(01-17-2015 12:33 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  This is indeed a direct assault on ODU, and indirectly on JMU as well.
There can be no other interpretation.

This bill does nothing to appreciably reduce athletic student fees at any other school in Va except ODU, already one of the lowest cost public schools (fourth lowest tuition + fees ), and thus one of the best deals in Virgina.

Impacted football schools:
JMU's would be reduced by $111 from 1,234 to 1,123 (79% currently)
NSU's would be reduced 154.5 from 1,545 to 1,391 (80% currently)

Impacted non football schools schools (78%)
GMU would be reduced by 31 from 523 to 492 (84% currently)
Longwood would be reduced by 65 from 1,828 to 1,763 (87% currently)
Radford would be reduced by 81 from 1,150 to 1069 (85% currently)

Non Impacted schools (below the 70% or 78% threshold)
School 2013/2014 athletic fees only
VMI 1,576
W&M 1,575
UVA Wise 1,403
CNU 1,387
Va State 887
VCU 697
UVA 657
VT 273
UMW 135

As you can see from the above, athletic student fee reductions across the state would be very small as far as the total per student....except at ODU which would have to reduce athletic fees
by 722 from 1361 to 640.
This represents a 53% reduction to 20% of total athletic expenditures.

According to the USA Today data, only 49 of 230 Division I public universities met that threshold. All 49 compete in the so-called Power Five conferences


I now believe that this is an attempt to force ODU back to FCS, and keep JMU at FCS . Of course it would likely be of great benefit to JMU for ODU to become an in-state athletic rival again.

Kirk Cox:

Quote:“Nationally, JMU is viewed as one of the finest institutions” of its kind, he said. “They achieved this under the current configuration. I don’t think going to Division I-A is going to change that except to make it more expensive for students to attend JMU.

“I hope JMU considers the financial implications of any change.”

Without even remotely approaching the stated goal of substantially reducing student athletic fees across Virginia, there can really be no other explanation for HOUSE BILL NO. 1897

What is you source for the above fee schedule? I am attaching a link to a Washington Post article from October 24,2010 listing the high athletic fees charged by some VA colleges. Again, this concern over schools charging high fees to students has been a concern for some time in the media. Parents paying for college for their children must be concerned over the fees?

Athletic fees are a large, and sometimes hidden, cost at colleges

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03002.html

(01-25-2015 07:11 AM)Flat Tire 2 Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 12:33 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  This is indeed a direct assault on ODU, and indirectly on JMU as well.
There can be no other interpretation.

This bill does nothing to appreciably reduce athletic student fees at any other school in Va except ODU, already one of the lowest cost public schools (fourth lowest tuition + fees ), and thus one of the best deals in Virgina.

Impacted football schools:
JMU's would be reduced by $111 from 1,234 to 1,123 (79% currently)
NSU's would be reduced 154.5 from 1,545 to 1,391 (80% currently)

Impacted non football schools schools (78%)
GMU would be reduced by 31 from 523 to 492 (84% currently)
Longwood would be reduced by 65 from 1,828 to 1,763 (87% currently)
Radford would be reduced by 81 from 1,150 to 1069 (85% currently)

Non Impacted schools (below the 70% or 78% threshold)
School 2013/2014 athletic fees only
VMI 1,576
W&M 1,575
UVA Wise 1,403
CNU 1,387
Va State 887
VCU 697
UVA 657
VT 273
UMW 135

As you can see from the above, athletic student fee reductions across the state would be very small as far as the total per student....except at ODU which would have to reduce athletic fees
by 722 from 1361 to 640.
This represents a 53% reduction to 20% of total athletic expenditures.

According to the USA Today data, only 49 of 230 Division I public universities met that threshold. All 49 compete in the so-called Power Five conferences


I now believe that this is an attempt to force ODU back to FCS, and keep JMU at FCS . Of course it would likely be of great benefit to JMU for ODU to become an in-state athletic rival again.

Kirk Cox:

Quote:“Nationally, JMU is viewed as one of the finest institutions” of its kind, he said. “They achieved this under the current configuration. I don’t think going to Division I-A is going to change that except to make it more expensive for students to attend JMU.

“I hope JMU considers the financial implications of any change.”

Without even remotely approaching the stated goal of substantially reducing student athletic fees across Virginia, there can really be no other explanation for HOUSE BILL NO. 1897

What is you source for the above fee schedule? I am attaching a link to a Washington Post article from October 24,2010 listing the high athletic fees charged by some VA colleges. Again, this concern over schools charging high fees to students has been a concern for some time in the media. Parents paying for college for their children must be concerned over the fees?

