Alright, I've got one really good question for all of Dave's boys on here.
How much money in dollars, comes from the student maintenance fees to go towards athletics? I'm not talking about the Athletic Fees that 100 percent goes towards athletics, or the activities fees that a percentage goes towards athletics, but you can tell us that figure too. I'm talking about the primary maintenance fee that's on a tuition bill.
You see, I have a gut feeling that the students are financing proably close to 90 percent of the almost 11 million dollars being blown on ETSU athletics.
Answer me those questions, in DOLLAR AMOUNTS. No percentages, percentages can be ran through the spin zone, and this is a no spin zone.

(10-06-2011 08:31 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Alright, I've got one really good question for all of Dave's boys on here.
How much money in dollars, comes from the student maintenance fees to go towards athletics? I'm not talking about the Athletic Fees that 100 percent goes towards athletics, or the activities fees that a percentage goes towards athletics, but you can tell us that figure too. I'm talking about the primary maintenance fee that's on a tuition bill.
You see, I have a gut feeling that the students are financing proably close to 90 percent of the almost 11 million dollars being blown on ETSU athletics.
Answer me those questions, in DOLLAR AMOUNTS. No percentages, percentages can be ran through the spin zone, and this is a no spin zone.

and..... Lets say for arguments sake they are paying 100% of the budget. so what? Are they rioting for a change? Mass demonstrations of students standing up in solidarity demanding their athletics fee go toward a football team rather than these minor sports? Any protests at all? in 8 years?.....crickets chirping

(10-06-2011 09:14 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 08:31 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Alright, I've got one really good question for all of Dave's boys on here.
How much money in dollars, comes from the student maintenance fees to go towards athletics? I'm not talking about the Athletic Fees that 100 percent goes towards athletics, or the activities fees that a percentage goes towards athletics, but you can tell us that figure too. I'm talking about the primary maintenance fee that's on a tuition bill.
You see, I have a gut feeling that the students are financing proably close to 90 percent of the almost 11 million dollars being blown on ETSU athletics.
Answer me those questions, in DOLLAR AMOUNTS. No percentages, percentages can be ran through the spin zone, and this is a no spin zone.

and..... Lets say for arguments sake they are paying 100% of the budget. so what? Are they rioting for a change? Mass demonstrations of students standing up in solidarity demanding their athletics fee go toward a football team rather than these minor sports? Any protests at all? in 8 years?.....crickets chirping

These students have no choice. The administration slapped the fees on them without a vote.

(10-06-2011 09:30 PM)bucfan81 Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 09:14 PM)slappywhite Wrote:  

(10-06-2011 08:31 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Alright, I've got one really good question for all of Dave's boys on here.
How much money in dollars, comes from the student maintenance fees to go towards athletics? I'm not talking about the Athletic Fees that 100 percent goes towards athletics, or the activities fees that a percentage goes towards athletics, but you can tell us that figure too. I'm talking about the primary maintenance fee that's on a tuition bill.
You see, I have a gut feeling that the students are financing proably close to 90 percent of the almost 11 million dollars being blown on ETSU athletics.
Answer me those questions, in DOLLAR AMOUNTS. No percentages, percentages can be ran through the spin zone, and this is a no spin zone.

and..... Lets say for arguments sake they are paying 100% of the budget. so what? Are they rioting for a change? Mass demonstrations of students standing up in solidarity demanding their athletics fee go toward a football team rather than these minor sports? Any protests at all? in 8 years?.....crickets chirping

These students have no choice. The administration slapped the fees on them without a vote.

AND.....

Answer the question. Don't sidestep it. The problem is you don't want to answer it because it's an embarrassment to the point of almost being criminal how the money at ETSU is mismanaged.

(10-06-2011 10:07 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Answer the question. Don't sidestep it. The problem is you don't want to answer it because it's an embarrassment to the point of almost being criminal how the money at ETSU is mismanaged.

I answered...its 100%. And....

Dollar amounts. Take an English class. Learn to read. I want dollar amounts posted.
Maintenance fees
Activity fees
Student athletic fees

ETSU athletics is drawing from all three. I think students would love to see how their money is being "used." The problem is people like you know that it's embarrassing to see how 11 million dollars is being essentially blown on trips to Puerto Rico, recruiting trips to the United Kingdom, etc...
Bring it up to Manahan or Collins, they can't give you a straight answer nor would they want to.

