These stats are now beaten to death and beyond on these boards over and over but to put things into perspective here are the fees posted by State Council of Higher Education in Virginia.




https://www.schev.edu/index/tuition-aid/...ition-fees

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)TTT Wrote:  Also of note: I had no idea La Tech doesn't charge any student fees...? Is that a state law thingy?

It's a complicated story that changed within the last 10 years.

Schools used to be prohibited from this. Now, the school can have a "self-assessed" student fee for athletics, but this change only came about through interpretation from the Regents, and not an actual change in state law.

The student government authority has to bring the fee up for a vote and get a majority of students to pass it.

(07-18-2019 02:04 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)TTT Wrote:  Also of note: I had no idea La Tech doesn't charge any student fees...? Is that a state law thingy?

It's a complicated story that changed within the last 10 years.

Schools used to be prohibited from this. Now, the school can have a "self-assessed" student fee for athletics, but this change only came about through interpretation from the Regents, and not an actual change in state law.

The student government authority has to bring the fee up for a vote and get a majority of students to pass it.

There are hard dollar caps for state money allowed to be transferred to athletics that are imposed by the State Board of Regents on each university. Those are determined by formula based on enrollment and NCAA membership classification. In additional all tuition covered by athletic scholarships is fully recoverable as part of the allowed state transfer.

Under the old rule interpretation, all student athletics fees charged to go directly to the annual athletics budget reduced the amount of money dollar for dollar that could be transferred directly to athletics from state money. The rationale behind that is that any money paid in tuition and fees by students becomes state money as soon as it is paid in. That made it self-defeating to even charge student athletic fees that would go toward the yearly athletics budget.

Student athletic fees voted on by students are now exempted from the dollar-for-dollar subtraction from the formula calculated amount. Athletic fees imposed without student body approval are still subject to subtraction from the formula amount.

As an aside, NCAA agreed-upon procedures reporting requirements have always limited the amount of revenue that should be reported each year to amounts included in the annual athletics budget. Any revenue and expenses related to capital projects is reported separately from annual revenue and expenses on the NCAA reports. Louisiana's rules are consistent with this NCAA reporting requirement in that there is no restriction on student fees imposed for capital projects related to athletics since those are not to be included in the annual athletics budget figures.

(07-20-2019 05:43 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:04 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)TTT Wrote:  Also of note: I had no idea La Tech doesn't charge any student fees...? Is that a state law thingy?

It's a complicated story that changed within the last 10 years.

Schools used to be prohibited from this. Now, the school can have a "self-assessed" student fee for athletics, but this change only came about through interpretation from the Regents, and not an actual change in state law.

The student government authority has to bring the fee up for a vote and get a majority of students to pass it.

There are hard dollar caps for state money allowed to be transferred to athletics that are imposed by the State Board of Regents on each university. Those are determined by formula based on enrollment and NCAA membership classification. In additional all tuition covered by athletic scholarships is fully recoverable as part of the allowed state transfer.

Under the old rule interpretation, all student athletics fees charged to go directly to the annual athletics budget reduced the amount of money dollar for dollar that could be transferred directly to athletics from state money. The rationale behind that is that any money paid in tuition and fees by students becomes state money as soon as it is paid in. That made it self-defeating to even charge student athletic fees that would go toward the yearly athletics budget.

Student athletic fees voted on by students are now exempted from the dollar-for-dollar subtraction from the formula calculated amount. Athletic fees imposed without student body approval are still subject to subtraction from the formula amount.

As an aside, NCAA agreed-upon procedures reporting requirements have always limited the amount of revenue that should be reported each year to amounts included in the annual athletics budget. Any revenue and expenses related to capital projects is reported separately from annual revenue and expenses on the NCAA reports. Louisiana's rules are consistent with this NCAA reporting requirement in that there is no restriction on student fees imposed for capital projects related to athletics since those are not to be included in the annual athletics budget figures.

A simple answer to the question about La Tech student athletic fees is the state (Regents) disallowed those until 3-4yr ago. The rule was changed where a school CAN charge a fee now however ONLY if the proposal is voted on and approved by the students. La Tech students have not voted on one, yes or no, therefore are charged no athletic fees.

