(12-03-2014 09:22 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Actually more than 22 programs...the Private Schools aren't on the list. Notre Dame, USC, Syracuse, Stanford, etc...all are in the black.

Fair point, well made. I guess those programs don't have a choice!

(12-03-2014 09:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 05:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The University of Alabama system is different in that one board governs all system campuses. That's not the case in other states like North Carolina - so Chapel Hill can't shut down Charlotte's football program.

actually there is a single BOR for all the public universities in North Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_...h_Carolina

it is pretty much the norm to have a single BOR in most states or to have two BORs at most with one for the "U of" schools and the other for the "state" schools

Texas and Louisiana are one of the major exceptions to this with multiple university systems and even independent state universities

California is the extreme of a state with only two systems and how they are limited for degree offerings by systems

South Carolina has separate boards for Clemson, Winthrop, Coastal Carolina, South Carolina State, and the University of SC system.

(12-03-2014 10:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 05:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The University of Alabama system is different in that one board governs all system campuses. That's not the case in other states like North Carolina - so Chapel Hill can't shut down Charlotte's football program.

actually there is a single BOR for all the public universities in North Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_...h_Carolina

it is pretty much the norm to have a single BOR in most states or to have two BORs at most with one for the "U of" schools and the other for the "state" schools

Texas and Louisiana are one of the major exceptions to this with multiple university systems and even independent state universities

California is the extreme of a state with only two systems and how they are limited for degree offerings by systems

South Carolina has separate boards for Clemson, Winthrop, Coastal Carolina, South Carolina State, and the University of SC system.

Yet every one of them is asking for funds from the same place - state taxpayers. Every state runs their system a little differently, in Georgia all of the public schools are under the same university system. The Univ System of Georgia has in fact consolidated 10 schools down to 5 with more mergers on the way.

(12-03-2014 09:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  it is pretty much the norm to have a single BOR in most states or to have two BORs at most with one for the "U of" schools and the other for the "state"

The Ohio universities have their own trustees ... though the branch campuses are under the BOT of their main campus. In Michigan, TSUN, MSU and Waynes State have their own boards, the others are under a common board, so this can't happen.

UNI once had a common BOR with two other Illinois schools, but they were given their own BOT over four decades ago.

And there isn't a "bigger dog" in athletics in the SUNY system for Buffalo to worry about.

I don't know about "most states", but its not a worry for the MAC.

One oddity in Alabama is two big dogs, one of which dominates the state system under a commmon BOT it also dominates, and the other the land grant that stands on its own. In NC, it's "all in", so UNC-Chapel Hill cannot ride roughshod, since NC-State is under the same trustees.

(12-03-2014 03:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If I recall correctly, Southern Miss was running a deficit on its Athletic Budget. Has that issue been solved yet? The 4-32 record the last 3 years probably hasn't helped much. Is USM in danger of falling into the same ordeal? UAB stuck firmly to its "numbers" argument.

Southern Miss is in danger.

USM and UAB are very different institutions.

(12-03-2014 01:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If I recall correctly, Southern Miss was running a deficit on its Athletic Budget. Has that issue been solved yet? The 4-32 record the last 3 years probably hasn't helped much. Is USM in danger of falling into the same ordeal? UAB stuck firmly to its "numbers" argument.

Again, I'm just curious and a bit ignorant on the current landscape of CUSA.

Totally unrelated, while the IHL runs a lot of the academic situations in Mississippi, to my knowledge they have zero to do with the athletic side of the school.

from the IHL website:

Quote:The Board oversees degree-credit courses, research and public service activities and programs at the eight public universities,

(12-03-2014 10:11 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:22 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Actually more than 22 programs...the Private Schools aren't on the list. Notre Dame, USC, Syracuse, Stanford, etc...all are in the black.

Fair point, well made. I guess those programs don't have a choice!

I wonder how the G5 privates are doing. Most of them don't have massive overhead and actually don't spend as much as you'd think they do - and a few aren't really spending what they could. Perhaps the academics in university administration are saying "frick no, you jocks are not running this school into debt".

(12-04-2014 08:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 03:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If I recall correctly, Southern Miss was running a deficit on its Athletic Budget. Has that issue been solved yet? The 4-32 record the last 3 years probably hasn't helped much. Is USM in danger of falling into the same ordeal? UAB stuck firmly to its "numbers" argument.

Southern Miss is in danger.

USM and UAB are very different institutions.

As a follow up, I contacted a source at USM about this. He's got a path to someone extremely high up in the USM system. No word that anything is touching USM football. All my source is hearing is the same internet rumors that kiton is repeating here.

(12-04-2014 10:00 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 08:51 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 03:35 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  If I recall correctly, Southern Miss was running a deficit on its Athletic Budget. Has that issue been solved yet? The 4-32 record the last 3 years probably hasn't helped much. Is USM in danger of falling into the same ordeal? UAB stuck firmly to its "numbers" argument.

Southern Miss is in danger.

USM and UAB are very different institutions.

As a follow up, I contacted a source at USM about this. He's got a path to someone extremely high up in the USM system. No word that anything is touching USM football. All my source is hearing is the same internet rumors that kiton is repeating here.

