Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
G5 has no regrets
Author Message
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #41
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 09:29 AM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2018 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #42
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 01:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 01:26 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm OK with reasonable athletic fees, it is after all an amenity but there has to be a limit. $100 a semester not a big deal. $300? That's pushing it. $500? Come on.

$500? Dream on.

"A few examples help to illustrate the point. Public schools playing at the Division II level without a football program have the lowest costs. (All costs are measured in 2013 dollars.) With 1,000 students, their per-student costs for athletics are about $2,500. If they have more than 3,000 students, their per-student costs fall to around $1,000."

"For public schools playing FBS football, the costs are much higher, but so too are the numbers of students. At 10,000 students the per-student costs are around $4,400; at 20,000 students the costs are about $2,600; and for a truly large state school with 40,000 students, the costs fall to just over $1,500"

This was 2013 costs. Going out on a very short limb and predicting they haven't gone down.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2015/12/...ge-sports/

Thats the athletic budget divided by the number of students. Its doesnt count offsetting revenue from ticket sales, donations, parking, concessions, conference revenue distributions, sponsorships, naming rights, ect. At the D3, D2, and FCS level--there probably isnt much difference between the athletic budget and the net cost to the students. At the FBS level there is a significant revenue offset.

Yes, it doesn't matter if school X spends "$12,000 per student" on athletics, if the athletics department is paying for all that with revenue it generates itself, because the actual out of pocket cost to the student is zero. That's what matters, as well as indirect costs to the student, when in addition to a direct fee, the university transfers money from the academic 'side' to the athletic side.

That said, ticket sales and donations very widely at the FBS level. E.g, at Oklahoma last year, ticket sales were $40 million. At UCF, they were $4m. At UMass, they were $1m.

At that point, the difference with FCS can't be much more than trivial, even if it is zero.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 09:24 AM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2018 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,562
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 625
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #43
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 01:26 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm OK with reasonable athletic fees, it is after all an amenity but there has to be a limit. $100 a semester not a big deal. $300? That's pushing it. $500? Come on.

$500? Dream on.

"A few examples help to illustrate the point. Public schools playing at the Division II level without a football program have the lowest costs. (All costs are measured in 2013 dollars.) With 1,000 students, their per-student costs for athletics are about $2,500. If they have more than 3,000 students, their per-student costs fall to around $1,000."

"For public schools playing FBS football, the costs are much higher, but so too are the numbers of students. At 10,000 students the per-student costs are around $4,400; at 20,000 students the costs are about $2,600; and for a truly large state school with 40,000 students, the costs fall to just over $1,500"

This was 2013 costs. Going out on a very short limb and predicting they haven't gone down.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2015/12/...ge-sports/

Arkansas State is charging $285 a semester. Had to pay it for the last time in the Fall for my daughter. Highest in Arkansas is $315 a semester.

That is pushing the limits of reasonable.
01-23-2018 09:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,562
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 625
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #44
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 01:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm OK with reasonable athletic fees, it is after all an amenity but there has to be a limit. $100 a semester not a big deal. $300? That's pushing it. $500? Come on.

Many G5 schools charge more than 500 a year per student. Just for athletics. And that's before the hidden charges (such as lost tuition due to scholarships, instate waivers for tuition, etc.) are taken into account.

Some schools charge more than a grand a year per student.

Its getting out of hand. Asking a 30 year old working mom who is getting a nursing degree at night to borrow 4 grand to get a BS in Nursing so the school can pay a million bucks to a head football coach and 250,000 to a couple of Assistant Coaches is insane.

And while revenues have been flat or declining at many schools, some schools continue to pour ever increasing amounts of money into athletics (mainly football) year, after year, after year, after year....with little accountability to the people paying for it.

BTW, Arkansas State isn't one of the worst offenders. Not really calling out Arkansas State.

I know because I've been paying AState's fees but as a parent of a now former student, I think when you cross into charging students nearly $100 a month, you've crossed the line into the students subsidizing the fans who aren't carrying the department's cost.