(07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.

A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html

FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour

Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.

not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

Like others said. Look at the 8% gov support compared to the other large metro schools. That's why. But as others have said we're below 60% and well on our way to below 55%.

(07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.

A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html

FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour

Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.

not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.

Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.

$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.

(07-21-2019 08:57 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.

A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html

FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour

Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.

not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.

Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.

$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.

1. I used those two examples because I am familiar with the laws in Texas that prevent any state funds from being used in athletics thus the only possible source of other institutional funds is student tuition which means that money is off the backs of students

in some states they do allow state funds for athletics so that money might not come off of the backs of students exclusively, it comes off of all tax payers.....and some would say if the money was not going to athletics it would go to academics, but that is not necessarily true because the state might allocate zero additional academic dollars if there is not some athletic project to support (or they could allocate the money for academics, but no way of knowing that)

2. your cost of living comparison is meaningless because students at universities are not usually from that immediate area unless it is a very small regional school

and students at those universities generally do not reflect the economics of that immediate area (again unless it is a very small regional school or a community college)

so the idea that a cost of living difference between two areas somehow makes up for a larger or smaller tuition burden on students from athletics is quite the stretch

plus you most likely have any effect exactly backwards.....a higher COST OF LIVING means just that....IT COST MORE TO LIVE THERE and that does not always mean you have higher wages to support that cost of living especially in a college town where pay (especially for college student jobs) can be depressed because of an abundance of labor

so having a higher cost of athletics on your tuition in an area with a higher COST OF LIVING (which is not the same as a higher income level at all) means that the increased tuition burden from athletics hits you harder because you are already paying MORE to live in an area

if you were to include INCOME LEVEL in that analysis that might help, but again that is making the often false assumption that students drawn in from all areas of a state and region are at the same income level as the place where they decided to go to school.....because some might not be working at all and many will reflect much more of their own personal and family income level which would have nothing to do with an income level in the place where they go to school

(07-21-2019 10:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 08:57 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.

A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html

FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour

Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.

not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.

Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.

$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.

1. I used those two examples because I am familiar with the laws in Texas that prevent any state funds from being used in athletics thus the only possible source of other institutional funds is student tuition which means that money is off the backs of students

in some states they do allow state funds for athletics so that money might not come off of the backs of students exclusively, it comes off of all tax payers.....and some would say if the money was not going to athletics it would go to academics, but that is not necessarily true because the state might allocate zero additional academic dollars if there is not some athletic project to support (or they could allocate the money for academics, but no way of knowing that)

2. your cost of living comparison is meaningless because students at universities are not usually from that immediate area unless it is a very small regional school

and students at those universities generally do not reflect the economics of that immediate area (again unless it is a very small regional school or a community college)

so the idea that a cost of living difference between two areas somehow makes up for a larger or smaller tuition burden on students from athletics is quite the stretch

plus you most likely have any effect exactly backwards.....a higher COST OF LIVING means just that....IT COST MORE TO LIVE THERE and that does not always mean you have higher wages to support that cost of living especially in a college town where pay (especially for college student jobs) can be depressed because of an abundance of labor

so having a higher cost of athletics on your tuition in an area with a higher COST OF LIVING (which is not the same as a higher income level at all) means that the increased tuition burden from athletics hits you harder because you are already paying MORE to live in an area

if you were to include INCOME LEVEL in that analysis that might help, but again that is making the often false assumption that students drawn in from all areas of a state and region are at the same income level as the place where they decided to go to school.....because some might not be working at all and many will reflect much more of their own personal and family income level which would have nothing to do with an income level in the place where they go to school

FIU and FAU - two of the three largest schools in the C-USA are commuter schools. A large percentage of our students ARE from the area.

(07-20-2019 02:27 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:43 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:04 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)TTT Wrote:  Also of note: I had no idea La Tech doesn't charge any student fees...? Is that a state law thingy?

It's a complicated story that changed within the last 10 years.

Schools used to be prohibited from this. Now, the school can have a "self-assessed" student fee for athletics, but this change only came about through interpretation from the Regents, and not an actual change in state law.

