oh, i know. that wasn't a jab at you. i just think its something that we need to keep in mind. when student fees are likely to rise close to $500 per student per year, we're going to get some heat. if the study comes back and says now isn't the time for football i predict it will be for two reasons: 1) not the right time considering the universities other priorities 2) increases in student fees will disinfranchise too many students.
Considering by the time a team was started the school would be at 30,000 students, thatâs a total of $15 million, based on your $500. Conservative estimates posted on this website included Title IX compliance and came in at around half that. You are also not including alumni donations, ticket sales, etc. in your calculations. I think somewhere in the $200-$250 range is more realistic, especially since the scholarship format was recently revised to make ALL full athletic scholarships valued at in-state levels.
And the vote by the student body on the SGA website showed 98% in favor of a fee increase to fund a football team. There will be an official vote this semester. I donât think too many students will be that disenfranchised, if thatâs the right word. âMake unhappyâ might be a better phrase.
disenfranchised: adjectivedeprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote; " labor was voiceless"; âdisenfrenchised masses took to the streetsâ
first, if i'm wrong. show me i'm wrong. if you do, i'll be the first to admit it.
Hereâs a link to the Mid-American Conference (Division 1A football) with current football stadium capacities. Iâm certain that there are Division IAA football stadiums that are smaller.
Considering by the time a team was started the school would be at 30,000 students, that's a total of $15 million, based on your $500. Conservative estimates posted on this website included Title IX compliance and came in at around half that. You are also not including alumni donations, ticket sales, etc. in your calculations. I think somewhere in the $200-$250 range is more realistic, especially since the scholarship format was recently revised to make ALL full athletic scholarships valued at in-state levels.
And the vote by the student body on the SGA website showed 98% in favor of a fee increase to fund a football team. There will be an official vote this semester. I donât think too many students will be that disenfranchised, if thatâs the right word. âMake unhappyâ might be a better phrase.
disenfranchised: adjectivedeprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote; " labor was voiceless"; âdisenfrenchised masses took to the streetsâ
first, according to webster: disenfrachise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially: to deprive of the right to vote
any increase in student fees or tuition requires an increase in the amount of financial aide the school offers each student. the state doesnât give more money to the university for student fee increases so the financial aide budget stays the same. the cost of financial aide goes up + the budget staying the same means fewer students get financial aide or the amount of money each student gets goes down (this is the disenfranchised part). the study will work through the equation (not discounting the work done on this board) and its definitely possible theyâll come back with different figures. an sga vote is all well and good until you tell some kid his financial aide just disappeared. iâm not saying it will happen, but its definitely possible and if it does football will be a no go.
Here's a link to the Mid-American Conference (Division 1A football) with current football stadium capacities. I'm certain that there are Division IAA football stadiums that are smaller.
[QUOTE=survivor45;210258]Hereâs a link to the Mid-American Conference (Division 1A football) with current football stadium capacities. Iâm certain that there are Division IAA football stadiums that are smaller.
For a NCAA institution to meet Division I-A Football Membership criteria, as defined by the NCAA Manual (20.9.6) effective August 1, 2004, the institution must:
* sponsor at least 16 intercollegiate sports teams, including football, involving at least six all-male or mixed male-female composition; and at least eight intercollegiate sports teams, involving all-female composition;
* schedule and play at least 60% of its football games against members of Division I-A;
* schedule and play at least five home football games against members of Division I-A;
* average annually at least 15,000 in actual attendance for all home football games;
* provide an average of at least 90% of the permission maximum number of overall football grants-in-aid per year over a rolling two-year period; and
* offer annually at least 200 athletics grant-in-aids or expend at least $4.0 million on grant-in-aids to student athletes in athletic programs.
(The previous requirement of a minimum 30,000âpermanent seat stadium is no longer effective as of August, 1, 2004. However, the NCAA Board of Directors recommended recently that âin light of the changing landscape in Division I, the membership standards should be revisited in this context, including the attendance requirement, home scheduling requirements, consideration of Division I-AA opponents for postseason eligibility and the impact of noncompliance.â (The Board of Directors plan to consider these issues at their meeting on August 5, 2004.)