The faculty at USM would love it if the school would de-emphasize football.

NOT going to happen.

Mississippi is requesting that Mississippi State drop its football team also. They don't want to dilute the football resources of the state.

(12-04-2014 06:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 05:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The University of Alabama system is different in that one board governs all system campuses. That's not the case in other states like North Carolina - so Chapel Hill can't shut down Charlotte's football program.

actually there is a single BOR for all the public universities in North Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_...h_Carolina

it is pretty much the norm to have a single BOR in most states or to have two BORs at most with one for the "U of" schools and the other for the "state" schools

Texas and Louisiana are one of the major exceptions to this with multiple university systems and even independent state universities

California is the extreme of a state with only two systems and how they are limited for degree offerings by systems

South Carolina has separate boards for Clemson, Winthrop, Coastal Carolina, South Carolina State, and the University of SC system.

Yet every one of them is asking for funds from the same place - state taxpayers. Every state runs their system a little differently, in Georgia all of the public schools are under the same university system. The Univ System of Georgia has in fact consolidated 10 schools down to 5 with more mergers on the way.

Well with maybe the exceptions being Coastal, Winthrop, and especially SC State there is no tax money being spent on athletics by SC schools. Clemson and South Carolina get "subsidies" but the athletic departments end up giving more money back to the school than what they get from them.

The only state school even remotely in any trouble of being shut down is SC State and that is more because the entire school is in major debt due to a corrupt BOT rather than anything athletically related. Before they would shut down they would likely merge with one of the two bigger schools.

UConn should probably be next

(12-04-2014 11:40 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 06:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 05:34 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The University of Alabama system is different in that one board governs all system campuses. That's not the case in other states like North Carolina - so Chapel Hill can't shut down Charlotte's football program.

actually there is a single BOR for all the public universities in North Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_...h_Carolina

it is pretty much the norm to have a single BOR in most states or to have two BORs at most with one for the "U of" schools and the other for the "state" schools

Texas and Louisiana are one of the major exceptions to this with multiple university systems and even independent state universities

California is the extreme of a state with only two systems and how they are limited for degree offerings by systems

South Carolina has separate boards for Clemson, Winthrop, Coastal Carolina, South Carolina State, and the University of SC system.

Yet every one of them is asking for funds from the same place - state taxpayers. Every state runs their system a little differently, in Georgia all of the public schools are under the same university system. The Univ System of Georgia has in fact consolidated 10 schools down to 5 with more mergers on the way.

Well with maybe the exceptions being Coastal, Winthrop, and especially SC State there is no tax money being spent on athletics by SC schools. Clemson and South Carolina get "subsidies" but the athletic departments end up giving more money back to the school than what they get from them.

The only state school even remotely in any trouble of being shut down is SC State and that is more because the entire school is in major debt due to a corrupt BOT rather than anything athletically related. Before they would shut down they would likely merge with one of the two bigger schools.

I expect over the next 10-15 years that there will be a lot of organizational changes affecting state supported universities. That won't be driven by athletics, it will be driven by economics. There are currently a lot more students attending four year schools than our economy needs and can support. Many of those students are being subsidized or assisted with taxpayer money, either in the form of grants or loans. Since many of those subsidized students are not going to find jobs that pay enough to repay their loans, the pool of loan money will shrink, and college attendance will decline. That's going to lead to a lot of consolidation of campuses and programs.

Athletics, and the politics that go along with it, will no doubt be blamed for some unpopular decisions. But they won't be the real reason for them. Hold onto your hats, directional schools. It's going to be a bumpy ride soon.

(12-04-2014 01:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 11:40 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2014 06:47 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:14 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  actually there is a single BOR for all the public universities in North Carolina

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_...h_Carolina

it is pretty much the norm to have a single BOR in most states or to have two BORs at most with one for the "U of" schools and the other for the "state" schools

Texas and Louisiana are one of the major exceptions to this with multiple university systems and even independent state universities

California is the extreme of a state with only two systems and how they are limited for degree offerings by systems

South Carolina has separate boards for Clemson, Winthrop, Coastal Carolina, South Carolina State, and the University of SC system.

Yet every one of them is asking for funds from the same place - state taxpayers. Every state runs their system a little differently, in Georgia all of the public schools are under the same university system. The Univ System of Georgia has in fact consolidated 10 schools down to 5 with more mergers on the way.

Well with maybe the exceptions being Coastal, Winthrop, and especially SC State there is no tax money being spent on athletics by SC schools. Clemson and South Carolina get "subsidies" but the athletic departments end up giving more money back to the school than what they get from them.

The only state school even remotely in any trouble of being shut down is SC State and that is more because the entire school is in major debt due to a corrupt BOT rather than anything athletically related. Before they would shut down they would likely merge with one of the two bigger schools.

I expect over the next 10-15 years that there will be a lot of organizational changes affecting state supported universities. That won't be driven by athletics, it will be driven by economics. There are currently a lot more students attending four year schools than our economy needs and can support. Many of those students are being subsidized or assisted with taxpayer money, either in the form of grants or loans. Since many of those subsidized students are not going to find jobs that pay enough to repay their loans, the pool of loan money will shrink, and college attendance will decline. That's going to lead to a lot of consolidation of campuses and programs.