The student government authority has to bring the fee up for a vote and get a majority of students to pass it.

There are hard dollar caps for state money allowed to be transferred to athletics that are imposed by the State Board of Regents on each university. Those are determined by formula based on enrollment and NCAA membership classification. In additional all tuition covered by athletic scholarships is fully recoverable as part of the allowed state transfer.

Under the old rule interpretation, all student athletics fees charged to go directly to the annual athletics budget reduced the amount of money dollar for dollar that could be transferred directly to athletics from state money. The rationale behind that is that any money paid in tuition and fees by students becomes state money as soon as it is paid in. That made it self-defeating to even charge student athletic fees that would go toward the yearly athletics budget.

Student athletic fees voted on by students are now exempted from the dollar-for-dollar subtraction from the formula calculated amount. Athletic fees imposed without student body approval are still subject to subtraction from the formula amount.

As an aside, NCAA agreed-upon procedures reporting requirements have always limited the amount of revenue that should be reported each year to amounts included in the annual athletics budget. Any revenue and expenses related to capital projects is reported separately from annual revenue and expenses on the NCAA reports. Louisiana's rules are consistent with this NCAA reporting requirement in that there is no restriction on student fees imposed for capital projects related to athletics since those are not to be included in the annual athletics budget figures.

A simple answer to the question about La Tech student athletic fees is the state (Regents) disallowed those until 3-4yr ago. The rule was changed where a school CAN charge a fee now however ONLY if the proposal is voted on and approved by the students. La Tech students have not voted on one, yes or no, therefore are charged no athletic fees.

That simple answer by EE incorrectly states how the old rules worked.

Student fees were allowed by the Board of Regents prior to 3-4 years ago. But it didn't matter whether they were approved by the student body or not. Those collected student fees reduced the allowed transfer of other university state money to athletics dollar-for-dollar as I stated before. The Board of Regents rule change was only to exempt student body-approved fee collections from the dollar-for dollar reduction from the calculated formula maximum amounts.

(07-21-2019 12:40 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 08:57 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.

A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html

FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour

Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.

not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.

Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.

$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.

1. I used those two examples because I am familiar with the laws in Texas that prevent any state funds from being used in athletics thus the only possible source of other institutional funds is student tuition which means that money is off the backs of students

in some states they do allow state funds for athletics so that money might not come off of the backs of students exclusively, it comes off of all tax payers.....and some would say if the money was not going to athletics it would go to academics, but that is not necessarily true because the state might allocate zero additional academic dollars if there is not some athletic project to support (or they could allocate the money for academics, but no way of knowing that)

2. your cost of living comparison is meaningless because students at universities are not usually from that immediate area unless it is a very small regional school

and students at those universities generally do not reflect the economics of that immediate area (again unless it is a very small regional school or a community college)

so the idea that a cost of living difference between two areas somehow makes up for a larger or smaller tuition burden on students from athletics is quite the stretch

plus you most likely have any effect exactly backwards.....a higher COST OF LIVING means just that....IT COST MORE TO LIVE THERE and that does not always mean you have higher wages to support that cost of living especially in a college town where pay (especially for college student jobs) can be depressed because of an abundance of labor

so having a higher cost of athletics on your tuition in an area with a higher COST OF LIVING (which is not the same as a higher income level at all) means that the increased tuition burden from athletics hits you harder because you are already paying MORE to live in an area

if you were to include INCOME LEVEL in that analysis that might help, but again that is making the often false assumption that students drawn in from all areas of a state and region are at the same income level as the place where they decided to go to school.....because some might not be working at all and many will reflect much more of their own personal and family income level which would have nothing to do with an income level in the place where they go to school

FIU and FAU - two of the three largest schools in the C-USA are commuter schools. A large percentage of our students ARE from the area.

may or may not be true for many of the other CUSA schools

at the end of the day the easiest and most direct comparison of what an athletics program cost students is to compare the money that you know comes right out of the students pockets