Athletic fees are a large, and sometimes hidden, cost at colleges

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...03002.html

Source:
http://www.schev.edu/Reportstats/Tuition....pdf?from=
Appendix C, pages 24 and 25 are the official Virginia state figures for 2013/2014

Since there have been favorable amendments to HB 18 specific to ODU (we now have ten years to reach 55%), I have since come to the conclusion that this proposed legislation is likely not a direct attack on ODU and JMU, but instead a proactive attempt to prevent rising costs to students due to the impending reality of stipends - athletes being compensated for the full costs of attendance.

With the reality of football stipends on the horizon, and the and associated additional costs incurred by the proscriptions of Title IX; the long term effect of the proposed Cox legislation could ultimately put even Virginia Tech and UVA (20% student fee cap) at a competitive disadvantage.

Surprised that no one has posted the ODU good news from its 2013-2014 NCAA AUP report available on the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts website.

For 2013-2014, ODU's self-generated revenue percentage was up to 34.9% of total revenue. Student fee revenue was down by about $350K. Total revenues still increased by over $4 million with jumps in game guarantees (up almost $1.7M), conference revenue (up over $1.2M), contributions (up over $800K), and royalties/licensing/advertising/sponsorships (up over $500K) more than offsetting the student fees drop.

(01-26-2015 09:45 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  Surprised that no one has posted the ODU good news from its 2013-2014 NCAA AUP report available on the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts website.

For 2013-2014, ODU's self-generated revenue percentage was up to 34.9% of total revenue. Student fee revenue was down by about $350K. Total revenues still increased by over $4 million with jumps in game guarantees (up almost $1.7M), conference revenue (up over $1.2M), contributions (up over $800K), and royalties/licensing/advertising/sponsorships (up over $500K) more than offsetting the student fees drop.

Yes indeed, there is no question that we are moving in the right direction.
However, even the cut of 3% (to get to the 70% 1AA proscription) in student fees represents over 3/4 of a million dollars. This would take effect in July.

Quote:At a time when we are trying to build a stadium:
To generate more revenue, ODU wants to build a larger stadium to replace Foreman Field. The bill would penalize ODU for building a new stadium because student athletic fees used to pay for new athletic facilities are to be counted toward the cap. Student fees for previously authorized facilities would not count toward the cap.

ODU officials have asked Cox to amend the bill so debt payments on a football stadium paid with student fees would not be held against the school.

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/house-bi...ic-program

Correct me if I'm wrong '78 but I think the 73% was using '12-'13 data and the most recent information as FriscoDawg shared shows student fees at 65% of total athletic revenues. So it seems we're in compliance for the FCS levels

edit: link to most recent financial statements

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA14.pdf

(01-27-2015 10:50 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Correct me if I'm wrong '78 but I think the 73% was using '12-'13 data and the most recent information as FriscoDawg shared shows student fees at 65% of total athletic revenues. So it seems we're in compliance for the FCS levels

edit: link to most recent financial statements

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA14.pdf

Yes indeed! I stand corrected.
I was using the schev data from 2013
Thanks Mturn and Frisco!

Would you ODU folks please keep us informed on these actions?


Especially grandfathering in of the proposed new football stadium.

(01-27-2015 03:43 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Would you ODU folks please keep us informed on these actions?


Especially grandfathering in of the proposed new football stadium.

Here is the tracking information.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604....sum+HB1897

It (as amended) passed the House in an unusually bipartisan 97 - 0
It was referred to the [Senate] Committee on Finance, which I believe meets tomorrow morning.

Does the proposed(current bill) grandfather the stadium in (as not being counted as part of student fee % toward the new %) ?

(01-27-2015 04:06 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Does the proposed(current bill) grandfather the stadium in (as not being counted as part of student fee % toward the new %) ?

That's a negative ghostrider

(01-27-2015 04:22 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:06 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Does the proposed(current bill) grandfather the stadium in (as not being counted as part of student fee % toward the new %) ?

That's a negative ghostrider

If the fee has a sunset provision that doesn't make any sense (yes I know one should never expect sense from the political realm).

(01-27-2015 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:22 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:06 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Does the proposed(current bill) grandfather the stadium in (as not being counted as part of student fee % toward the new %) ?

