This Doesn't Bode Well For Fee The Increase...

[Stan R]

They are already shelling out more tuition for this upcoming semester.

NT Daily Link

[emmitt01]

[UNTLifer]

I really don't think this, the tuition increase, should come as a surprise to anyone and I would think the people involved in the fee increase vote would take this in to consideration.

[Stan R]

Just more fuel for the anti-stadium fee camp my friend. And don't kid yourself that that group is limited to 13 or whatever people on facebook. They will be coming out of the woodwork when the fee vote makes the NT daily...

[ADLER]

This is exactly why the student athletics fees need to be structured into a long term plan instead of announcing every few years "Hey, who wants to pay additional fees?" That's a recipe' for disaster.

Please review the Carr Sports Associates UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study that was commissioned prior to the student athletics fees referendum. It defines the process for raising revenues over an extended period to get the school positioned in the competitive range with 10 other large regional schools of CUSA, the WAC, and the Sun Belt. The results are especially interesting because UTSA has almost the same amount of full-time undergrads as North Texas does on it's Denton campus.

UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study - Fiscal Issues

The study was based on 2004-2005 budgets and the report was completed in February 2006.

The result was that UTSA students overwhelmingly supported the necessary referendum to raise the athletics fee to $20 per credit hour by the middle of the next decade.

Their plan is to be competitive with the succesful teams in those mid-major leagues by 2015.

A long-term plan works much better than multiple knee-jerk reactions.

The SGA should structure the plan so it defines where North Texas will be a decade from now, not just springing another 'desparately needed' increase on the students every several years. You're right, that can't be too popular.

[MDH]

I thought this was old news? As in it was passed in the Spring and would come effective for the upcomming school year. I think they're just recirculating the news. (I didnt read this article mind you)

[NT80]

Just more fuel for the anti-stadium fee camp my friend. And don't kid yourself that that group is limited to 13 or whatever people on facebook. They will be coming out of the woodwork when the fee vote makes the NT daily...

The Daily is where the pro-fee forces need to work to win over some editors or muzzle them. They have in the past been very anti-fee, anti-athletics growth, and very pro-start-a-rally against something just to get more readers for their paper. Don't be surprised to see facts get twisted too.

[UNTflyer]

The Daily is where the pro-fee forces need to work to win over some editors or muzzle them.

I have been approached by the Daily about the Facebook page.

[Eagle1855]

I have been approached by the Daily about the Facebook page.

I went to the grocery store.

And...

[UNTflyer]

I went to the grocery store.

And...

Did you forget the milk again?

[UNTflyer]

This is exactly why the student athletics fees need to be structured into a long term plan instead of announcing every few years "Hey, who wants to pay additional fees?" That's a recipe' for disaster.

Please review the Carr Sports Associates UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study that was commissioned prior to the student athletics fees referendum. It defines the process for raising revenues over an extended period to get the school positioned in the competitive range with 10 other large regional schools of CUSA, the WAC, and the Sun Belt. The results are especially interesting because UTSA has almost the same amount of full-time undergrads as North Texas does on it's Denton campus.

UTSA Athletics Feasibility Study - Fiscal Issues

The study was based on 2004-2005 budgets and the report was completed in February 2006.

The result was that UTSA students overwhelmingly supported the necessary referendum to raise the athletics fee to $20 per credit hour by the middle of the next decade.

Their plan is to be competitive with the succesful teams in those mid-major leagues by 2015.

A long-term plan works much better than multiple knee-jerk reactions.

The SGA should structure the plan so it defines where North Texas will be a decade from now, not just springing another 'desparately needed' increase on the students every several years. You're right, that can't be too popular.

And once again, you point to a school moving up to Div I-A, and that is why they are needing to raise fees so high. But you skipped over this line in the executive summary:

The financial feasibility of this Football initiative will be primarily determined by the University's success in generating sufficient external revenues.

The report also states that a lot of the expenses will be in expanding facilities, land purchases, increased staffing, performing further studies, hiring engineers and design firms, equipment purchases, building offices and training rooms....

They do not have the infrastructure to be Div I-A, and in more ways than just a football stadium. They need to get all these things in 7 years. That is why they have to raise fees so high.

We already have an athletics village, training fields and facilities, an athletics center and offices, etc, etc.

[emmitt01]

I have been approached by the Daily about the Facebook page.

Prepare to be misquoted or have some of the things you say just plain left out.

[UNTflyer]

Prepare to be misquoted or have some of the things you say just plain left out.

Naww, the press is all about the pursuit of truth and presenting an unbiased story.

[Eagle1855]

Did you forget the milk again?

You know how forgetful I can be.