I do not keep up with what each state has in the way of allowed state support for athletics, but in Texas 100% of student fees and 100% of other institutional support is coming off the backs of students

and since cost of living in an area and income level in an area does not remotely give a reflection of what a college student in that area has or does not have in terms of resources and income the best comparison is what cost comes directly our of their pocket per student

you do not know if a student at a school in an area with a very high income level stayed home to go to school because their parents have a kick ass house, fill their bank account with cash (after they pay their tuition), and then leave town for 4 months at a time so he can have a party every night of the week or if that student could not afford to go as far away from home as possible to the popular party school and instead stays at home in their moms apartment and works 35 hours a week

but you can get an idea of what athletics cost each of them (more so if you know how each state finds or does not fund athletics) by adding the numbers up

and really trying to argue that 45% of an athletics budget coming off the backs of students is better than 64% (when both are horrible) is a pretty pointless exercise

but trying to just count student fees when it is pretty easy to know in many cases (where state law is clear) is also pointless especially when it is clear that a great deal more than that comes off of the backs of students

(07-21-2019 01:56 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 12:40 PM)goliath74 Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 10:47 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 08:57 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.

Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.

$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.

1. I used those two examples because I am familiar with the laws in Texas that prevent any state funds from being used in athletics thus the only possible source of other institutional funds is student tuition which means that money is off the backs of students

in some states they do allow state funds for athletics so that money might not come off of the backs of students exclusively, it comes off of all tax payers.....and some would say if the money was not going to athletics it would go to academics, but that is not necessarily true because the state might allocate zero additional academic dollars if there is not some athletic project to support (or they could allocate the money for academics, but no way of knowing that)

2. your cost of living comparison is meaningless because students at universities are not usually from that immediate area unless it is a very small regional school

and students at those universities generally do not reflect the economics of that immediate area (again unless it is a very small regional school or a community college)

so the idea that a cost of living difference between two areas somehow makes up for a larger or smaller tuition burden on students from athletics is quite the stretch

plus you most likely have any effect exactly backwards.....a higher COST OF LIVING means just that....IT COST MORE TO LIVE THERE and that does not always mean you have higher wages to support that cost of living especially in a college town where pay (especially for college student jobs) can be depressed because of an abundance of labor

so having a higher cost of athletics on your tuition in an area with a higher COST OF LIVING (which is not the same as a higher income level at all) means that the increased tuition burden from athletics hits you harder because you are already paying MORE to live in an area

if you were to include INCOME LEVEL in that analysis that might help, but again that is making the often false assumption that students drawn in from all areas of a state and region are at the same income level as the place where they decided to go to school.....because some might not be working at all and many will reflect much more of their own personal and family income level which would have nothing to do with an income level in the place where they go to school

FIU and FAU - two of the three largest schools in the C-USA are commuter schools. A large percentage of our students ARE from the area.

may or may not be true for many of the other CUSA schools

at the end of the day the easiest and most direct comparison of what an athletics program cost students is to compare the money that you know comes right out of the students pockets

I do not keep up with what each state has in the way of allowed state support for athletics, but in Texas 100% of student fees and 100% of other institutional support is coming off the backs of students

and since cost of living in an area and income level in an area does not remotely give a reflection of what a college student in that area has or does not have in terms of resources and income the best comparison is what cost comes directly our of their pocket per student

you do not know if a student at a school in an area with a very high income level stayed home to go to school because their parents have a kick ass house, fill their bank account with cash (after they pay their tuition), and then leave town for 4 months at a time so he can have a party every night of the week or if that student could not afford to go as far away from home as possible to the popular party school and instead stays at home in their moms apartment and works 35 hours a week

but you can get an idea of what athletics cost each of them (more so if you know how each state finds or does not fund athletics) by adding the numbers up

and really trying to argue that 45% of an athletics budget coming off the backs of students is better than 64% (when both are horrible) is a pretty pointless exercise

but trying to just count student fees when it is pretty easy to know in many cases (where state law is clear) is also pointless especially when it is clear that a great deal more than that comes off of the backs of students

As goliath points out, you clearly have no reference for big city commuter schools, and this conference has its fair share of those.

My point is this (which is the part of your post I agree with), pretending that a 36% budget subsidy of $8.5M on the backs of 15k students and 2.9M state residents is some how better than a 70% budget subsidy of $20M on the backs of 50k students and 21M state residents.

