How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

In Louisiana, LSU doesn't need fees so the legislature doesn't allow other schools to collect them either. TMac doesn't have Tech where we need to be, but what he and our administration do to stay competitive on the field and in the arms race is nothing short of impressive.

I just wish Tech had this kind of foresight and drive 20 years ago when we were a WBB power and a giant slayer in FB. It's better late than never, but as a Tech fan while seeing the progress after decades of stagnancy is refreshing, knowing what might have been had we not been complacent while the iron was hot is infuriating.

(07-07-2017 08:58 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

In Louisiana, LSU doesn't need fees so the legislature doesn't allow other schools to collect them either. TMac doesn't have Tech where we need to be, but what he and our administration do to stay competitive on the field and in the arms race is nothing short of impressive.

I just wish Tech had this kind of foresight and drive 20 years ago when we were a WBB power and a giant slayer in FB. It's better late than never, but as a Tech fan while seeing the progress after decades of stagnancy is refreshing, knowing what might have been had we not been complacent while the iron was hot is infuriating.

Beg to differ but your info regarding student fees in Louisiana is incorrect. The legislature DOES ALLOW student athletic fees but the students must hold a referendum on and approve the matter before one can be imposed. There was a rule in place until just 3-4yrs ago that student athletic fees were not acceptable but that was changed and very little movement on the matter since that time.

I doubt, but am not sure, that a STUDENT ATHLETIC FEE proposal at La Tech would be approved at this time because the students voted just 3-4yrs ago to impose a STUDENT FACILITIES ENHANCEMENT FEE that will be charged to them over a 25yr period to cover cost of constructing their new end zone project.

Can state bonds that are issued to certain schools be considered "income" for an athletic department ?

(07-07-2017 09:58 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 08:58 AM)SICemDAWGS! Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

In Louisiana, LSU doesn't need fees so the legislature doesn't allow other schools to collect them either. TMac doesn't have Tech where we need to be, but what he and our administration do to stay competitive on the field and in the arms race is nothing short of impressive.

I just wish Tech had this kind of foresight and drive 20 years ago when we were a WBB power and a giant slayer in FB. It's better late than never, but as a Tech fan while seeing the progress after decades of stagnancy is refreshing, knowing what might have been had we not been complacent while the iron was hot is infuriating.

Beg to differ but your info regarding student fees in Louisiana is incorrect. The legislature DOES ALLOW student athletic fees but the students must hold a referendum on and approve the matter before one can be imposed. There was a rule in place until just 3-4yrs ago that student athletic fees were not acceptable but that was changed and very little movement on the matter since that time.

I doubt, but am not sure, that a STUDENT ATHLETIC FEE proposal at La Tech would be approved at this time because the students voted just 3-4yrs ago to impose a STUDENT FACILITIES ENHANCEMENT FEE that will be charged to them over a 25yr period to cover cost of constructing their new end zone project.

The rule change from 3 or 4 years ago (it was 2011 or 2012) that you are referencing is the use of student fees for athletic facilities only. These fees do not count against the general fund transfer for the operating budget now.

It is still the case that LA Tech or any state school could enact an athletics fee for funding of the athletic general operations, but the money would count dollar for dollar against the general fund transfer limit.

BTW, I believe your doubt is misplaced. The student facilities enhancement fee in 2012 passed with 84% in support. The "Change for Change" fee in 2007 passed with 70+%. Doesn't matter though, since it isn't going to happen.

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/
[/quote]

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.
[/quote]

In Louisiana, LSU doesn't need fees so the legislature doesn't allow other schools to collect them either. TMac doesn't have Tech where we need to be, but what he and our administration do to stay competitive on the field and in the arms race is nothing short of impressive.

I just wish Tech had this kind of foresight and drive 20 years ago when we were a WBB power and a giant slayer in FB. It's better late than never, but as a Tech fan while seeing the progress after decades of stagnancy is refreshing, knowing what might have been had we not been complacent while the iron was hot is infuriating.
[/quote]

Beg to differ but your info regarding student fees in Louisiana is incorrect. The legislature DOES ALLOW student athletic fees but the students must hold a referendum on and approve the matter before one can be imposed. There was a rule in place until just 3-4yrs ago that student athletic fees were not acceptable but that was changed and very little movement on the matter since that time.

I doubt, but am not sure, that a STUDENT ATHLETIC FEE proposal at La Tech would be approved at this time because the students voted just 3-4yrs ago to impose a STUDENT FACILITIES ENHANCEMENT FEE that will be charged to them over a 25yr period to cover cost of constructing their new end zone project.
[/quote]

The rule change from 3 or 4 years ago (it was 2011 or 2012) that you are referencing is the use of student fees for athletic facilities only. These fees do not count against the general fund transfer for the operating budget now.

