He said he enjoyed Goodman's article, but that he thought Goodman started working on it a couple months ago and some of the characterizations may be outdated. He said he expects news on the football foundation as soon as today and news on facilities within a month.
He said we should start to have an answer for the people who ask "Is the program REALLY coming back?"
Yeah, the "I hope to have shovels in the ground by December" thing from the article has to be something said like the day after the program was reinstated. By now that is not realistic (and wasn't even realistic back then, given the process to start new capital projects--whether UAB, city, or BJCC)
I thought it was a good article, but there were a couple of things that I think he misunderstood (or maybe I have misunderstood).
It reads like the subsidy has been cut to 14.5m from 20.0m. Actually the direct subsidy has been basically frozen at 14.5 (with annual inflation adjustments). Athletics will continue to get the student fee (indirect subsidy) including the recently passed increase (approximately $700k per year based on current enrollment).
The overall subsidy will go up over time with inflation and enrollment increases.
Is my understanding correct?
The direct subsidy is a hard number at $14.5m, not indexed to inflation, enrollment, or anything else. The student fees will increase with enrollment, but unless they do something drastic like double enrollment (doubtful) that increase won't be very large over time. Also, I'm still curious what classes of undergraduates the athletics fees apply to (on-campus vs. online only, specifically)
(11-02-2015 10:38 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]The direct subsidy is a hard number at $14.5m, not indexed to inflation, enrollment, or anything else. The student fees will increase with enrollment, but unless they do something drastic like double enrollment (doubtful) that increase won't be very large over time. Also, I'm still curious what classes of undergraduates the athletics fees apply to (on-campus vs. online only, specifically)
Ok
Someone had posted on the FB page that they heard (at the board meeting) the 14.5 was indexed. But that may not have been correct.
While I think most people on the FB page mean well, and there are plenty of people in the know...it also has a ton of incorrect information
The text of the resolution is pretty short and sweet, and actually doesn't have a real number. It just locks in the subsidy at the level it was as of 2014 for all three campuses.
(11-02-2015 10:44 AM)blazer-J Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2015 10:38 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]The direct subsidy is a hard number at $14.5m, not indexed to inflation, enrollment, or anything else. The student fees will increase with enrollment, but unless they do something drastic like double enrollment (doubtful) that increase won't be very large over time. Also, I'm still curious what classes of undergraduates the athletics fees apply to (on-campus vs. online only, specifically)
Ok
Someone had posted on the FB page that they heard (at the board meeting) the 14.5 was indexed. But that may not have been correct.
I posted it on Facebook. I was told by a BOT member the 14.5 would be indexed.
(11-02-2015 11:22 AM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2015 10:44 AM)blazer-J Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2015 10:38 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]The direct subsidy is a hard number at $14.5m, not indexed to inflation, enrollment, or anything else. The student fees will increase with enrollment, but unless they do something drastic like double enrollment (doubtful) that increase won't be very large over time. Also, I'm still curious what classes of undergraduates the athletics fees apply to (on-campus vs. online only, specifically)
Ok
Someone had posted on the FB page that they heard (at the board meeting) the 14.5 was indexed. But that may not have been correct.
I posted it on Facebook. I was told by a BOT member the 14.5 would be indexed.
Is your source reliable? Why won't you tell us their name?
Figured I'd just beat some folks to the punch. Can't get more first hand knowledge than that.
(11-02-2015 11:37 AM)rook360 Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2015 11:22 AM)UABGrad Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2015 10:44 AM)blazer-J Wrote: [ -> ] (11-02-2015 10:38 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]The direct subsidy is a hard number at $14.5m, not indexed to inflation, enrollment, or anything else. The student fees will increase with enrollment, but unless they do something drastic like double enrollment (doubtful) that increase won't be very large over time. Also, I'm still curious what classes of undergraduates the athletics fees apply to (on-campus vs. online only, specifically)
Ok
Someone had posted on the FB page that they heard (at the board meeting) the 14.5 was indexed. But that may not have been correct.
I posted it on Facebook. I was told by a BOT member the 14.5 would be indexed.
Is your source reliable? Why won't you tell us their name?
Figured I'd just beat some folks to the punch. Can't get more first hand knowledge than that.
Well, you can, if you read the actual resolution that they passed.