We all need to do better, but lets be honest, the FAU, FIU, ODU and Texas schools (big city schools essentially) are in a better position to withstand changes/regulation of student athletic fees.

(07-21-2019 03:30 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  We all need to do better, but lets be honest, the FAU, FIU, ODU and Texas schools (big city schools essentially) are in a better position to withstand changes/regulation of student athletic fees.

not necessarily true because if the regulation comes from the state (where it will most likely come from) they are going to do so based on a cost per student

thus a university making the argument that their total dollar figure is sustainable or not a big deal because it is spread over so many students will find that they have a big cut because they have cuts based on a per student basis......it will not be a cut based on % of total athletics budget or a limit to total dollar amount of subsidy so the argument can be made that more students are covering that amount

just like I explained above the legislation for north Texas state to build their stajium the restriction was on a per credit hour fee (so a per student basis essentially) it was not a legislative restriction on total dollars the university could spend (and spread it out over all those students)......it was simply a restriction to a $10 per credit hour student fee with a one time and one time only max raise of 10% without another student vote

I will agree that a larger student body generates more dollars on a total budget basis, but the issue is many schools (and especially many in Texas) are well over the legislated $20 per credit hour and the legislature is ignoring that and so when the time comes and they address that it will be a major budget hit to their budget now

we are not talking about a situation (at least in Texas) where any G5 program can say they are not charging students more than $20 per credit hour for athletics (and most WELL beyond that) so when that restriction and the violation of it is eventually addressed those programs will be losing a large chunk of their budget

we are not in a situation where any outsider (or many insiders) are looking at any G5 program especially those in the CUSA and saying they have room to transfer more academic money to athletics because the enrollment is so large that it will be a small amount of money per student

we are in a situation where people are looking at that money and looking to restrict it (and almost certainly on a per student basis)...and that means larger enrollments pretty much means larger hits to the budget

clt doesn’t consider odu a big city school.

Just because one school has a 40 million dollar budget and another has a 28 million dollar budget doesnt mean what some people think it does.

If it cost 1/3 more on scholarships at the 40 million dollar school...how is that better than the school with a 28 million dollar budget spending 6 million instead of 9 million?

If retirement or other benefits that could add up to a couple million are coming out of the 40 million budget and those retirement or other benefits for the school with a 28 million budget comes our of the general funds. How is that a benefit to the school with the higher budget?

If the 40 million budget covers all expenses to athletic buildings while the 28 billion budget, those cost are under the general fund. How is that a benefit that helps the school with the higher budget?

Everything is not apples to apples because some schools have millions and millions coming from their AD Budget while others cover those cost out of the general funds budget.

When you look at what is actually being spent on FB or BB expenses there's not a lot of difference...other than scholarship and cost of living expenses. Which is not a help to the school that has to cover more cost in those areas.

But a school with 50,000 students with a low (per-student) fee, has a lot more room to grow than a school 1/2 to 2/3 that size. Even if the smaller school has more fans spending more money on tickets and the larger school has a higher overall (dollars) in student fees or school funds.

(07-21-2019 12:48 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 02:27 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:43 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:04 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 11:18 AM)TTT Wrote:  Also of note: I had no idea La Tech doesn't charge any student fees...? Is that a state law thingy?

It's a complicated story that changed within the last 10 years.

Schools used to be prohibited from this. Now, the school can have a "self-assessed" student fee for athletics, but this change only came about through interpretation from the Regents, and not an actual change in state law.

The student government authority has to bring the fee up for a vote and get a majority of students to pass it.

There are hard dollar caps for state money allowed to be transferred to athletics that are imposed by the State Board of Regents on each university. Those are determined by formula based on enrollment and NCAA membership classification. In additional all tuition covered by athletic scholarships is fully recoverable as part of the allowed state transfer.

Under the old rule interpretation, all student athletics fees charged to go directly to the annual athletics budget reduced the amount of money dollar for dollar that could be transferred directly to athletics from state money. The rationale behind that is that any money paid in tuition and fees by students becomes state money as soon as it is paid in. That made it self-defeating to even charge student athletic fees that would go toward the yearly athletics budget.

