(01-18-2015 04:38 PM)ODUR8R Wrote: [ -> ]I think it will fail for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, he is a republican that wants To legislate who can play football and who can't. Aren't conservatives for allowing the free market to decide matters like these? It puts the majority of his schools at a major competitive disadvantage.
+1. A fiscal conservative should expect school expenses to be funded by those who attend vs. taxpayer dollars. And if the student decides it's too much, they are free to attend elsewhere.
Clearly, money isn't the issue. He has another axe to grind.
Actually raising the cost of tuition without raising the amount that goes to athletics would lower the %. That's not fair to students.
It still places us at a disadvantage. I'd rather see the bill remain at 20 and tabled that amended to 55 percent and passed.
Allows ODU to fund up to 55% of athletics through use of student fees with a ten year period to reach that percentage.
It should still not get out of committee IMO.
I thought Republicans were for less government and control in our lives? I guess they are when it appeals to their base.
For our budget to remain stagnant, which it cannot, we would have to double our revenue in ten years which I don't see happening.
Our budget has to continue to grow and likely at the pace of our revenues IMO.
(01-19-2015 01:06 PM)ODUR8R Wrote: [ -> ]It still places us at a disadvantage. I'd rather see the bill remain at 20 and tabled that amended to 55 percent and passed.
It will be interesting to see where we come in for the 2014-15 year once the conference/bowl payouts kick in. Certainly need to take the Vandy payday out of the equation since we don't have $1MM paydays on the football schedule for the foreseeable future. The only cash game i can think of may be the 2016 NC State game in Raleigh since that was an addition negotiated separate from the original home and home series. It also doesn't sound like that's the direction the program is looking to go on a regular basis.
Forcing us to take more payday, hard as hell, winnable games. Thus holding the program down.
(01-19-2015 01:25 PM)ODUR8R Wrote: [ -> ]For our budget to remain stagnant, which it cannot, we would have to double our revenue in ten years which I don't see happening.
Our budget has to continue to grow and likely at the pace of our revenues IMO.
We still have to fund a new approx. $100M stadium with it's associated debt payments, and CUSA is likely to approve some increase in non-tuition subsidies for athletes (I think that's still on the table.) Even at 55% it is still too onerous to ODU and still unnecessary as it does nothing to aid students.
ODU has to play nice with the current proposal (55%). They stand to lose too much in the normal budgeting process, if they piss off appropriators. If "most schools will have no major problems meeting the cap," I'm just not sure what the point is.
(01-19-2015 01:39 PM)First time Long time Wrote: [ -> ]ODU has to play nice with the current proposal (55%). They stand to lose too much in the normal budgeting process, if they piss off appropriators. If "most schools will have no major problems meeting the cap," I'm just not sure what the point is.
Yep 55 percent sounds reasonable not that i am happy with the proposal but it gives 10 years to make up that 15 percent we are losing and like you said we have big plans in the pipe that we can't afford to piss off these losers.
(01-19-2015 01:39 PM)First time Long time Wrote: [ -> ]ODU has to play nice with the current proposal (55%). They stand to lose too much in the normal budgeting process, if they piss off appropriators. If "most schools will have no major problems meeting the cap," I'm just not sure what the point is.
I wasn't able to read the full article earlier because of the pay wall. I do see now that Cox said they would consider eliminating debt servicing on the new stadium from the bill IMO that is a MUST or it just would not work for us at all. A major function of the stadium is raising funds, why penalize those funds, which would help us comply to the Bill by keeping that part of the Bill's language in place?
I wonder if the special consideration given to ODU under this amendment means that any other school looking to move from FCS to FBS would have to negotiate their own deal. Would this lock jmu into the FCS for the foreseeable future? It seems like all other levels are set in black and white and ours is a "special" deal...
I struggle to understand how the athletic department is going to TRIPLE their self generated revenue in ten years. Doesn't make business sense to me at least.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again - start saving for a PSL fee when the new stadium is built. There won't be any other way to find this project, unless the private sector picks up the bulk of the cost. As for the fee cap, I'm good with 55%, but I'd like to see some language that says if we ever get to a P5 conference, the cap moves to 20% like UVA & Tech. This might incentivize our politicians to support our future conference realignment.
Ok governor got thrown off a horse is hospitalized breaking 7 ribs.
As long as debt service for the new stadium does not count against the cap then the new stadium with more ticket sales, concessions, and ODAF increases should easily cover the difference. Plus I am sure we will increase non -Athletic related tuition amount so the % will go down further. This new bill if passes will no doubt make ODU have to [/align]accept more out of state students at the expense of in state students unless the GA increases our base adequacy funding level from 82% to close to 90%. With one of the LOWEST tuition rates in the state, ODU cannot continue to operate the way we have without more State funding.
To R*8R and Steeler: Cox was previously quoted as saying in the future universities (boards of visitors) must consult with General Assembly before changing conferences. They will most certainly have a say - to scrutinize the finances - before schools jump.
i dont like any of this. it reeks of back room deals and leverage.....