I'm not opposed to fees, they provide budgeting stability to protect you when you have a down year or there is some unexpected expense or lost revenue.
01-23-2018 09:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #45
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 09:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 01:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm OK with reasonable athletic fees, it is after all an amenity but there has to be a limit. $100 a semester not a big deal. $300? That's pushing it. $500? Come on.

Many G5 schools charge more than 500 a year per student. Just for athletics. And that's before the hidden charges (such as lost tuition due to scholarships, instate waivers for tuition, etc.) are taken into account.

Some schools charge more than a grand a year per student.

Its getting out of hand. Asking a 30 year old working mom who is getting a nursing degree at night to borrow 4 grand to get a BS in Nursing so the school can pay a million bucks to a head football coach and 250,000 to a couple of Assistant Coaches is insane.

And while revenues have been flat or declining at many schools, some schools continue to pour ever increasing amounts of money into athletics (mainly football) year, after year, after year, after year....with little accountability to the people paying for it.

BTW, Arkansas State isn't one of the worst offenders. Not really calling out Arkansas State.

I know because I've been paying AState's fees but as a parent of a now former student, I think when you cross into charging students nearly $100 a month, you've crossed the line into the students subsidizing the fans who aren't carrying the department's cost.

True, and it's not just students subsidizing fans, they are subsidizing other students as well, students who aren't really drawn from the general student population.

What I mean is, the typical student who pays an athletic fee isn't paying for an opportunity for themselves, an opportunity they could realistically avail themselves of if they wanted. Because even though sure, there are walk-ons, the bulk of student athletes aren't drawn from that general population, they are specifically recruited as athletes and if they weren't, they likely wouldn't be attending that university.

So students paying the fees aren't really paying for opportunities for themselves. They are effectively excluded from the group of students who benefit most from the fees, the athletes.

That makes an athletic fee difference from a Chemistry fee. I may be a Business major with no interest in Chemistry, but if i wanted, i could readily take Chemistry classes or be a Chemistry major. In that sense, Chemistry is a viable opportunity there for me, an option, even if i choose not to exploit it.

Joining the basketball team would be a different story.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 09:58 AM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2018 09:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,066
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #46
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.

You can say that about a lot of things. I don't go to the park all that often but it is a cool amenity to have if I ever want to have a barbecue with family and friends or play basketball.

You say stuff like that but suddenly when it becomes more fashionable or you garner an interest, things change.

And don't get me wrong, this arms race for the best sports facilities is absurd. That said, if it is voted on and agreed upon, then all need to pay for it.
01-23-2018 09:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,562
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 625
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #47
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 09:15 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 01:50 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 01:26 AM)ColKurtz Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm OK with reasonable athletic fees, it is after all an amenity but there has to be a limit. $100 a semester not a big deal. $300? That's pushing it. $500? Come on.

$500? Dream on.

"A few examples help to illustrate the point. Public schools playing at the Division II level without a football program have the lowest costs. (All costs are measured in 2013 dollars.) With 1,000 students, their per-student costs for athletics are about $2,500. If they have more than 3,000 students, their per-student costs fall to around $1,000."

"For public schools playing FBS football, the costs are much higher, but so too are the numbers of students. At 10,000 students the per-student costs are around $4,400; at 20,000 students the costs are about $2,600; and for a truly large state school with 40,000 students, the costs fall to just over $1,500"

This was 2013 costs. Going out on a very short limb and predicting they haven't gone down.

https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2015/12/...ge-sports/

Thats the athletic budget divided by the number of students. Its doesnt count offsetting revenue from ticket sales, donations, parking, concessions, conference revenue distributions, sponsorships, naming rights, ect. At the D3, D2, and FCS level--there probably isnt much difference between the athletic budget and the net cost to the students. At the FBS level there is a significant revenue offset.

Yes, it doesn't matter if school X spends "$12,000 per student" on athletics, if the athletics department is paying for all that with revenue it generates itself, because the actual out of pocket cost to the student is zero. That's what matters, as well as indirect costs to the student, when in addition to a direct fee, the university transfers money from the academic 'side' to the athletic side.

That said, ticket sales and donations very widely at the FBS level. E.g, at Oklahoma last year, ticket sales were $40 million. At UCF, they were $4m. At UMass, they were $1m.