Student athletic fees voted on by students are now exempted from the dollar-for-dollar subtraction from the formula calculated amount. Athletic fees imposed without student body approval are still subject to subtraction from the formula amount.

As an aside, NCAA agreed-upon procedures reporting requirements have always limited the amount of revenue that should be reported each year to amounts included in the annual athletics budget. Any revenue and expenses related to capital projects is reported separately from annual revenue and expenses on the NCAA reports. Louisiana's rules are consistent with this NCAA reporting requirement in that there is no restriction on student fees imposed for capital projects related to athletics since those are not to be included in the annual athletics budget figures.

A simple answer to the question about La Tech student athletic fees is the state (Regents) disallowed those until 3-4yr ago. The rule was changed where a school CAN charge a fee now however ONLY if the proposal is voted on and approved by the students. La Tech students have not voted on one, yes or no, therefore are charged no athletic fees.

That simple answer by EE incorrectly states how the old rules worked.

Student fees were allowed by the Board of Regents prior to 3-4 years ago. But it didn't matter whether they were approved by the student body or not. Those collected student fees reduced the allowed transfer of other university state money to athletics dollar-for-dollar as I stated before. The Board of Regents rule change was only to exempt student body-approved fee collections from the dollar-for dollar reduction from the calculated formula maximum amounts.

I think that while you're stating it accurately, EE is functionally correct in the instance of Tech by virtue of the fact that Tech always transfers the maximum amount of institutional support as per the cap you describe.

The rule change allows a self-assessed student fee to fund above and beyond the institutional transfer limit, as ULL does.

While it is a simplification, it's not functionally inaccurate in the case of Tech. Prior to the rule change,student fees of any kind could not be used to fund athletics ABOVE the institutional transfer limit. Now they can if they are self assessed.

(07-22-2019 11:21 AM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 12:48 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 02:27 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:43 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 02:04 PM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  It's a complicated story that changed within the last 10 years.

Schools used to be prohibited from this. Now, the school can have a "self-assessed" student fee for athletics, but this change only came about through interpretation from the Regents, and not an actual change in state law.

The student government authority has to bring the fee up for a vote and get a majority of students to pass it.

There are hard dollar caps for state money allowed to be transferred to athletics that are imposed by the State Board of Regents on each university. Those are determined by formula based on enrollment and NCAA membership classification. In additional all tuition covered by athletic scholarships is fully recoverable as part of the allowed state transfer.

Under the old rule interpretation, all student athletics fees charged to go directly to the annual athletics budget reduced the amount of money dollar for dollar that could be transferred directly to athletics from state money. The rationale behind that is that any money paid in tuition and fees by students becomes state money as soon as it is paid in. That made it self-defeating to even charge student athletic fees that would go toward the yearly athletics budget.

Student athletic fees voted on by students are now exempted from the dollar-for-dollar subtraction from the formula calculated amount. Athletic fees imposed without student body approval are still subject to subtraction from the formula amount.

As an aside, NCAA agreed-upon procedures reporting requirements have always limited the amount of revenue that should be reported each year to amounts included in the annual athletics budget. Any revenue and expenses related to capital projects is reported separately from annual revenue and expenses on the NCAA reports. Louisiana's rules are consistent with this NCAA reporting requirement in that there is no restriction on student fees imposed for capital projects related to athletics since those are not to be included in the annual athletics budget figures.

A simple answer to the question about La Tech student athletic fees is the state (Regents) disallowed those until 3-4yr ago. The rule was changed where a school CAN charge a fee now however ONLY if the proposal is voted on and approved by the students. La Tech students have not voted on one, yes or no, therefore are charged no athletic fees.

That simple answer by EE incorrectly states how the old rules worked.

Student fees were allowed by the Board of Regents prior to 3-4 years ago. But it didn't matter whether they were approved by the student body or not. Those collected student fees reduced the allowed transfer of other university state money to athletics dollar-for-dollar as I stated before. The Board of Regents rule change was only to exempt student body-approved fee collections from the dollar-for dollar reduction from the calculated formula maximum amounts.