Now go on with the facebook page story... Dont make us beg it out of you. Bad enough Im nerding it out on GMG.com on a friday night. Don't take any more dignity than absolutely necessary

[UNTflyer]

You know how forgetful I can be.

Now go on with the facebook page story... Dont make us beg it out of you. Bad enough Im nerding it out on GMG.com on a friday night. Don't take any more dignity than absolutely necessary

I haven't yet talked to them. They have my number and I asked to meet face to face. I don't know when they will want to meet.

[ADLER]

And once again, you point to a school moving up to Div I-A, and that is why they are needing to raise fees so high. But you skipped over this line in the executive summary:

The report also states that a lot of the expenses will be in expanding facilities, land purchases, increased staffing, performing further studies, hiring engineers and design firms, equipment purchases, building offices and training rooms....

They do not have the infrastructure to be Div I-A, and in more ways than just a football stadium. They need to get all these things in 7 years. That is why they have to raise fees so high.

We already have an athletics village, training fields and facilities, an athletics center and offices, etc, etc.

Wow, I thought I had addressed ad nauseam the fact that Bexar County is contributing millions for the new UTSA Athletic Complex. and how the contribution was approved by voters in May of this year.

Have I really spent too little time explaining this?

UTSA already has a stadium available (and a fairly nice one at that). UTSA is having practice facilities built that will be paid for by the county (sufficient external revenues). UTSA plans to have Bowl Championship Subdivision football by 2014. UTSA intends to have a much larger budget than North Texas based on higher student athletic fees and external revenues. UTSA plans to make a push at CUSA membership if a spot was to become available.

So please stop the "We don't want to be like UTSA! We don't want to be like UTSA! We don't want to be like UTSA!" stuff.

They have formulated a long term plan while.......

[UNTflyer]

UTSA already has a stadium available (and a fairly nice one at that). UTSA is having practice facilities built that will be paid for by the county (sufficient external revenues). UTSA plans to have Bowl Championship Subdivision football by 2014. UTSA intends to have a much larger budget than North Texas based on higher student athletic fees and external revenues.

Your own link says their budget is projected to be $18 million by 2015. We're already at $15 million, and will pass their projected budget with our fee increase, not even counting for increased revenue from future enrollment. If the projections hold true and the fee we want is passed, we'll be at $23 million by 2015. They will hardly have "a much larger budget than North Texas". And this doesn't even take into account corporate sponsorship and increased donations. I think when all is said and done, our budget in 2015 could easily be around $26 million. That's on par with the USFs and UCFs of college football.

17,000 seat stadium- the link you provide says they have to do work on it.

They can wish for C-USA all they want, doesn't mean they will get it. Realignment will probably be over by the time they move up to Div I-A

Yay, they have a plan. We do too. Just because it hasn't been presented to you for approval doesn't mean it's nonexistent. You don't build 12 new facilities in 5 years without a plan.

So, no I don't want to be like UTSA. We're already on our way to being better.

Edited August 2, 2008 by UNTflyer

[NT80]

17,000 seat stadium- the link you provide says they have to do work on it.

I doubt UTSA builds any stadium unless it's for soccer. The AlamoDome is being offered by the city for free use. It would be the best stadium any mid-major had that I can think of, plus a city of one million people with no college team to support except Austin and UT. Yes, CUSA would take notice.

Edited August 2, 2008 by NT80

[UNTflyer]

I doubt UTSA builds any stadium unless it's for soccer. The AlamoDome is being offered by the city for free use. It would be the best stadium any mid-major had that I can think of, plus a city of one million people with no college team to support except Austin and UT. Yes, CUSA would take notice.

I saw that, but their plan also voices concerns about using the AlamoDome. It won't be free forever and it's far from campus.

It still doesn't change the fact that their best estimate on their budget still puts them behind UNT by 2015, despite what Adler is claiming. And they still have significant costs to face regarding purchasing land, building office space, and other sports facilities.

[ADLER]

I saw that, but their plan also voices concerns about using the AlamoDome. It won't be free forever and it's far from campus.

It still doesn't change the fact that their best estimate on their budget still puts them behind UNT by 2015, despite what Adler is claiming. And they still have significant costs to face regarding purchasing land, building office space, and other sports facilities.

I don't see what calculation could possibly show North Texas having a higher budget in the 2014-2015 fiscal year. The student population is relatively close at both schools. UTSA will have higher student athletic fees, and should have at least equal external funding through local government support, ticket sales, corporate sponsorships, and alumni donations. That facility contribution approved in the May 10 vote was significantly larger than anything North Texas athletics has ever received.

UTSA still needs a field house for football, and North Texas still needs a stadium.