At that point, the difference with FCS can't be much more than trivial, even if it is zero.

I snoop around on about 20 different G5 boards just to see what the topics are of fan bases.

When you see fans complaining that the students might not approve a fee increase when the students are already paying more than the athletic department generates in tickets, donations, game guarantees, and conference revenue, the fee business has jumped the shark.
01-23-2018 10:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #48
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 09:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 06:23 PM)Steve1981 Wrote:  The athletic fee argument about not going to any sports events is the same as the business major paying fees for new science labs. Almost no student utilizes ever thing they are paying fees for. It use to be a lot worst at UMass, because tuition went back to the state's general fund, but fees stayed at the university. It seemed like we were paying a fee for every new building.

It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.

You can say that about a lot of things. I don't go to the park all that often but it is a cool amenity to have if I ever want to have a barbecue with family and friends or play basketball.

You say stuff like that but suddenly when it becomes more fashionable or you garner an interest, things change.

And don't get me wrong, this arms race for the best sports facilities is absurd. That said, if it is voted on and agreed upon, then all need to pay for it.

I explained how voting on something like this is wrong to begin with (I guess if my neighbor wanted to buy a new car, but thought the rest of us should chip in, he should be able to call a neighborhood vote, and if the vote passes, i should be compelled to chip in for his car even if i voted against), and how voting is often biased by administrative action, and by the structure of universities, such that you often have juniors and seniors who won't be around to pay a fee voting in favor of it, and then the vote occurs one time and future students have to pay without having had a chance to vote for it.

Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 10:03 AM by quo vadis.)
01-23-2018 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,066
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #49
RE: G5 has no regrets
Publicly financed stadiums are fine as long as it doesn't go overboard. The spirit of it is to build something for the community to enjoy, like a basketball gym in a rec center or baseball diamond with stands. It's absurd what type of corporate welfare goes on where cities build big stadiums for mega rich owners, which only makes sense for a place trying to put itself on the map, like Oklahoma City or Salt Lake City.

But when it comes to major colleges, people should know what the deal is before going to school and if not game, no pun intended, go somewhere that doesn't emphasize major sports. It's not hard to figure out people at OU are psychotic about football.
01-23-2018 10:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 21,562
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 625
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #50
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 09:57 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:36 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 01:35 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  I'm OK with reasonable athletic fees, it is after all an amenity but there has to be a limit. $100 a semester not a big deal. $300? That's pushing it. $500? Come on.

Many G5 schools charge more than 500 a year per student. Just for athletics. And that's before the hidden charges (such as lost tuition due to scholarships, instate waivers for tuition, etc.) are taken into account.

Some schools charge more than a grand a year per student.

Its getting out of hand. Asking a 30 year old working mom who is getting a nursing degree at night to borrow 4 grand to get a BS in Nursing so the school can pay a million bucks to a head football coach and 250,000 to a couple of Assistant Coaches is insane.

And while revenues have been flat or declining at many schools, some schools continue to pour ever increasing amounts of money into athletics (mainly football) year, after year, after year, after year....with little accountability to the people paying for it.

BTW, Arkansas State isn't one of the worst offenders. Not really calling out Arkansas State.

I know because I've been paying AState's fees but as a parent of a now former student, I think when you cross into charging students nearly $100 a month, you've crossed the line into the students subsidizing the fans who aren't carrying the department's cost.

True, and it's not just students subsidizing fans, they are subsidizing other students as well, students who aren't really drawn from the general student population.

What I mean is, the typical student who pays an athletic fee isn't paying for an opportunity for themselves, an opportunity they could realistically avail themselves of if they wanted. Because even though sure, there are walk-ons, the bulk of student athletes aren't drawn from that general population, they are specifically recruited as athletes and if they weren't, they likely wouldn't be attending that university.

So students paying the fees aren't really paying for opportunities for themselves. They are effectively excluded from the group of students who benefit most from the fees, the athletes.

That makes an athletic fee difference from a Chemistry fee. I may be a Business major with no interest in Chemistry, but if i wanted, i could readily take Chemistry classes or be a Chemistry major. In that sense, Chemistry is a viable opportunity there for me, an option, even if i choose not to exploit it.

