(05-11-2016 08:06 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:54 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  Students would also vote for no classes on Friday...doesn't always make it a great idea. Honestly, this is a financially smart move. Eagle22 is right, after the mess created at Valdosta State and West Georgia the BOR has to move to ensure it doesn't spread to other institutions.

Sure, but don't try to pass this off as being about the student's out-of-pocket costs. Most students aren't going to give a rat's rump about a $70 per semester reduction in fees to cut a sport or its budget when it costs thousands of dollars per semester anyways.

It's fine to have a conversation about what kind of things universities can do without in order to make college more affordable, but don't scapegoat athletics. There are plenty of other things that could be put on the chopping block that aren't needed.

Most students are not paying for their education, it's either with loans they don't completely grasp how long it will take to pay off, or its their parents paying for it. Either way the students making the decision aren't the ones paying for it, at least they aren't paying for it today.

honestly, this is as much about Georgia and Gt trying to control the future growth of GSU and GS, as it is trying to force the schools to be fiscally responsible. As much as I hate to admit it, Georgia Southerns first few years in the FBS has been a total success, immediately competing for the SBC championship, a top 50 program, a bowl win, and probably the accomplishment that got the most attention of the powerful, deep pocket Georgia/GT alumi who control the state, is almost beating their beloved teams in back to back seasons; that scared the hell out of them, to the point where they felt the need to now set legislation that will significantly control growth at these schools for the long term future.

(05-11-2016 09:14 AM)moehler Wrote:  honestly, this is as much about Georgia and Gt trying to control the future growth of GSU and GS, as it is trying to force the schools to be fiscally responsible. As much as I hate to admit it, Georgia Southerns first few years in the FBS has been a total success, immediately competing for the SBC championship, a top 50 program, a bowl win, and probably the accomplishment that got the most attention of the powerful, deep pocket Georgia/GT alumi who control the state, is almost beating their beloved teams in back to back seasons; that scared the hell out of them, to the point where they felt the need to now set legislation that will significantly control growth at these schools for the long term future.

+1

I am all for controlling expenses but this does seem aimed squarely at GS and GSU to me.

When AState and UALR started getting too big for their britches in the 1980's Arkansas imposed onerous caps on financing.

Net result?
Most of the jucos dropped athletics
The NAIA schools ended up going NCAA Division II.
UALR dodged the fund-raising bullet deadline by a day or so.
AState figured out we couldn't live in I-AA under the financial restraints and went I-A (badly but we got our nose under the tent) because the other choice was drop football to comply.

Sometimes these hammers to straighten out the little guys backfire.

man I hope your right, as much as I hate Georgia Southern, I hate even more what is being done to them and Georgia State, just isn't fair.

http://www.underdogdynasty.com/sun-belt-...agles-ncaa


This article tells the story. By adding Perimeter, under the old rules State would have had a serious budget to work with. That, coupled with being in the heart of Atlanta, would have perceivably put State on the same footing as Tech with respect to budgetary competition. So, this was a move to thwart that...big school politics at its finest.

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

A bit of a correction. A student committee approved increased fees at Georgia State without a vote involving the student body. Georgia Southern conducted a student vote for our fee increases.

I could see the backlash against the fee increase at Georgia State since not all students were given the opportunity to decide if they were in favor of the fee increase.

With that said, the BoR still approved it so it falls on them.

(05-11-2016 11:08 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  http://www.underdogdynasty.com/sun-belt-...agles-ncaa


This article tells the story. By adding Perimeter, under the old rules State would have had a serious budget to work with. That, coupled with being in the heart of Atlanta, would have perceivably put State on the same footing as Tech with respect to budgetary competition. So, this was a move to thwart that...big school politics at its finest.

I was alluding to this in another post. This isn't about reducing costs (or controlling) costs for students. Its about limiting competition and keeping us in our place. If they want to control costs then put a dollar amount on how much a school can charge for athletic fees.
Someone else mentioned that there is a clause in there that each school will be evaluated to see if they are at the correct level of sports. That is a very broad and vague statement that can lead to some schools being forced down if they are need deemed worthy of their current (or possible future) level of play.
What if the BOR (or whoever) decides GS's budget is too small and should move back to FCS? OR GSU's is too heavily dependent on fees and not enough support to justify further play in FBS? We were able to avoid any impact this time, but this can continue to evolve and we'll have to stay one step ahead of it. Just makes me sick.

We feel your pain guys. I don't think ODU will have a problem meeting the requirements when the time comes and I know reducing the reliance on student fees would be a priority of the administration anyway but I think they would have liked to lean on those fees a little longer especially with needing a new stadium and other football upgrades. Good Luck.

(05-11-2016 11:20 AM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 11:08 AM)bluephi1914 Wrote:  http://www.underdogdynasty.com/sun-belt-...agles-ncaa


This article tells the story. By adding Perimeter, under the old rules State would have had a serious budget to work with. That, coupled with being in the heart of Atlanta, would have perceivably put State on the same footing as Tech with respect to budgetary competition. So, this was a move to thwart that...big school politics at its finest.

