct answer is that when its been done right, even here in Denton in the Fry years and in this past season, fans come out in droves to show their support. UH is moving out of Robertson Stadium because of their successes under Briles and Sumlin. UTSA is moving upward FAST, all because they looked at the obvious advantages of their situation in San Antonio and started funding FBS football. Now look at them, getting big crowds, a nice media following, and the full attention of other conferences and AQ teams who want to play them, both home and away.

Here's a crazy reality to the athletic-haters in Denton: in other college towns, when they win big time at a revenue sport that people want to watch, funding goes up for everything!! So does enrollment, if you want it to go up (see TCU in 2011 and Baylor now). Athletics is a true window to the university--it deserves as much attention and funding as you can feasibly feed it. Billboards and ads proclaiming you as a great value doesn't do it, in case anyone hasn't figured out why our endowment is still woefully small for a school our size that has only been around for almost 125 years. Obviously, if this is wrong, I am not getting it, which may say more about me than I care to admit, but I really don't get why we would cut athletics that much in 2015. Its almost begging Dan McCarney to leave at the first opportunity that he gets. And, believe me, if we have another bowl season here this season, a school like Kansas would be foolish not to go hard after him as their next head coach. It is as close to a no-brainer as you can get in this situation, for both parties. And just like we did in 1978 after Hayden Fry left, we will again have no one else to blame for our ineptness at understanding college athletics at the FBS level. Its just disgusting.

UTD and UTA don't even have football teams. Their success has little to do with sports. I don't see how lack of football has kept them from building respectable endowments academic success

Tech got to where they are because "SOLELY" athletics? All those Cotton bowl victories? BCS bowls? Fired best coach, hired a dud. During that time raised system endowment to over $1 billion, had a $1 billion dollar fund raising campaign, gained NRUF and Texas research initiative funding...

Athletics are important, but they are not the driving force behind most universities

UNTLifer · July 30, 2014

He is talking about a culture that basically considers athletics as an extra. As something to be used when times are tough and budget cuts are needed.
What it isn't used as is a window to the university, as it is at so many other universities. They treat it as a necessity, we treat athletics as a luxury.
It's stupid, it's short sighted, and it's oh so North Texas.
That's the reason why we will soon be an afterthought to major college athletics. That is why Benford still has a job. That is why RV faces zero consequences for a ton of bad hires.
The leadership here as a whole simply doesn't care about athletics or value what athletics could bring to the university.
Think how much more the music department could benefit with 24k alumni coming back for every game. Instead we have maybe 9 or 10k. Why? Lack of commitment from multiple administrations to athletics which in turn led to ZERO alumni pride.
This is extremely disheartening. Not because of the budget cut, but because it sends the message that it's the same old same old at UNT. Just a poor old teacher college for the big boys to beat up on.
My away game participation just got a lot lighter this year. If I had the option of not renewing season tickets, I would probably not renew and just buy single game tickets. Why should anyone be committed to UNT athletics when UNT so CLEARLY is not.

Well there's the answer to our problems. Just run away and take your ball with you. Why are you here? Honestly, you state our teams are crap, the AD sucks at his job, the BOR doesn't care and neither does the administration. Jump on the SMU or UTSA bandwagons if you are so embarrased by what is going on at NT. It is an all out ass whipping to read three years worth of whining from you. You obviously have all of the answers to our problems. Go to the Pres, BOR or RV's office and present them with your golden plan. Good Lord.

Me? I am buying season tickets although I probably will miss some games since I am 5 hours away and am upping my MGC donation. I challenge everyone else to do the same. Give what you can and support your University.

Edited July 30, 2014 by UNTLifer

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

Well there's the answer to our problems. Just run away and take your ball with you. Why are you here? Honestly, you state our teams are crap, the AD sucks at his job, the BOR doesn't care and neither does the administration. Jump on the SMU or UTSA bandwagons if you are so embarrased by what is going on at NT. It is an all out ass whipping to read three years worth of whining from you. You obviously have all of the answers to our problems. Go to the Pres, BOR or RV's office and present them with your golden plan. Good Lord.
Me? I am buying season tickets although I probably will miss some games since I am 5 hours away and am upping my MGC donation. I challenge everyone else to do the same. Give what you can and support your University.

It's easy, There is an ignore function. use it. Please.

Excuse me for not following your rah rah self in throwing good money after bad.

Ben Gooding · July 30, 2014

The fact that an increase to the student athletic fee, which is half of what students at craphole pay, was never even considered tells you everything you need to know about this situation.