Joining the basketball team would be a different story.

But students wanting to become certified athletic trainers do utilize intercollegiate athletics to get internship hours.

At AState at least the RTV department (think it has new name now) gets real-life experience shooting games, running the boards, directing, and there are usually several video interns producing promotional videos and shooting game film. A friend's son was flown to Orlando to shoot video for AState cheer at a national competition. My nephew's wife went to Central Arkansas and got her marketing job from experience doing video for UCA athletics. A friend of my son and the son-in-law of a former co-worker used his work with the athletic department to land a job at ESPN and is currently a small market sports anchor.

Athletics also provides student opportunities in cheer, dance, and band per my son's former girlfriend it is hard to get a high school music teaching position in Arkansas if you haven't been a drum major for the marching band.

Athletics rarely provides competition slots for the general student body but do provide a number of educational opportunities.
01-23-2018 10:16 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,066
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #51
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  It's not the same, because a science lab is clearly a component of the academic mission, whereas the football team isn't. It's therefore reasonable to expect all students, even those whose major will never bring them to the Science building, to kick in for the former. But not the latter.

Football or any other intercollegiate sport is precisely the kind of peripheral/tangential activity that should be paid for with user fees.

But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.

You can say that about a lot of things. I don't go to the park all that often but it is a cool amenity to have if I ever want to have a barbecue with family and friends or play basketball.

You say stuff like that but suddenly when it becomes more fashionable or you garner an interest, things change.

And don't get me wrong, this arms race for the best sports facilities is absurd. That said, if it is voted on and agreed upon, then all need to pay for it.

I explained how voting on something like this is wrong to begin with (I guess if my neighbor wanted to buy a new car, but thought the rest of us should chip in, he should be able to call a neighborhood vote, and if the vote passes, i should be compelled to chip in for his car even if i voted against), and how voting is often biased by administrative action, and by the structure of universities, such that you often have juniors and seniors who won't be around to pay a fee voting in favor of it, and then the vote occurs one time and future students have to pay without having had a chance to vote for it.

Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.

That's a terrible analogy. A better one is whether or not your job and people at the office should chip in to buy a TV and vending machine for the break room. You may not think you will use it but you may at some point. It may well be something you have to agree to let come out of your paycheck before getting the job.

Yes, athletics can go overboard sometimes but these things are still voted upon. Life isn't always fair, which is why prospective students should know what the deal is before going to certain schools.

By the way, as I recall, back in college I had the right to waive my athletic fee and did numerous semesters, so this sort of choice actually does exist.
01-23-2018 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jdgaucho Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,629
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 31
I Root For: UCSB
Location: Big West Land
Post: #52
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-22-2018 12:35 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 12:21 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 12:07 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  I keep hearing about how much of a money drain it is to play in the G5.

I can't come up with an instance of all of the schools who have made the FCS to FBS migration the last decade where there is a regret about making the move.

App State for example much rather conference with the likes of Georgia St, AState and Troy than road conference games in a 7500 seat stadium. Its well worth the geography stretch to play bigger schools.

G5 has no regrets.

I think you mistake my point. It isn't that the decision to play FBS rather than FCS that schools need to seriously look at....its the decision to play football at all. There are FCS teams that have larger deficits than any G5 school, and many FCS programs have higher per student per year subsidies than G5 schools.

The number one determining factor on whether a school is playing football or not is if it has a stadium. If it has the stadium to play in its playing football.

Football is central to student life. Homecoming wouldn't be the same without football ect. Alumni aren't coming back to campus without a football game.

student fees aren't really that large at the mid major FB schools....most are 300-400 per student for sports with football about 1/3rd of that. It doesn't compare to the rapid increases in tuition and special fees for professional majors tacked on.

Its more when a 50 million dollar stadium investment is required to stay in the game when schools decide whether or not to pull the plug. That is more than what the mid major FB schools are willing to chew off for a non-essential expenditure.


We must not have read that memo about football being central to student life 07-coffee3
01-23-2018 12:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #53
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 10:24 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:58 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 09:08 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-22-2018 09:29 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  But it's something that brings people to colleges and amenities they enjoy. It's no different than a publicly financed sports stadium or even just a public park or pool.