I think that while you're stating it accurately, EE is functionally correct in the instance of Tech by virtue of the fact that Tech always transfers the maximum amount of institutional support as per the cap you describe.

The rule change allows a self-assessed student fee to fund above and beyond the institutional transfer limit, as ULL does.

While it is a simplification, it's not functionally inaccurate in the case of Tech. Prior to the rule change,student fees of any kind could not be used to fund athletics ABOVE the institutional transfer limit. Now they can if they are self assessed.

What it boils down to even more simply is that Tech along with the other state schools in the U of La System HAS NOT imposed a student athletic fee past or present however can do so at this time if approved by the students. This is not now nor ever a "law" but ruling by the regents. There were isolated situations where minor fees were tacked on for a limited time at some places but insignificant. The institutional transfers mentioned above came right out of the schools general funds which included no athletic fees.

No one can show any school fee schedules that identify any student athletic fee. Now, if one wants to say the school includes a fee in in tuition I guess they can do so but none of it is identified or tagged as athletic fees. Tech transferred over $10mil out of general fund to athletic dept but NONE of that was athletic fees because none was ever collected. Tech students did approve a facility enhancement fee 4-5yrs ago to pay off the 25yr bonded debt incurred in building their end zone project but this was not an athletic fee.

(07-21-2019 05:51 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 03:30 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  We all need to do better, but lets be honest, the FAU, FIU, ODU and Texas schools (big city schools essentially) are in a better position to withstand changes/regulation of student athletic fees.

not necessarily true because if the regulation comes from the state (where it will most likely come from) they are going to do so based on a cost per student

thus a university making the argument that their total dollar figure is sustainable or not a big deal because it is spread over so many students will find that they have a big cut because they have cuts based on a per student basis......it will not be a cut based on % of total athletics budget or a limit to total dollar amount of subsidy so the argument can be made that more students are covering that amount

just like I explained above the legislation for north Texas state to build their stajium the restriction was on a per credit hour fee (so a per student basis essentially) it was not a legislative restriction on total dollars the university could spend (and spread it out over all those students)......it was simply a restriction to a $10 per credit hour student fee with a one time and one time only max raise of 10% without another student vote

I will agree that a larger student body generates more dollars on a total budget basis, but the issue is many schools (and especially many in Texas) are well over the legislated $20 per credit hour and the legislature is ignoring that and so when the time comes and they address that it will be a major budget hit to their budget now

we are not talking about a situation (at least in Texas) where any G5 program can say they are not charging students more than $20 per credit hour for athletics (and most WELL beyond that) so when that restriction and the violation of it is eventually addressed those programs will be losing a large chunk of their budget

we are not in a situation where any outsider (or many insiders) are looking at any G5 program especially those in the CUSA and saying they have room to transfer more academic money to athletics because the enrollment is so large that it will be a small amount of money per student

we are in a situation where people are looking at that money and looking to restrict it (and almost certainly on a per student basis)...and that means larger enrollments pretty much means larger hits to the budget

Virginia and Georgia legislatures reject your analysis.

(07-22-2019 04:29 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(07-22-2019 11:21 AM)LaTechBanjo Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 12:48 PM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 02:27 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:43 AM)FriscoDawg Wrote:  There are hard dollar caps for state money allowed to be transferred to athletics that are imposed by the State Board of Regents on each university. Those are determined by formula based on enrollment and NCAA membership classification. In additional all tuition covered by athletic scholarships is fully recoverable as part of the allowed state transfer.

Under the old rule interpretation, all student athletics fees charged to go directly to the annual athletics budget reduced the amount of money dollar for dollar that could be transferred directly to athletics from state money. The rationale behind that is that any money paid in tuition and fees by students becomes state money as soon as it is paid in. That made it self-defeating to even charge student athletic fees that would go toward the yearly athletics budget.

Student athletic fees voted on by students are now exempted from the dollar-for-dollar subtraction from the formula calculated amount. Athletic fees imposed without student body approval are still subject to subtraction from the formula amount.