Athletics, and the politics that go along with it, will no doubt be blamed for some unpopular decisions. But they won't be the real reason for them. Hold onto your hats, directional schools. It's going to be a bumpy ride soon.

It's possible, but I doubt that other than SC State with all their organizational disarray I don't see it in SC. Clemson can't merge with the South Carolina system by charter as it was originally created because South Carolina College wasn't fulfilling it's mission and was set up to where there is no legal way it can't be independent. Pretty sure that Winthrop is the same as they were moved from Columbia to Rock Hill at the same time and one of the major supporters of the school was Gov. Ben Tillman, same as Clemson, and as the champion of populist politics he hated South Carolina College and the elitists who ran it.

I don't forsee Coastal Carolina going back under the USC system as they fought long and hard to leave it when they were USC-Conway because of lack of support.

The Citadel is a totally different bird altogether.

(12-04-2014 01:42 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  It's possible, but I doubt that other than SC State with all their organizational disarray I don't see it in SC. Clemson can't merge with the South Carolina system by charter as it was originally created because South Carolina College wasn't fulfilling it's mission and was set up to where there is no legal way it can't be independent. Pretty sure that Winthrop is the same as they were moved from Columbia to Rock Hill at the same time and one of the major supporters of the school was Gov. Ben Tillman, same as Clemson, and as the champion of populist politics he hated South Carolina College and the elitists who ran it.

I don't forsee Coastal Carolina going back under the USC system as they fought long and hard to leave it when they were USC-Conway because of lack of support.

The Citadel is a totally different bird altogether.

I was alluding to the general economics of multiple state schools, just as ken d stated. And I can't imagine the fight that would take place in attempting to shut down an HBCU. By all right Armstrong Atlantic and Savannah St. should merge as well but they don't want to touch that firestorm yet for good reason.

(12-03-2014 01:12 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  Sorry, I haven't really been following much of this UAB story. When I saw it on the news last night, I couldn't believe they actually did it.

I had assumed that a lot of teams wouldn't be able to keep up with the new financial investments. Just didn't think UAB would be the first to go. My assumption was always like Hawaii or some MAC/Sunbelt team. That's probably a result of my own homerism since UCF isn't that far removed from CUSA.

If I recall correctly, Southern Miss was running a deficit on its Athletic Budget. Has that issue been solved yet? The 4-32 record the last 3 years probably hasn't helped much. Is USM in danger of falling into the same ordeal? UAB stuck firmly to its "numbers" argument.

Again, I'm just curious and a bit ignorant on the current landscape of CUSA.

There is no next unless you are governed under the same board as your in state P5 school and its ruled over by a vengeful Sith Lord.

So the rest of us should be good.

(12-03-2014 02:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 02:06 PM)goherd17 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 01:14 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Southern Miss has a proud history and fan support. They wouldn't close up shop.

Only one thing responsible for shutting down UAB and that's Alabama U. The president was hired what a year ago and him and a hole bear jr are tight from what I have read. Now he will get golden parachute and ride off into sunset and lil bear is happy

Believe what you want.

Much of what gets posted, especially on this board, is entirely one-sided.

Well to be fair then PLEASE give us the flip side of why the same board of trustees blocked UAB hiring Jimbo Fisher several years back.

(12-04-2014 03:52 PM)panama Wrote:  There is no next unless you are governed under the same board as your in state P5 school and its ruled over by a vengeful Sith Lord.

So the rest of us should be good.

Its not just being under the same board as an in state P5 school ... its being under a board dominated by the biggest in state P5 school.

Look at the NC system ... that is not a board that can be totally dominated by UNC Chapel Hill, because NC State has enough pull in state to keep that from happening. The protection of the interest of other schools in doing that is mostly incidental, as NC State supporters see to that in their own interests, but it does mean that there are balance of power politics that can be played in the BOT.

A big part of what makes for the imbalance of power in the Alabama situation is that Auburn is not in the same system of governance, otherwise Auburn could play the role of a check on the power of Bama.

That wouldn't be possible in the Ohio context, so the other State Universities have long had to ally on making sure they are not put into a system that will allow OSU to run their affairs ... at one time that was the Board of Reagents Universities and OSU on its own, and then it was each school with its own BOT.

(12-04-2014 09:57 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 10:11 PM)bullitt_60 Wrote:  

(12-03-2014 09:22 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Actually more than 22 programs...the Private Schools aren't on the list. Notre Dame, USC, Syracuse, Stanford, etc...all are in the black.

Fair point, well made. I guess those programs don't have a choice!

I wonder how the G5 privates are doing. Most of them don't have massive overhead and actually don't spend as much as you'd think they do - and a few aren't really spending what they could. Perhaps the academics in university administration are saying "frick no, you jocks are not running this school into debt".

There are many people on this board that cannot comprehend that many people at Universities hate football.

We love to talk about conspiracy theory this, conspiracy theory that.