I was alluding to this in another post. This isn't about reducing costs (or controlling) costs for students. Its about limiting competition and keeping us in our place. If they want to control costs then put a dollar amount on how much a school can charge for athletic fees.
Someone else mentioned that there is a clause in there that each school will be evaluated to see if they are at the correct level of sports. That is a very broad and vague statement that can lead to some schools being forced down if they are need deemed worthy of their current (or possible future) level of play.
What if the BOR (or whoever) decides GS's budget is too small and should move back to FCS? OR GSU's is too heavily dependent on fees and not enough support to justify further play in FBS? We were able to avoid any impact this time, but this can continue to evolve and we'll have to stay one step ahead of it. Just makes me sick.

exactly, this isn't a one time deal, in the distant future, if they feel that the present legislation isn't sufficiently slowing down the growth of GS or GSU, they will simply make the necessary adjustments. The only real way GS, GSU, or App can truly be free of the Georgias and the Tarheels of the world, is to have a significant increase of annual funding from alumi and corporations that can offset any financial restraints put on them by the state, and I don't know about you guys, but App has a long, long way to go in alumi/corporate funding before we can tell the State/Chapel Hill to kiss our ass.

(05-11-2016 11:14 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

A bit of a correction. A student committee approved increased fees at Georgia State without a vote involving the student body. Georgia Southern conducted a student vote for our fee increases.

I could see the backlash against the fee increase at Georgia State since not all students were given the opportunity to decide if they were in favor of the fee increase.

With that said, the BoR still approved it so it falls on them.

That student committee was the SGA.

What is funny about this is that for instance at GSU athletic fees are $277.00 and only a portion of that is football related whereas the total fees are $1064.00. Its really low hanging fruit that is not reducing students costs that much. Having said that the obvious response from mid majors should be to build up our corporate and private donations. Irony is that the P5 schools subsisted on institutional and student funding for decades prior to the blow up of TV.

(05-11-2016 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 11:14 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

A bit of a correction. A student committee approved increased fees at Georgia State without a vote involving the student body. Georgia Southern conducted a student vote for our fee increases.

I could see the backlash against the fee increase at Georgia State since not all students were given the opportunity to decide if they were in favor of the fee increase.

With that said, the BoR still approved it so it falls on them.

That student committee was the SGA.

What is funny about this is that for instance at GSU athletic fees are $277.00 and only a portion of that is football related whereas the total fees are $1064.00. Its really low hanging fruit that is not reducing students costs that much. Having said that the obvious response from mid majors should be to build up our corporate and private donations. Irony is that the P5 schools subsisted on institutional and student funding for decades prior to the blow up of TV.

We've dealt with it for years. They go through a door...close it behind them and lock it.

(05-11-2016 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  Irony is that the P5 schools subsisted on institutional and student funding for decades prior to the blow up of TV.

I would love to get hold of some numbers on this. Would be a great counter to add to the discussion.

I will say this...the BoR policy could be a lot worse. This is where I'm glad State is with us in FBS because combined we have more allies in the BoR and in the state legislature to keep the heat from being turned up too high on us.

And this could be the impetus both schools need to increase private contributions.

As long as Becker keeps everything moving in the right direction. In 4 years we've gone from 81% to 68%. If we keep that pace, we will be under 65% this year. He set his goal to get us to 50%, and it looks like the plan is working. Let's hope it does.

(05-11-2016 02:01 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  I will say this...the BoR policy could be a lot worse. This is where I'm glad State is with us in FBS because combined we have more allies in the BoR and in the state legislature to keep the heat from being turned up too high on us.

And this could be the impetus both schools need to increase private contributions.

Yeah - you guys are probably safe. It really hurt schools like KSU that may want to go FBS or Valdosta who may want to go DI or any school looking to add football.

(05-11-2016 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 11:14 AM)eaglewraith Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

A bit of a correction. A student committee approved increased fees at Georgia State without a vote involving the student body. Georgia Southern conducted a student vote for our fee increases.

I could see the backlash against the fee increase at Georgia State since not all students were given the opportunity to decide if they were in favor of the fee increase.

With that said, the BoR still approved it so it falls on them.

That student committee was the SGA.

What is funny about this is that for instance at GSU athletic fees are $277.00 and only a portion of that is football related whereas the total fees are $1064.00. Its really low hanging fruit that is not reducing students costs that much. Having said that the obvious response from mid majors should be to build up our corporate and private donations. Irony is that the P5 schools subsisted on institutional and student funding for decades prior to the blow up of TV.

Yep, the student fees at UGA are $1129, $1200 at GT and they both have to purchase their tickets to sporting events. Fees are $1,046 at Southern, fwiw.

Going to see more states doing this... honestly surprised it's taken this long. Realistically it should be 50% or less.

(05-11-2016 01:25 PM)Pounce FTW Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 11:57 AM)panama Wrote:  Irony is that the P5 schools subsisted on institutional and student funding for decades prior to the blow up of TV.

I would love to get hold of some numbers on this. Would be a great counter to add to the discussion.

Good luck finding that data, much of it would be pre 1985 and it would really support that supposition.

NCAA v Bd. of Regents OU, 468 U.S. 85

Blame OU and by proxy, UGA.

It works for me

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

Pretty sure none of those students that voted for that are still there. People never account for this when making that statement.