As an aside, NCAA agreed-upon procedures reporting requirements have always limited the amount of revenue that should be reported each year to amounts included in the annual athletics budget. Any revenue and expenses related to capital projects is reported separately from annual revenue and expenses on the NCAA reports. Louisiana's rules are consistent with this NCAA reporting requirement in that there is no restriction on student fees imposed for capital projects related to athletics since those are not to be included in the annual athletics budget figures.

A simple answer to the question about La Tech student athletic fees is the state (Regents) disallowed those until 3-4yr ago. The rule was changed where a school CAN charge a fee now however ONLY if the proposal is voted on and approved by the students. La Tech students have not voted on one, yes or no, therefore are charged no athletic fees.

That simple answer by EE incorrectly states how the old rules worked.

Student fees were allowed by the Board of Regents prior to 3-4 years ago. But it didn't matter whether they were approved by the student body or not. Those collected student fees reduced the allowed transfer of other university state money to athletics dollar-for-dollar as I stated before. The Board of Regents rule change was only to exempt student body-approved fee collections from the dollar-for dollar reduction from the calculated formula maximum amounts.

I think that while you're stating it accurately, EE is functionally correct in the instance of Tech by virtue of the fact that Tech always transfers the maximum amount of institutional support as per the cap you describe.

The rule change allows a self-assessed student fee to fund above and beyond the institutional transfer limit, as ULL does.

While it is a simplification, it's not functionally inaccurate in the case of Tech. Prior to the rule change,student fees of any kind could not be used to fund athletics ABOVE the institutional transfer limit. Now they can if they are self assessed.

What it boils down to even more simply is that Tech along with the other state schools in the U of La System HAS NOT imposed a student athletic fee past or present however can do so at this time if approved by the students. This is not now nor ever a "law" but ruling by the regents. There were isolated situations where minor fees were tacked on for a limited time at some places but insignificant. The institutional transfers mentioned above came right out of the schools general funds which included no athletic fees.

No one can show any school fee schedules that identify any student athletic fee. Now, if one wants to say the school includes a fee in in tuition I guess they can do so but none of it is identified or tagged as athletic fees. Tech transferred over $10mil out of general fund to athletic dept but NONE of that was athletic fees because none was ever collected. Tech students did approve a facility enhancement fee 4-5yrs ago to pay off the 25yr bonded debt incurred in building their end zone project but this was not an athletic fee.

I think ULL’s students did one a couple years ago.

(07-21-2019 08:57 AM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  

(07-21-2019 02:23 AM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(07-18-2019 12:19 PM)FIU4Ever Wrote:  FIU has 54k students, USM has 12k students. Of course we will have more in student athletic pot than y'all. If every program charged student the same, we would still collect more overall for student fees.

A better gauge is the burden on individual students, like this thread on Schools Athletic Fees.
https://csnbbs.com/thread-861596.html

FIU is $16.10 per credit hour
UAB is $25 football specific per semester + the athletic fees
UTSA is $20 per credit hour
ODU is $48.20 per credit hour
UNT is $16.25 per credit hour

Y'all can fill in the rest but from this I see UNT & FIU being the least burdensome to each student.

not really a meaningful comparison

in the case of north Texas state and UTSA the academic side support outside of student fees still comes off the backs of students because state funds cannot be used so the only other available money is just general tuition

so in the case of north Texas state from that graph "institutional/government support" is $10 million just like the student fees = $10 million so you can double that student burden to $32.50

in the case of UTSA "institutional/government support" is $5 million vs $12 million for student fees to add another 41% to theirs or $28 dollars

because that is not "government support" it is just strait tuition transfers or "institutional" support

True, but you also need to do that for all the others as well. Take USM for instance.

Budget of about $24M, but 25% student fees and 11% institutional support. Your algorithm counts both as student support so that is 36% of $24M = $8.64M. USM has 14,554 students so around $25 dollars. If USM budget is more than $24M then the true student fee per student is higher and much closer to what you calculated for UTSA.

$25 to $28 to $32 seems meaningful. Throw in cost of living where these schools reside and the $25 is probably more significant and burdensome than the $32 of Denton.

Are you implying that the CoL in Denton is less burdensome than Hattiesburg?