If the students who show up at a football or hoops game enjoy it, then they should be the ones who pay for it, not the ones who don't.

When I was at USF, we didn't have football, but we had basketball and I loved watching our hoops team, even though we often weren't very good. I was more than happy to pay for tickets and a fee to support it, but disagreed that those students with no interest in hoops should have to as well.

And IMO, publicly financed sports stadiums for privately owned teams are dead wrong too.

You can say that about a lot of things. I don't go to the park all that often but it is a cool amenity to have if I ever want to have a barbecue with family and friends or play basketball.

You say stuff like that but suddenly when it becomes more fashionable or you garner an interest, things change.

And don't get me wrong, this arms race for the best sports facilities is absurd. That said, if it is voted on and agreed upon, then all need to pay for it.

I explained how voting on something like this is wrong to begin with (I guess if my neighbor wanted to buy a new car, but thought the rest of us should chip in, he should be able to call a neighborhood vote, and if the vote passes, i should be compelled to chip in for his car even if i voted against), and how voting is often biased by administrative action, and by the structure of universities, such that you often have juniors and seniors who won't be around to pay a fee voting in favor of it, and then the vote occurs one time and future students have to pay without having had a chance to vote for it.

Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.

That's a terrible analogy. A better one is whether or not your job and people at the office should chip in to buy a TV and vending machine for the break room. You may not think you will use it but you may at some point. It may well be something you have to agree to let come out of your paycheck before getting the job.

Yes, athletics can go overboard sometimes but these things are still voted upon. Life isn't always fair, which is why prospective students should know what the deal is before going to certain schools.

By the way, as I recall, back in college I had the right to waive my athletic fee and did numerous semesters, so this sort of choice actually does exist.

My analogy was good, it captured the issue. But yours works fine too: I've never heard of an office that would require you to chip in for a refrigerator for the break room to get or keep your job, that would be absurd, but it is a very good analogy to athletic fees - just as draconian and wrong.

Of course, if a student has the power to waive a fee, then that's legit, that's the way it should be. You were lucky, you attended a school with a non-bogus athletic funding situation.
01-23-2018 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,066
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #54
RE: G5 has no regrets
My point is that you might have to have something you weren't expecting deducted out of your paycheck at a job and sometimes it's something you inherit before even beginning work.
01-23-2018 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
McKinney Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 348
Joined: Dec 2017
Reputation: 25
I Root For: Massachusetts
Location:
Post: #55
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.

Have you seen some of the useless majors/courses that universities offer? I'd make the snarky argument that they're extraneous to the mission as well. 03-lmfao
01-23-2018 04:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,066
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #56
RE: G5 has no regrets
Even without it, there's plenty of other non-athletic entities covered in a typical college's cost of attendance that not everyone uses. There are things in this city that I never use that taxpayers have to pay for. I do go to the library but many don't and don't need to in the internet age where you can order pretty much anything or in the era of bookstores and even bigger libraries at places like universities.

It comes with the territory. There's plenty of things none of us use that we pay for. Why should you pay the school district tax if you have no kids? Why pay for public parks department if you don't ever go to the park?
(This post was last modified: 01-23-2018 06:28 PM by _C2_.)
01-23-2018 06:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Lord Stanley Offline
L'√Čtoile du Nord
*

Posts: 17,394
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 829
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #57
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 04:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.

Have you seen some of the useless majors/courses that universities offer? I'd make the snarky argument that they're extraneous to the mission as well.

Here is NIU's mission: In pursuing our vision and fulfilling our mission, the University values:

A community of diverse people, ideas, services, and scholarly endeavors in a climate of respect for the intrinsic dignity of each individual
Access for a broad spectrum of students to high quality undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs that prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive, socially conscious citizens
Engaged teaching and learning that evolves from the synergy of research, artistry, and service
Research and artistry in creating, transmitting, expanding, and applying knowledge
Student success supported through academic and co-curricular programming and activities
The application of current technology in enhancing and broadening all institutional endeavors
A system of shared governance that incorporates input from faculty, staff, and students in decision- and policy-making
Commitment to a public purpose addressing regional, state, national, and global challenges and opportunities

