(11-16-2015 02:18 PM)soar#417 Wrote:  Woah, take a quick look down at LSU. WOW wish we had "Other" as 69 million dollars haha must be nice

Yeah, their athletics donated a few million last year to the academic side of things.

The article states:

Georgia State, a commuter college located in a largely vacant stretch of downtown Atlanta, had long resisted a move into big-time athletics. Carl Patton, the university’s former president, says students began asking him to add football soon after he took the job, in the early 1990s. For years, he told them: “Not in my lifetime.”


Panama, How do you respond to that statement?

(11-16-2015 02:36 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The article states:

Georgia State, a commuter college located in a largely vacant stretch of downtown Atlanta, had long resisted a move into big-time athletics. Carl Patton, the university’s former president, says students began asking him to add football soon after he took the job, in the early 1990s. For years, he told them: “Not in my lifetime.”


Panama, How do you respond to that statement?

You left out this part.

Quote:At the time, the university had a series of aging classroom buildings and no on-campus housing. Patton, who retired from the presidency in 2008, oversaw the addition of a student recreation center, a library renovation and the construction of the first dormitories.

As the university evolved into a more traditional campus, Patton reconsidered his earlier opposition to football and commissioned a feasibility study from outside consultants. The study said that the addition of a football program could yield “many intangible benefits,” such as building a sense of community for students.

An oversight on your part?

(11-16-2015 11:50 AM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:20 AM)soar#417 Wrote:  That was tough to read, but looking at that 25 schools with the most subsidies....what is KSU thinking.


Hooty Hoot

That list was a proverbial who's who of FloridaJag's top SBC Expansion targets...

I only saw three schools on the list that I mentioned as expansion targets

5 The University of Texas at Arlington
10 Kennesaw State University
14 Georgia State University

(11-16-2015 02:42 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 02:36 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The article states:

Georgia State, a commuter college located in a largely vacant stretch of downtown Atlanta, had long resisted a move into big-time athletics. Carl Patton, the university’s former president, says students began asking him to add football soon after he took the job, in the early 1990s. For years, he told them: “Not in my lifetime.”


Panama, How do you respond to that statement?

You left out this part.

Quote:At the time, the university had a series of aging classroom buildings and no on-campus housing. Patton, who retired from the presidency in 2008, oversaw the addition of a student recreation center, a library renovation and the construction of the first dormitories.

As the university evolved into a more traditional campus, Patton reconsidered his earlier opposition to football and commissioned a feasibility study from outside consultants. The study said that the addition of a football program could yield “many intangible benefits,” such as building a sense of community for students.

An oversight on your part?

The commuter tag will probably be a part of GSU's reputation for as long as we're a university. We're a big college in a big city. It's something we can continue to do for Atlanta, and it's not a bad thing. We can continue to grow the "traditional college" aspects of Georgia State at the same time. Our on-campus housing numbers are about the same as Louisville, not far behind Houston, Temple, and Arizona State, and higher than Utah, Memphis, and probably any of the MWC Cal State schools. There may not be much more room to grow. Now it's about shaping the college experience for those who want it and not treating part of our mission like it turns us into something lower than other schools.

WTF is up with Rutgers they get all that P5 money and still that high? I think getting below 50% should be the goal of a G5. I think students should bear some of the costs since even all get some benefit of their school having a DIV I athletic program just not the majority since most are probably not sports fans.

At GS tickets to all sporting events are free so it is still a pretty good deal. I would expect if we continue to do what we already are doing that number will decrease overtime.

(11-16-2015 02:57 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  The commuter tag will probably be a part of GSU's reputation for as long as we're a university. We're a big college in a big city. It's something we can continue to do for Atlanta, and it's not a bad thing. We can continue to grow the "traditional college" aspects of Georgia State at the same time. Our on-campus housing numbers are about the same as Louisville, not far behind Houston, Temple, and Arizona State, and higher than Utah, Memphis, and probably any of the MWC Cal State schools. There may not be much more room to grow. Now it's about shaping the college experience for those who want it and not treating part of our mission like it turns us into something lower than other schools.

I agree. I was picking at Panama because he uses this as an argument against inviting KSU.

The sports bubble mirrors the housing market and tech bubbles in so many ways.

(11-16-2015 01:37 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:27 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:35 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

Quote:Hank Huckaby, chancellor of the University System of Georgia, was seated near the president in his suite. He said he remains skeptical about the viability of the football program.

He has two degrees from Georgia State and was not a proponent of adding football. His biggest concern is the financial burden on students. He says he fields as many complaints about overall student fees as any issue.

There are several interesting statements in the article, but I thought that was a pretty significant one.

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article, but if there's a more significant comment than that one for GaState football fans, I'd like to see it.

He also not surprisingly has a UGA degree...