Both North Texas and UTSA have an enormous amount of potential, you can even throw Texas State in as well. Each can be incredibly succesful with the right long-term plan. I have seen the UTSA and Texas State plans but have not yet seen the long-term plan for North Texas.

[UNTflyer]

I don't see what calculation could possibly show North Texas having a higher budget in the 2014-2015 fiscal year.

It's simple math, sir. We are starting from a larger base of donors and total fee revenue. We currently have a budget of $15 million (2007). If we raise fees $6 an hour, that puts us at $21 million. That is already higher than UTSA's projected budget for 2015 of $18 million. Consider that we are projected to have enrollment of 42,000 by 2015, now we're talking about $22.5 million. Add in the anticipated increase in donations and corporate sponsorships, and I am very confident that we will be safely ahead of UTSA and Texas State for quite some time.

I have seen the UTSA and Texas State plans but have not yet seen the long-term plan for North Texas.

We've built a $10 million athletics center. We've built a softball stadium and a soccer stadium. We've built a new tennis facility. We converted old Liberty buildings into offices, classrooms, a volleyball center, and a golf practice center. There are plans to put luxury suites in the Super Pit. There are plans for a track facility, indoor football practice facility, and baseball stadium. And, of course, the football stadium is about to become reality.

There is a long-term plan. I find it incredible that you think there isn't one.

[ADLER]

OK, let's pretend that the current athletic revenue really is the $15 million that was fabricated for a 2006 Austin news story. From where does that money come? Please tell me where there are any inaccuracies.

Student fees for the previous year amounted to 4.3 million. Let's pretend they're up to 6 million now even though that's not really possible without any interem increase.

Guarantees and Conference/NCAA distribution have been less than a million per year.

Ticket sales dollars have been, well let's not even post that figure. Let's just say under a million.

Keeping up? Best case scenario is $9 million so far.

So, if by default, you are claiming a total $15 million budget, that must mean that alumni and corporate sponsors are contributing a disproportionate $6 million per year. It would be nice but I don't think it's happening.

Or let's go with a more realistic model using the Carr Athletics Report which states that 75% of athletic revenue at large regional universities is derived directly from student fees/government sources. (They used budgets from 10 large regional public colleges from CUSA, WAC, and Sun Belt but didn't name which schools). Let's apply those figures to your 2015 model which has a $22.5 million budget.

75% of the budget should be expected, on average, to be derived from student fee revenue. That's $16.875,000

North Texas has a projected enrollment of 42,000 but 5000 will be at the Dallas campus and not paying athletic fees. FY 2015 fee contributing students 37,000. (let's not even raise the fact that many of those will be part time)

$16.875,000 divided amongst 37,000 students is $456 per student per year. That's $228 per semester. That's $19 per credit hour base on 12 hour course load. That's pretty darn close to what I have been saying all along. That is also what reports commisioned by the other universities have been saying. That is what student referendums at both references have based their $20 per credit hour fees upon.

If your long-term plan truly is based around getting the student athletics fee to $19 per credit hour by 2015 then I guess this whole debate isn't even necessary. That's much quicker than even I was advocating.

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

I really don't think this, the tuition increase, should come as a surprise to anyone and I would think the people involved in the fee increase vote would take this in to consideration.

I agree. I think this is a part of the process of improvement and hopefully, if done right, will help increase the respect of our university.

[UNTflyer]

OK, let's pretend that the current athletic revenue really is the $15 million that was fabricated for a 2006 Austin news story. From where does that money come? Please tell me where there are any inaccuracies.

Student fees for the previous year amounted to 4.3 million. Let's pretend they're up to 6 million now even though that's not really possible without any interem increase.

Let's "pretend"? Dude, you have got to get your numbers straight. We had enrollment of 34,268 in 2007. That comes to a little over $6 million a year, again not counting summer students.

Who cares that UTSA found that 75% of budgets from selected school generate revenue from students fees?? They are trying to justify a huge increase in the student fee. I can pick a bunch of BCS schools and show that less 10% of their revenue comes from student fees. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. They don't mean anything. We need to do what is best for us, not copy some non-football university desperate to move up to Div I-A.

You say their enrollment is "almost" as large as ours. BZZZZZZ! UNT is 17% larger than UTSA, a difference of 6,000 students.

If our athletics department was stagnant and going nowhere, you might have a point. But we've been improving all facilities and getting ready for the jump to another conference. You're charging at windmills

Edited August 2, 2008 by UNTflyer

[MDH]

There are plans to put luxury suites in the Super Pit. indoor football practice facility, and baseball stadium.

I can't imagine how far down the university's priority list these plans might be.