That's a negative ghostrider

If the fee has a sunset provision that doesn't make any sense (yes I know one should never expect sense from the political realm).

I don't think they were planning on adding a new or additional fee for the stadium project. They've said in the past that they hoped to build it without increasing student fees. So I'm a little confused what the issue is.

(01-27-2015 05:36 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:22 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:06 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Does the proposed(current bill) grandfather the stadium in (as not being counted as part of student fee % toward the new %) ?

That's a negative ghostrider

If the fee has a sunset provision that doesn't make any sense (yes I know one should never expect sense from the political realm).

I don't think they were planning on adding a new or additional fee for the stadium project. They've said in the past that they hoped to build it without increasing student fees. So I'm a little confused what the issue is.

I am not sure anyone ever said that it was preferable not to use student fees for the new stadium.

In any event, after all of the consternation last Spring when it was initially thought that the General Assembly was going to require us to build the stadium entirely from private funds, ODU said in June:

Quote:ODU has said it plans to build the stadium with a combination of private funding, new stadium revenues and athletic revenues, including existing student fees

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/06/va-budge...du-stadium

Earlier this month:

Quote:To generate more revenue, ODU wants to build a larger stadium to replace Foreman Field. The bill would penalize ODU for building a new stadium because student athletic fees used to pay for new athletic facilities are to be counted toward the cap. Student fees for previously authorized facilities would not count toward the cap.

ODU officials have asked Cox to amend the bill so debt payments on a football stadium paid with student fees would not be held against the school.

"It's not in the bill yet, but we'll definitely look at that," Cox said.

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/house-bi...ic-program

all i know is if some tinhorn state representative was pulling this **** in our commonwealth and he was tied to eku i'd be extremely pissed about it.

i'm surprised someone from uk didn't try to pull it when we were moving up. but i'm sure in typical uk arrogance fashion they never saw us as a threat. and really we're not if you don't count beating them 2 times in a row in football as a threat. as long as they suckle on the sec football tit and run a hoops program that would make sec football coaches blush they have nothing to worry about.

Don't you mean "teat" ? J/K

(01-27-2015 06:27 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 05:36 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 05:06 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:22 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 04:06 PM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  Does the proposed(current bill) grandfather the stadium in (as not being counted as part of student fee % toward the new %) ?

That's a negative ghostrider

If the fee has a sunset provision that doesn't make any sense (yes I know one should never expect sense from the political realm).

I don't think they were planning on adding a new or additional fee for the stadium project. They've said in the past that they hoped to build it without increasing student fees. So I'm a little confused what the issue is.

I am not sure anyone ever said that it was preferable not to use student fees for the new stadium.

In any event, after all of the consternation last Spring when it was initially thought that the General Assembly was going to require us to build the stadium entirely from private funds, ODU said in June:

Quote:ODU has said it plans to build the stadium with a combination of private funding, new stadium revenues and athletic revenues, including existing student fees

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/06/va-budge...du-stadium

Earlier this month:

Quote:To generate more revenue, ODU wants to build a larger stadium to replace Foreman Field. The bill would penalize ODU for building a new stadium because student athletic fees used to pay for new athletic facilities are to be counted toward the cap. Student fees for previously authorized facilities would not count toward the cap.

ODU officials have asked Cox to amend the bill so debt payments on a football stadium paid with student fees would not be held against the school.

"It's not in the bill yet, but we'll definitely look at that," Cox said.

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/house-bi...ic-program

No, they'll definitely need to use student fees. Here's a link mentioning that they hope to not increase fees:

"Northam said the university hopes to build the stadium without raising student fees.

Jennifer Mullen Collins, ODU’s assistant vice president for marketing and communications, seemed to imply as much in a statement the school released late Thursday.

“The university has proposed conducting an in-depth study of a new stadium that will help determine seating capacity, amenities and cost estimates,” she said. “These important first steps allow the institution to develop a funding strategy that will focus on increased ticket revenue, reallocation of existing revenue and private funds to support the project.”

http://hamptonroads.com/2014/02/new-odu-...k-assembly

I'm assuming the "reallocation of existing revenue" includes using the student fees already in the budget. I know that the debt on the Ted was paid off recently or else will be this year so that would free up some money.

What I'm confused about is if all the fees currently collected are included in the 65% and we don't raise fees to build the new stadium but do bring in additional private funding that could only help to lower the percentage subsidized, right?