Kind of in stark contrast to the confidence boasted here:

(11-06-2015 12:54 PM)panama Wrote:  It's worse than that. What if there is only one bid? :)

The Governor has a bromance with the Mayor

The Lieutenant Governor has three sons that either currently or in the recent past played and or coached at GSU

The Chancellor of the BOR is a GSU grad.

You do get the issue here right, that this article is about the entire G5...right? Try and control your baser instincts.

(11-16-2015 01:55 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:49 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:43 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:29 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:23 PM)panama Wrote:  ...and the University operating budget was $3B in the same time period. This is a poorly written hit piece against G5 athletics by folks that hate college athletics. Funny that we never see articles advocating ending school newspapers, radio stations or health services. I have seen better message forum posts in this subject.

The operating budget has nothing to do with the fact each student leaves with $4000 more debt as a result of the football program. The problem is that none of them go to the game.

Our athletic fees are $271 a semester. $271 X 2 X 4 = $2168 So where is this $4000 number?

Most people don't graduate in 4 years. But the point remains the students leave school with extra debt and they never attended a game.

Yep. And if you are part time, you don't pay the same amount. So $4000 was a shock number. Fine. Say 5. It is $2710. Still not $4000. Southern for the same time period is about $500 less total. If the team is winning, the students go. Unfortunately, we have been a loser for an entire college cycle for some. We are just now starting a freshman program introducing students to our athletics. From here on out, if they don't go, it is their choice.

The article is making the case for no subsidies period regardless of winning. The irony is that football is usually the only sport making any money at all at most schools and pays for the other sports.

(11-16-2015 01:50 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:46 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:26 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:53 PM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  "At Georgia State, athletic fees totaled $17.6 million in 2014, from a student population in which nearly 60 percent qualify for Pell Grants, the federal aid program for low-income students"

"Its student body, though, is especially sensitive to any extra costs. Pell-eligible students have nearly doubled since 2007, from 32 percent to 59 percent. And in 2012, more than 14,000 Georgia State students had unmet financial need, in some cases more than $15,000 a year. Despite efforts to create a more traditional college atmosphere, about three-fourths of Georgia State students still commute to campus, including many who attend part-time at night. (All fees, including those for athletics, are prorated for students who take fewer than six credit hours.)"

Sounds to me like the federal government is subsidizing a football program.

Maybe Becker figures the Federal Govt is going to waive student debt so he is not too concerned with loading students from low income families with even more debt.

Considering that the only school in the Sun Belt to be less than 50% subsidized is ULL... Grab a paddle buddy. You're in the boat with us.

Our students go to the games and they recently voted to increase fees. Yes, GaSt voted long ago to add football, but you'd have to wonder today how they would vote on fees.

And Bama made the same argument about UAB students and and vote an lost.

(11-16-2015 02:00 PM)tapate50 Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:55 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:49 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:43 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:29 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  The operating budget has nothing to do with the fact each student leaves with $4000 more debt as a result of the football program. The problem is that none of them go to the game.

Our athletic fees are $271 a semester. $271 X 2 X 4 = $2168 So where is this $4000 number?

Most people don't graduate in 4 years. But the point remains the students leave school with extra debt and they never attended a game.

Yep. And if you are part time, you don't pay the same amount. So $4000 was a shock number. Fine. Say 5. It is $2710. Still not $4000. Southern for the same time period is about $500 less total. If the team is winning, the students go. Unfortunately, we have been a loser for an entire college cycle for some. We are just now starting a freshman program introducing students to our athletics. From here on out, if they don't go, it is their choice

So that hasn't been the case all along? There are still people that don't know there is a football program?

Cheryl Levick

(11-16-2015 01:23 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:14 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  $90 million over five years? Yikes.

...and the University operating budget was $3B in the same time period. This is a poorly written hit piece against G5 athletics by folks that hate college athletics. Funny that we never see articles advocating ending school newspapers, radio stations or health services. I have seen better message forum posts in this subject.

agreed. Haven't read the whole thing, but they seem to be using selective data (don't we all) to make their case. 90M over 5 years for a football team in FBS (or is this the enitire athletic budget) isn't that bad if you are factoring in all expenses. Down side for GSU is that they don't have their own stadium so they can't generate their own revenue (but then the don't have the upkeep costs either). I would like to see where GSU revenue is after having a few winning seasons. They've been down so long though that it may take a very long time to turn fans around.

(11-16-2015 02:36 PM)FloridaJag Wrote:  The article states:

Georgia State, a commuter college located in a largely vacant stretch of downtown Atlanta, had long resisted a move into big-time athletics. Carl Patton, the university’s former president, says students began asking him to add football soon after he took the job, in the early 1990s. For years, he told them: “Not in my lifetime.”


Panama, How do you respond to that statement?

Why respond. Come see for yourself.

(11-16-2015 03:23 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:37 PM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:27 PM)panama Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:15 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 11:35 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  There are several interesting statements in the article, but I thought that was a pretty significant one.

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article, but if there's a more significant comment than that one for GaState football fans, I'd like to see it.