(10-06-2011 10:16 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Dollar amounts. Take an English class. Learn to read. I want dollar amounts posted.
Maintenance fees
Activity fees
Student athletic fees

ETSU athletics is drawing from all three. I think students would love to see how their money is being "used." The problem is people like you know that it's embarrassing to see how 11 million dollars is being essentially blown on trips to Puerto Rico, recruiting trips to the United Kingdom, etc...
Bring it up to Manahan or Collins, they can't give you a straight answer nor would they want to.

my bad. lets say its 100% of their tuition. And..... crickets still chirping

Theres your problem. Nobody is bringing it up to Manahan or Collins. Its not my job, its the job of those so passionate about the return of football. The students have shown that they dont give a rip by thier voter turnout in 2006. If the football proponets continue to be reactionary they are not going to get very far. At some point you have to stop bitchin' and get proactive. And proactive in a positive way.....what am i doing, like you are listening....

I have no idea, but I also think it's a dumb question. All the mid-majors with football that you sing the praises for, finance their department with student fees. So, you don't really care if student's fund the athletic dept. as long as that dept. has football. Well at ETSU, the students could care less about football. That is clear.

I think the debate around student fees subsidizing athletics dept. is a fair one, but that's not your beef. Your beef appears to be student fees funding an athletic dept. that doesn't have football. Translated, that means an athletic dept. that doesn't prioritize based on your values.

(10-06-2011 11:29 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  I have no idea, but I also think it's a dumb question. All the mid-majors with football that you sing the praises for, finance their department with student fees. So, you don't really care if student's fund the athletic dept. as long as that dept. has football. Well at ETSU, the students could care less about football. That is clear.

I think the debate around student fees subsidizing athletics dept. is a fair one, but that's not your beef. Your beef appears to be student fees funding an athletic dept. that doesn't have football. Translated, that means an athletic dept. that doesn't prioritize based on your values.

logical, reasonable, factual, well delivered response letsgobucs. for your efforts you will be stoned by those who know better....

Still waiting for the answer in dollars. I have a point but don't want it made until the question is answered. Quit butt kissing and post the answer.

Or another question. Why did football need a student vote to return and raise fees, but fees for minor sports get added on with no vote?

Slappy and GoBucs, go to shttp://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/ncaa-finances.htm and break down the data there for us. It'll take you from 2004-05 through 2009-10. There's no data for any of the football years, just ETSU's last year (without football) in the SoCon. Give us your analysis, your keen insight into ETSU's world of athletic finance.

My take is that Stanton has been running away from this mess for eight years. If he looks closely at the expenditure of athletic dollars, then he has to face himself and the blunder that he made in 2003 and the all-alone nightmare athletic model that has evolved over this time. He is one fortunate college president in that he has not been called out on this and the $11 million that it is blowing annually. This thing makes all that talk of football losing all that money pale in comparison. Yes, I concede, complacency, apathy, and inertia has covered his rear end these eight years. Unfortunately for the university, he has been able to skate through this virtually unchallenged. He has taken full advantage of the complacency and offered NO ATHLETIC LEADERSHIP AT ALL. Note: that "bring football back" charade in '06 was not leadership, just an attempt to shift the blame away from him. He's been hands off and unconcerned with his athletic department. Slappy and GoBucs need to name a few other state universities where a president could get away with what Stanton has with his athletic policies?

I'm at a point of saying that it is decision time for ETSU athletics with a new president. It's time to reverse this maddening athletic model and get ETSU back on board with its peer institutions (those that ETSU used to play in football - a state school that never played football is not an athletic peer of ETSU), or scrap it and call it quits. There is no justification for spending this kind of money on this athletic travesty.

USA Today college finance data:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/n...nances.htm

(10-07-2011 12:24 PM)ETSUfan1 Wrote:  Or another question. Why did football need a student vote to return and raise fees, but fees for minor sports get added on with no vote?

Better yet, why did ETSU ignore the original SGA vote that was overwhelmingly in favor of not only returning football but raising fees to pay for it.