It is still the case that LA Tech or any state school could enact an athletics fee for funding of the athletic general operations, but the money would count dollar for dollar against the general fund transfer limit.

BTW, I believe your doubt is misplaced. The student facilities enhancement fee in 2012 passed with 84% in support. The "Change for Change" fee in 2007 passed with 70+%. Doesn't matter though, since it isn't going to happen.
[/quote]

No, the rule change 3-4yrs ago referenced STUDENT ATHLETIC FEES and had nothing to do with athletic facilities. Prior to then a school could NOT charge a student athletic fee but can at this time if approved by student vote.

The student FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, in effect for next 21yrs or so, IS reflected in the current annual operating budget. The annual payment on the bonds of about $600,000 is taken from the facility enhancement fee kitty and listed as an expense on Techs statement of revenue expenses.

this battle has been in the making for some time now....

it's a ******* joke what this has turned into....

there's quite a few that saw this coming over a decade ago....

I'm immune and desensitized at this point.....

mlb eradicated steroids.....it's hardly an enigma how those guys have regained traction....

people like me said fk off to cfb on the nat'l scale moons ago.....

y'all can have those eggos for breakfast.....

I'm out at this point with the exception of southern miss athletics (and that one's teetering).....I just don't care about the bs anymore....it's a waste o' time....

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

UVA and VT supported themselves via alumni and community participation. They don't need the fees. Before you think about bringing up BCS and ESPN consider this. They were already WAY, WAY ahead before any of that happened.

Neither does anybody else. I applaud what VA is doing. I hope NC does the same even if it "hurts" ECU's athletic department. I'm beyond the point of giving a ****. Students already pay enough without any athletics fees.

(07-07-2017 11:40 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

UVA and VT supported themselves via alumni and community participation. They don't need the fees. Before you think about bringing up BCS and ESPN consider this. They were already WAY, WAY ahead before any of that happened.

Neither does anybody else. I applaud what VA is doing. I hope NC does the same even if it "hurts" ECU's athletic department. I'm beyond the point of giving a ****. Students already pay enough without any athletics fees.

While I don't totally disagree with you on this because my son's tuition went up 30% during his 1st and 3rd year at Western and then increased his Sr year.

But there's another way to look at it....

winning sports attract more students to a school. So with more students that is new money coming in each year on their backs. If not for that increase enrollment the increase in cost to each student would probably still increase. So most schools look at the student fees as a investment that pays off by actually, well possibly, saving them money.

With out increase enrollment student will pay just as much if not more..the increase will just go some place else in the school.

(07-07-2017 12:05 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 11:40 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

UVA and VT supported themselves via alumni and community participation. They don't need the fees. Before you think about bringing up BCS and ESPN consider this. They were already WAY, WAY ahead before any of that happened.

Neither does anybody else. I applaud what VA is doing. I hope NC does the same even if it "hurts" ECU's athletic department. I'm beyond the point of giving a ****. Students already pay enough without any athletics fees.

While I don't totally disagree with you on this because my son's tuition went up 30% during his 1st and 3rd year at Western and then increased his Sr year.

But there's another way to look at it....

winning sports attract more students to a school. So with more students that is new money coming in each year on their backs. If not for that increase enrollment the increase in cost to each student would probably still increase. So most schools look at the student fees as a investment that pays off by actually, well possibly, saving them money.

With out increase enrollment student will pay just as much if not more..the increase will just go some place else in the school.

How many high school students grow up giving a rip about G5 athletics? Not too many. That theory primarily applies to P5 programs. Even then it's typically the flagships. If a kid doesn't get into Flagship U or Landgrant U I seriously doubt many give a crap after that. If you have any doubt just look at how many people care about G5 after graduation, not many.

(07-07-2017 12:25 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:05 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 11:40 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

UVA and VT supported themselves via alumni and community participation. They don't need the fees. Before you think about bringing up BCS and ESPN consider this. They were already WAY, WAY ahead before any of that happened.

Neither does anybody else. I applaud what VA is doing. I hope NC does the same even if it "hurts" ECU's athletic department. I'm beyond the point of giving a ****. Students already pay enough without any athletics fees.

While I don't totally disagree with you on this because my son's tuition went up 30% during his 1st and 3rd year at Western and then increased his Sr year.