He also not surprisingly has a UGA degree...

Kind of in stark contrast to the confidence boasted here:

(11-06-2015 12:54 PM)panama Wrote:  It's worse than that. What if there is only one bid? :)

The Governor has a bromance with the Mayor

The Lieutenant Governor has three sons that either currently or in the recent past played and or coached at GSU

The Chancellor of the BOR is a GSU grad.

You do get the issue here right, that this article is about the entire G5...right? Try and control your baser instincts.

Yes I do get that. It's something we should all be aware of, and should strive to improve from. My school has been improving revenue from sources other than institutional funding as booster numbers are up, and the foundation in support of the school's academic mission is seeing increases in revenue to as well. So we're definitely on an upswing, but Rome wasn't built in a day and it's just going to take time. The intent is to remove our reliance on student fee subsidies as time goes by.

However, there's a lot of stuff in there specifically about you guys....so it's not just going to get ignored, especially when there's 60 pages of discussion on this forum about one very important potential acquisition by your school.

The statement I pulled from the article of a person that will have a lot of influence in the future for Georgia State (and could potentially set precedent for the other members of the USG) was very applicable to your quote I retrieved. There are difficulties facing all institutions in our university system. The thoughts of the Chancellor should be a wake up call to all of us, that we need to have a stable program and that they're definitely aware of the health of our athletic departments.

I will say the GS at 70% is pretty high, but I think you will see that number drastically decrease over the next year or 2. One is because when we initially moved to FBS in 2014 (I'm guessing that these number were from the 2013-2014 years) we still had basically an FCS budget of around 16M/ year and had raised student fees to pay for the stadium expansion and the move to FBS. Now our budget has increased to around 19M+ (mostly from new coporate sponsors and money games) so that percentage should go down to closer to the 50% again. Before we announced the move up we were around the mid-50% range so take it with a grain of salt.
If the Feds step in and make new regulations banning Pell grants from paying athletic fees (which is possible, not likely in the near future) All programs over 40% will be extremely hurt (maybe shutdown). The rest of the G5 will struggle along and the P5 will keep on growing.

(11-16-2015 02:17 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  Here is the subsidy breakdown by school in 2014

Louisiana at Lafayette - 26.5%
Idaho - 49.6%
Arkansas State - 52.8%
Appalachian State - 53%
Arkansas at Little Rock - 64.6%
New Mexico State - 69.5%
Georgia Southern - 71.6%
Troy - 72.4%
Texas State - 73.2%
Georgia State - 76.4%
South Alabama - 77.4%
Texas at Arlington - 86.2%

For me, it's less the percentage subsidy, than the amount in dollars of the subsidy per student. And the level of support those students show for the program. For the newbies, the numbers will frequently look bad as they are investing in the program. Every student invests in things they won't fully receive benefit from. There are also intangibles, such as increased do notions to the schools academic funds that usually result from FBS football participation, and those are hard to quantify.

Btw, it looks like the largest subsidy in dollar terms was James Madison, with over 145 million in subsidies over the 4 year period.

I don't like USAs percentage. But students do attend games, even going off campus to do so. I'd be good with a student vote on the issue.

(11-16-2015 01:50 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:46 PM)StanMolsonMan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:26 PM)GSU Eagles Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:53 PM)Ole Sleepy Wrote:  "At Georgia State, athletic fees totaled $17.6 million in 2014, from a student population in which nearly 60 percent qualify for Pell Grants, the federal aid program for low-income students"

"Its student body, though, is especially sensitive to any extra costs. Pell-eligible students have nearly doubled since 2007, from 32 percent to 59 percent. And in 2012, more than 14,000 Georgia State students had unmet financial need, in some cases more than $15,000 a year. Despite efforts to create a more traditional college atmosphere, about three-fourths of Georgia State students still commute to campus, including many who attend part-time at night. (All fees, including those for athletics, are prorated for students who take fewer than six credit hours.)"

Sounds to me like the federal government is subsidizing a football program.

Maybe Becker figures the Federal Govt is going to waive student debt so he is not too concerned with loading students from low income families with even more debt.

Considering that the only school in the Sun Belt to be less than 50% subsidized is ULL... Grab a paddle buddy. You're in the boat with us.

Our students go to the games and they recently voted to increase fees. Yes, GaSt voted long ago to add football, but you'd have to wonder today how they would vote on fees.

But you are not just voting on football. You are voting on the female scholarships that go along with title IX as well. Also, I'd be willing to bet if Southern only won 2 home games in 4 years, I think you'd be surprised what your student vote would be. This is why it doesn't get put to a vote every 5 years. You have your good patches and bad patches. Unfortunately for us, year one was the good. Then, it has been 4 seasons ranging from not good to dumpster fire and one so far of meh.

My God, what would the numbers look if they looked at it by individual sport? I suppose we should shut down all the Olympic sports because track and field will never pay it's own way.