(10-06-2011 08:31 PM)Buccaneerlover Wrote:  Alright, I've got one really good question for all of Dave's boys on here.
How much money in dollars, comes from the student maintenance fees to go towards athletics? I'm not talking about the Athletic Fees that 100 percent goes towards athletics, or the activities fees that a percentage goes towards athletics, but you can tell us that figure too. I'm talking about the primary maintenance fee that's on a tuition bill.
You see, I have a gut feeling that the students are financing proably close to 90 percent of the almost 11 million dollars being blown on ETSU athletics.
Answer me those questions, in DOLLAR AMOUNTS. No percentages, percentages can be ran through the spin zone, and this is a no spin zone.

Sorry to disappoint you guys, I'm not one of Dave's minions... but I can give you the breakdown that you are asking for:

The "student maintenance fee" (or you might know it as tuition) is something that all students pay (out of state students also have a "tuition" attached). This "fee" that then goes from the "General Fund" to Athletics is done by a funding formula. The general fund support amounts for ETSU for the last five years are as follows:
FY 2010 - $4,104,250
FY 2009 - $4,085,200
FY 2008 - $4,234,400
FY 2007 - $3,915,100
FY 2006 - $3,777,700
This is according to Renee' Stewart, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Business & Finance at the Tennessee Board of Regents.

I don't have the current F11 allocation but the census date has passed and I'm sure that data is available.

The other "big" item assessed to students is the restricted fee, as of last year, that fee sat at $250 per year for full-time students (not FTE's like the other allocation is done)
East Tennessee 10-11= $250; 09-10= $200; 08-09= $150 07-08= $150 06-07= $150

I'll just attach the document from THEC showing all the TBR/UT schools. I've given this to several people including people who post on here, so you may have seen this breakdown before.

There's also a "student debt service" that has been paying for the majority of the new construction going on. The "fundraising" has been "nice" for soccer and some of the the other projects BUT the majority has been paid by the reallocation of the MiniDome sunken bond/debt service assessment to other athletics projects. I'm sure there's some top secret plan in place to divert that money at some point to build a basketball arena, but I've not been around enough to know.

I'm not going to get into a slinging match on here with Slappy, Mike, and others. I'm passed all that and in a good place with myself, my family, and my own piece of mind. Everyone is entitled to an "opinion" so here's mine.

I do not support what's gone on with Athletics at ETSU. It's a bad business model that does nothing for the University other than expend funds. There's virtually no visibility for Athletics outside of the internally generated-feel good things that we have handed out. That's a shame, IMHO, because I've always considered ETSU "home" and it hurts me to hear people talk about ETSU in snickers and laughs.

I travel pretty extensively and maybe it's just the folks that I associate with, YOU KNOW: College-educated, in-the-loop, people who would be at a ballgame types of people. It always depresses me when I tell people that I graduated from ETSU and ASU and I hear these two things: "Ohh, ASU is the team that beat Michigan AND isn't ETSU the school that dropped football?" I swear! It makes me sad to ALWAYS have that line thrown at me!

So you're telling me that 4.1 million dollars of ETSU's budget is from the maintenance fee, then on top of it there's a restricted fee that students pay as well? Isn't that double taxing? I don't even know what to say about it at this point other than basically it sounds as though the students are FUNDING athletics, and I'm guessing if they knew that much money was going to it they would probably want some sort of entertainment satisfaction for their money. But again, that's just me.

What analysis answer are you guys looking for? There is absolutely no question that the students are funding athletics.

What you all seem to be missing is that students finance the athletic departments at most schools. Football does not change this fact. Did you guys look at any other schools in the USA Today database? App St for example uses student fees to fund 50% of their athletic department. At UAB it's 14% but they receive 43% from institutional support. Austin Peay is 25% from student fees, 58% from institutional support. Bowling Green, 50% from student fees. College of Charleton 72%. Ohio U is usually brought up in these discussions because they get 68% from student fees ($16 million) and Dr. David Ridpath is a professor of sport finance there who is very outspoken about subsidies for college athletics.

The point is, this is how schools fund their departments because athletics at this level do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves, with or without football. There were only 42 schools in 2009 who reported not receiving student fees for athletics.

My question again for you guys is, what's your beef? Are you opposed to student fees subsidizing college athletics on principle, or are you upset because ETSU does it and doesn't have football to show for it? If it's the former, you are part of a large group of folks who are loudly speaking out against this. Mostly faculty, other academics, students and their parents who feel that it is wasteful in our economy. If you just don't like the absence of football, then your argument doesn't really go anywhere. We did this same funding model with football as without. If you're opposed to it now, you should have been opposed then.