Now this I agree with wholeheartedly. We have to raise out athletic fee. Is the fee still $10 per credit hour? Double the fee if it is still sitting at $10. My God, who knows how long the fee stood at $3. We wonder why we are in the boat we are in. This fee needs to be doubled. We are already one of the most inexpensive 4 year universities in the state. Big picture, another $120-150 is nothing.

JRock · July 30, 2014

Raise the fees.

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

Again, if we were serious about athletics, the fee would have already been raised several times.

Instead it sits at $10 a semester hour. Because athletics is less important than possibly offending possible students.

Censored by Laurie · July 30, 2014

There exists so, so much ignorance on this board.

it's as if sometimes it's best to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than to post 14,823 times and remove all doubt.

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

it's as if sometimes it's best to remain silent and be thought a fool rather than to post 14,823 times and remove all doubt.

Or 7,031, for that matter.

UNTLifer · July 30, 2014

Again, if we were serious about athletics, the fee would have already been raised several times.
Instead it sits at $10 a semester hour. Because athletics is less important than possibly offending possible students.

That's it. Bitch about the students not paying enough in one comment after stating you will be paying less in another. Obviously, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Have some cheese.

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

That's it. Bitch about the students not paying enough in one comment after stating you will be paying less in another. Obviously, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Have some cheese.

Students paying what they pay at UTSA is too freaking much to you? Seriously?

Again, if UNT was raising the fee and not cutting athletic funding, this wouldn't be my position. They should have raised the fee at the first opportunity and continued to raise it until it maxed out. That is what EVERY SINGLE ONE of us expected to happen when the STUDENTS approved the fee. Yet, here we sit, 4 years later, and no raise. And when presented with the choice of raising the fee or cutting funding, what choice is made? The same choice that UNT has made throughout its history. Punish athletics.

And I'm not paying less, sweetcheeks, I'm just not paying more. UNT is the one paying less. Just like they always do.

And yes, I've read Vito's updates. It's still a $4 million hit to the athletic budget. IF, and that us a big IF, we sell more tickets to make up the difference, athletics has still been punished for football actually being successful. Basically, instead of reinvesting in something that FINALLY had some success, UNT instead punishes football for that success.

It's great that you think it's ok. Hope you like FSC football, because that is where we are headed. This decision sends that message loud and clear.

Eagle1855 · July 30, 2014

It's not the donors that are the issue. That is the most tired excuse that we see trotted out year after year, and one that the AD loves because it shifts blame.
"We just don't have the big money donors like a T. Boone Pickens" is a great way to overlook the real issue. We have done a piss poor job in cultivating the $250, $500 and $1000 donors. All of the alumni that we have let walk away with no future contact, the ABYSMAL athletic department promotions that cater to a pre-established handful of donors and the general apathy around Bonnie Brae are the real culprits.
But let's keep blaming a lack of millionaires.

It takes 4,000 donors at $250 to equal $1M. So I think a lack of wealthy "investors" underwriting the program is in fact an issue. And I'd venture to guess the athletics dept probably spends most of their time courting big fish, rather than groveling to smaller. The problem with that is that by ignoring the little fish, you may run off a little fish that turns into a big fish. And once that happens, they no longer feel the same kind of connection that would make them want to make such a donation.

Another problem is our average attendance. We aren't filling a 40k, 50k, 80k, or 100k person stadium. We aren't even averaging 25k per game. And we don't get 6 or 7 home games to do it. If we were filling a 50k seat stadium -- or even 40k seats -- 6 times a year, we'd see $3-$5M more in ticket sales alone (I used an arbitrary figure of $30 per ticket -- which may not be accurate but who cares it's the internet). Not to mention merch sales, etc.

So I don't know where to start, but I know the problem started 3 decades ago when NT decided athletics weren't a priority at the same time every other major program decided to invest in it. And we're still playing catch up. And we won't catch up by shorting the athletics budget while upstart peer institutions are investing more into theirs.

But again, as always: just win. And win consistently. And you may see a lot of things take care of themselves.

UNT90 · July 30, 2014

Have a Snickers.

Beer works better.

Cerebus · July 30, 2014

Interesting that the college of music sees a drop of 2.8%, while the college of arts and sciences gets a small increase to their budget.

CAS is full of scientists with really expensive laboratories. Getting a top flight biologist or chemist outfitted with a modern lab is going to require millions of dollars. Getting a new faculty member started up in the Colleges of Music, Business, Visual Arts and Design, or Education just isn't going to require that type of money.

TL;DR: Particle Accelerators cost more than a really nice tuba.