At least three of them can easily be assumed to have Athletics as a core mission of the University:

1. A community of diverse people, ideas, services, and scholarly endeavors in a climate of respect for the intrinsic dignity of each individual

2. Access for a broad spectrum of students to high quality undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs that prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive, socially conscious citizens

3. Student success supported through academic and co-curricular programming and activities
01-23-2018 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #58
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 06:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Even without it, there's plenty of other non-athletic entities covered in a typical college's cost of attendance that not everyone uses. There are things in this city that I never use that taxpayers have to pay for. I do go to the library but many don't and don't need to in the internet age where you can order pretty much anything or in the era of bookstores and even bigger libraries at places like universities.

It comes with the territory. There's plenty of things none of us use that we pay for. Why should you pay the school district tax if you have no kids? Why pay for public parks department if you don't ever go to the park?

You keep missing the point about 'mission'. All of those things are a valid part of the missions of those entities. Football at a university isn't, so the "well, we help pay for X even though we don't use it" doesn't wash.
01-23-2018 07:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 26,620
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 589
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #59
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 06:32 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 04:50 PM)McKinney Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 10:03 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Bottom line is that to me, athletics is extraneous to the mission, so it should be paid by user fees, not the general student population. I love football, but it's wrong for an Art major with zero interest in it to have to kick in too.

Have you seen some of the useless majors/courses that universities offer? I'd make the snarky argument that they're extraneous to the mission as well.

Here is NIU's mission: In pursuing our vision and fulfilling our mission, the University values:

A community of diverse people, ideas, services, and scholarly endeavors in a climate of respect for the intrinsic dignity of each individual
Access for a broad spectrum of students to high quality undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs that prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive, socially conscious citizens
Engaged teaching and learning that evolves from the synergy of research, artistry, and service
Research and artistry in creating, transmitting, expanding, and applying knowledge
Student success supported through academic and co-curricular programming and activities
The application of current technology in enhancing and broadening all institutional endeavors
A system of shared governance that incorporates input from faculty, staff, and students in decision- and policy-making
Commitment to a public purpose addressing regional, state, national, and global challenges and opportunities

At least three of them can easily be assumed to have Athletics as a core mission of the University:

1. A community of diverse people, ideas, services, and scholarly endeavors in a climate of respect for the intrinsic dignity of each individual

2. Access for a broad spectrum of students to high quality undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs that prepare them to be lifelong learners and productive, socially conscious citizens

3. Student success supported through academic and co-curricular programming and activities

Absolutely zero of those makes any reference, direct or indirect, to athletics at all.

Especially not intercollegiate athletics with scholarships. At best, it's an argument for physical education courses and intramural sports that all or virtually all students can participate in (and that's valid, of course).
01-23-2018 07:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
_C2_ Offline
The King of Overanalysis
*

Posts: 19,066
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 364
I Root For: Houston
Location: Zamunda
Post: #60
RE: G5 has no regrets
(01-23-2018 07:24 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(01-23-2018 06:23 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  Even without it, there's plenty of other non-athletic entities covered in a typical college's cost of attendance that not everyone uses. There are things in this city that I never use that taxpayers have to pay for. I do go to the library but many don't and don't need to in the internet age where you can order pretty much anything or in the era of bookstores and even bigger libraries at places like universities.

It comes with the territory. There's plenty of things none of us use that we pay for. Why should you pay the school district tax if you have no kids? Why pay for public parks department if you don't ever go to the park?

You keep missing the point about 'mission'. All of those things are a valid part of the missions of those entities. Football at a university isn't, so the "well, we help pay for X even though we don't use it" doesn't wash.

And you keep missing the point about what students want. They like amenities colleges have to offer, including fitness centers, housing and (high level) intercollegiate athletics. Some go to certain schools very much for it and if you didn't know that going in, it's on you. If there was enough resistance to it, enough students would vote things down.

And luckily for you, the time is indeed coming where certain schools won't be able to strain their students any farther and they'll realize they can't win this fight of trying compete with and scheme money off of the Big Boys.
01-23-2018 08:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.