A couple of you say we are "wasting" $11 million dollars because we aren't playing football. I'm going to assume if we still had football and there were people coming on this board saying we are "wasting" $11 million dollars by unfairly forcing students to pay for it, you would loudly oppose that argument.


Here's an article if you want to read about student fees and athletics. It focuses a lot on Radford who gets 84% of their funding from student fees.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2...orts_N.htm

(10-08-2011 03:42 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  What analysis answer are you guys looking for? There is absolutely no question that the students are funding athletics.

What you all seem to be missing is that students finance the athletic departments at most schools. Football does not change this fact. Did you guys look at any other schools in the USA Today database? App St for example uses student fees to fund 50% of their athletic department. At UAB it's 14% but they receive 43% from institutional support. Austin Peay is 25% from student fees, 58% from institutional support. Bowling Green, 50% from student fees. College of Charleton 72%. Ohio U is usually brought up in these discussions because they get 68% from student fees ($16 million) and Dr. David Ridpath is a professor of sport finance there who is very outspoken about subsidies for college athletics.

The point is, this is how schools fund their departments because athletics at this level do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves, with or without football. There were only 42 schools in 2009 who reported not receiving student fees for athletics.

My question again for you guys is, what's your beef? Are you opposed to student fees subsidizing college athletics on principle, or are you upset because ETSU does it and doesn't have football to show for it? If it's the former, you are part of a large group of folks who are loudly speaking out against this. Mostly faculty, other academics, students and their parents who feel that it is wasteful in our economy. If you just don't like the absence of football, then your argument doesn't really go anywhere. We did this same funding model with football as without. If you're opposed to it now, you should have been opposed then.

A couple of you say we are "wasting" $11 million dollars because we aren't playing football. I'm going to assume if we still had football and there were people coming on this board saying we are "wasting" $11 million dollars by unfairly forcing students to pay for it, you would loudly oppose that argument.


Here's an article if you want to read about student fees and athletics. It focuses a lot on Radford who gets 84% of their funding from student fees.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2...orts_N.htm

Do these other schools use 100%, or anywhere close to it?

(10-08-2011 04:20 PM)BucNut22 Wrote:  

(10-08-2011 03:42 PM)LetsgoBucs Wrote:  What analysis answer are you guys looking for? There is absolutely no question that the students are funding athletics.

What you all seem to be missing is that students finance the athletic departments at most schools. Football does not change this fact. Did you guys look at any other schools in the USA Today database? App St for example uses student fees to fund 50% of their athletic department. At UAB it's 14% but they receive 43% from institutional support. Austin Peay is 25% from student fees, 58% from institutional support. Bowling Green, 50% from student fees. College of Charleton 72%. Ohio U is usually brought up in these discussions because they get 68% from student fees ($16 million) and Dr. David Ridpath is a professor of sport finance there who is very outspoken about subsidies for college athletics.

The point is, this is how schools fund their departments because athletics at this level do not come anywhere close to paying for themselves, with or without football. There were only 42 schools in 2009 who reported not receiving student fees for athletics.

My question again for you guys is, what's your beef? Are you opposed to student fees subsidizing college athletics on principle, or are you upset because ETSU does it and doesn't have football to show for it? If it's the former, you are part of a large group of folks who are loudly speaking out against this. Mostly faculty, other academics, students and their parents who feel that it is wasteful in our economy. If you just don't like the absence of football, then your argument doesn't really go anywhere. We did this same funding model with football as without. If you're opposed to it now, you should have been opposed then.

A couple of you say we are "wasting" $11 million dollars because we aren't playing football. I'm going to assume if we still had football and there were people coming on this board saying we are "wasting" $11 million dollars by unfairly forcing students to pay for it, you would loudly oppose that argument.


Here's an article if you want to read about student fees and athletics. It focuses a lot on Radford who gets 84% of their funding from student fees.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2...orts_N.htm

Do these other schools use 100%, or anywhere close to it?

Nobody uses 100% student funding, including ETSU. From the USA Today report 25.95% comes from student fees, 37.49% comes from direct state or other government support, and 14.21% comes from indirect facilities and administrative support. That's a total of 77.65%. Those are the only categories that come from the institution or government support. All of that cannot be attributed to student costs either. These numbers are not anything that would be considered out of the ordinary for athletics funding.