There must be something to it though as the second article you posted points out it would be to our detriment if the language in the bill is not amended. One thing seems to be plain though, there doesn't seem to be much opposition to it on either side of the aisle. This things rolling like a freight train.

Won't be popular anywhere on this board but I think this is a good proposal. There should be a cap on student fees. College costs are skyrocketing and unnecessary fees are a large part of that.

(01-28-2015 09:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Won't be popular anywhere on this board but I think this is a good proposal. There should be a cap on student fees. College costs are skyrocketing and unnecessary fees are a large part of that.

I'm sympathetic, I've got a daughter who I hope to send to college in about 12 years but I don't really like this bill. I would prefer a cap on the dollar limit each student could be charged. That way as enrollment grew a school could also grow their athletic budget without affecting the amount any student had to pay. This bill I think hamstrings athletic departments.

(01-28-2015 09:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Won't be popular anywhere on this board but I think this is a good proposal. There should be a cap on student fees. College costs are skyrocketing and unnecessary fees are a large part of that.

Sorry to barge in on your board, but I just want to address this point. It's definitely true that addressing the student fee issue is a valid topic for debate. And you're correct that student fees are ridiculous. But for a Commonwealth's General Assembly that has slashed state support for public higher ed from over 70% to near 12% in the last decade or so, thus forcing its constituent institutions to begin relying more on student fees, to turn around and blame "student fees" as the root cause of all evil, is really rich.

More importantly, some context is important here. Virginia schools almost always comprise a huge chunk of the top portion of the nationwide list of "schools that have the highest student fees and use them to subsidize Athletics." But that's because Virginia law prohibits the use of general funds (i.e. tuition) to cover any deficits in auxiliary programs like Athletics. In other words, its one of the only states where "how we pay for Athletics" is fully transparent. Not to mention that the overall cost of an education at the schools that would be most affected by this proposal (like ODU) is still an incredibly great value compared with similar schools around the country. Other states say "Free Champagne with $25.99 buffet" while Virginia says "Buffet is $17.99 and champagne is $6 (but you have to buy it to get the buffet)." That's not to say either option is more appealing to those who don't want champagne, but it's just semantics and you're kidding yourself if you think the $25.99 doesn't also cover the cost of the bubbly.

(01-28-2015 12:25 PM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  

(01-28-2015 09:43 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Won't be popular anywhere on this board but I think this is a good proposal. There should be a cap on student fees. College costs are skyrocketing and unnecessary fees are a large part of that.

Sorry to barge in on your board, but I just want to address this point. It's definitely true that addressing the student fee issue is a valid topic for debate. And you're correct that student fees are ridiculous. But for a Commonwealth's General Assembly that has slashed state support for public higher ed from over 70% to near 12% in the last decade or so, thus forcing its constituent institutions to begin relying more on student fees,

Join the club.

(01-28-2015 12:25 PM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  to turn around and blame "student fees" as the root cause of all evil, is really rich.

Never said that it was the "root cause", see above bold. Fees come in all types, shapes and sizes.

(01-28-2015 12:25 PM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  More importantly, some context is important here. Virginia schools almost always comprise a huge chunk of the top portion of the nationwide list of "schools that have the highest student fees and use them to subsidize Athletics." But that's because Virginia law prohibits the use of general funds (i.e. tuition) to cover any deficits in auxiliary programs like Athletics. In other words, its one of the only states where "how we pay for Athletics" is fully transparent. Not to mention that the overall cost of an education at the schools that would be most affected by this proposal (like ODU) is still an incredibly great value compared with similar schools around the country. Other states say "Free Champagne with $25.99 buffet" while Virginia says "Buffet is $17.99 and champagne is $6 (but you have to buy it to get the buffet)." That's not to say either option is more appealing to those who don't want champagne, but it's just semantics and you're kidding yourself if you think the $25.99 doesn't also cover the cost of the bubbly.

I was speaking in general terms, not necessarily directed at Virginia. For example, I think ECU at 40% student fees is too high. It's good for somebody that doesn't have the luxury of a massive TV deal but it's still too much IMHO.

The bottom line is that there are massive amounts of money spent on college athletics. If the money is there, they're going to find a way to spend it. Look at some of the biggest athletic budgets in the nation, most of them STILL find a way to lose money. It's a lot like gov't agency spending. They've got "X" dollars and you better believe that they'll find a way to spend every cent or it will be cut the next year. It's ridiculous. I'd love to see some kind of incentive to SAVE / rollover money rather than forcing students to carry more of the load.