But there's another way to look at it....

winning sports attract more students to a school. So with more students that is new money coming in each year on their backs. If not for that increase enrollment the increase in cost to each student would probably still increase. So most schools look at the student fees as a investment that pays off by actually, well possibly, saving them money.

With out increase enrollment student will pay just as much if not more..the increase will just go some place else in the school.

How many high school students grow up giving a rip about G5 athletics? Not too many. That theory primarily applies to P5 programs. Even then it's typically the flagships. If a kid doesn't get into Flagship U or Landgrant U I seriously doubt many give a crap after that. If you have any doubt just look at how many people care about G5 after graduation, not many.

All I know is Western has done studies on this and it showed increased enrollment. Also in I believe 1996 Western was one vote away from dropping football all together. Then a professor did the study that showed the value of playing football (losing football) was greater to the school than the amount spent on it.

Western had record number of student for I believe 5 years following the announced move from FCS TO BCS. The numbers before 2007 were almost flat-lined the previous few years. Last year was a decrease in enrollment ...tuition is also at a record high. So money does play a factor and we are seeing the breaking point.

Western has hit a ceiling and time to tighten their belts on spending. So as I said I don't totally disagree with you. But I also see a value in the fees. Fees voted on by the students at Western.

(07-07-2017 12:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Fees voted on by the students at Western.

Do they vote for them every year? Do they ALL vote?

(07-07-2017 12:49 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 12:48 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  Fees voted on by the students at Western.

Do they vote for them every year? Do they ALL vote?

No.

But just like all tuition money the student KNOW how much student fees are costing them. So they do have choices just we all make in life. My guess those that choose to attend Western see a value in it even with the student fees.

Not all students enjoy sports but even less take part in the clubs and other non popular courses at a school. All of that cost goes into the tuition each student pays. So that's no different than those that don't value their fees for sports

(07-07-2017 11:13 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  No, the rule change 3-4yrs ago referenced STUDENT ATHLETIC FEES and had nothing to do with athletic facilities. Prior to then a school could NOT charge a student athletic fee but can at this time if approved by student vote.

The student FACILITY ENHANCEMENT FEE, in effect for next 21yrs or so, IS reflected in the current annual operating budget. The annual payment on the bonds of about $600,000 is taken from the facility enhancement fee kitty and listed as an expense on Techs statement of revenue expenses.

While called an "athletic fee" the rule change 3-4 years ago would count dollar for dollar against the allowed transfer limit from the general fund. So in principle it's not an athletic fee at all. Other schools in other states are allowed to transfer monies on top of imposed student fees, while Louisiana schools essentially can only have x amount from transfer and student fees combined.

I agree that the passing of an "athletic fee" at any school would be difficult right now in La. With the economic and political climate holding colleges for ransom in an effort to extort more money from the citizens a concerted effort in opposition to a fee would most likely be successful. Nothing against a particular school, but with uncertainty in regards to TOPS and with tuition going up annually to make up for government shortfalls it is a lot to ask of students.

(07-07-2017 11:13 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  No, the rule change 3-4yrs ago referenced STUDENT ATHLETIC FEES and had nothing to do with athletic facilities. Prior to then a school could NOT charge a student athletic fee but can at this time if approved by student vote.

You are correct about the rule change.

The change in policy was adopted unanimously April 25, 2012 according to the BOR meeting minutes. I had to dig there to find it.

(07-07-2017 11:40 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 06:21 AM)monarx Wrote:  

(07-07-2017 05:11 AM)GreenSteve Wrote:  How to do more — or as much — with less

Louisiana Tech athletics director Tommy McClelland said in an interview that athletics departments outside the Power Five conferences recognize they need to do what they can to increase revenue. Their universities — and, in some cases, state governments — are continuing to add to the amounts of money they give to athletics programs from their general funds or through student fees. But McClelland says it’s also a matter of priorities, and he insists that there is no sense of losing ground competitively even though his school spent less on sports in 2016 than any public school in Conference USA, one of the so-called Group of Five conferences.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co...449433001/

Not the case in VA where athletics is funded primarily through fees and donations and now the state is capping fees. Our state govt takes the attitude that if UVA and VT have everything they want then all is good.

UVA and VT supported themselves via alumni and community participation. They don't need the fees. Before you think about bringing up BCS and ESPN consider this. They were already WAY, WAY ahead before any of that happened.

Neither does anybody else. I applaud what VA is doing. I hope NC does the same even if it "hurts" ECU's athletic department. I'm beyond the point of giving a ****. Students already pay enough without any athletics fees.

I wonder why I never hear anyone suggesting that we eliminate high school sports. If the goal is simply to reduce costs associated with athletics let's start there.