(The previous requirement of a minimum 30,000âpermanent seat stadium is no longer effective as of August, 1, 2004. However, the NCAA Board of Directors recommended recently that âin light of the changing landscape in Division I, the membership standards should be revisited in this context, including the attendance requirement, home scheduling requirements, consideration of Division I-AA opponents for postseason eligibility and the impact of noncompliance.â (The Board of Directors plan to consider these issues at their meeting on August 5, 2004.)
[QUOTE=49erPress;210250]first, if iâm wrong. show me iâm wrong. if you do, iâll be the first to admit it. second, iâm not wrong about the belk track. there are severe limits on what the university can build in that area. hence, we have no major facilities or have planned major facilities in or around the belk track. after ecu was flooded in the 90s, the state strengthened laws regulating where state institutions could build. check the master plan. also, woodward told sga in the late 90s there was land set aside on the other side of mallard creek road that was ideal for a football stadium.[/QUOTE]
bud- its already there just slightly expand Belk track. Put some seats in the ends and you have a decent 1AA place. If we outgrow it after 5 years of successful 1AA then they can find a place for a true football stadium. Its the cheapest option.
We all need to get used to these âargumentsâ against us having football because my guess is that theyâll increase as we get closer to making football a reality.
As long as we have our facts straight, we should be ok. Maybe the Big O will allow another editorial to be written in favor of football that also lists all the misconceptions from this editorial.
(Apologies if anything similar to this has already been stated, but I do not have time at this moment to read all the responses)
bud- its already there just slightly expand Belk track. Put some seats in the ends and you have a decent 1AA place. If we outgrow it after 5 years of successful 1AA then they can find a place for a true football stadium. Its the cheapest option.
One advantage of being located in a major city is that there are stadium options.
As far as Belk goes - judging by A-10 football attendance, Belk would work as it is now for Div 1AA! Weâd have a âbandboxâ football stadium - much like Fordham and LaSalleâs basketball âarenasâ.
[QUOTE=49RFootballNow;210253]If youâre starting ANY college atheltic program to generate revenue then you would be a dumb ass!
Football is needed to improve campus life, generate community and alumni support, and to protect the financial viablity of the Atheltic Department.
These reasons alone are enough to add it!
If we followed her opinion, we should only have Menâs Basketball, its the only one that pays for itself. Lord only knows the olympic sports are financial blackholes, but we have to have thoseâŚright?[/QUOTE]
Amen, I wonder how much money the Library generates each year? Want to get rid of it?
I wonder how long it will take the new student union center to pay for itself? My guess a while
Same can be dealt to many other activites/buildings on campus. Just because they donât generate revenue for the school doesnât mean we should just not have them or do away with them.
How about something that does generate most the revenue for this campus, STUDENTS/ALUMNI. How about starting football for them, since it is them who make this campus go, not the chancellor, AD, etc. I know they are important but the students/alumni is what makes a university a university.
[QUOTE=Ninerballin;210320]
I wonder how much money the Library generates each year? Want to get rid of it?
I wonder how long it will take the new student union center to pay for itself? My guess a while
Same can be dealt to many other activites/buildings on campus. Just because they donât generate revenue for the school doesnât mean we should just not have them or do away with them.
[/QUOTE]
Good pointsâŚ
If itâs all about generating money, I say we collect huge surcharges from students who wish to âbuyâ their education (we can even charge extra for grad school), convert the library into a multi level topless bar, convert all cafeterias into bar and grills, convert some of the classroom buildings into offices (students can learn on line these days anyway), start selling mixed drinks inside Halton in a designated âprivate clubâ lounge, sell raffle tickets at every game, and wow do I have some ideas of how to put those dorms to good use.
That'd be nice, but I don't want to have to put "Pat Yasinskas covers the Panthers for The Observer, and has since 1999" under each thing he writes. We could put actual news in that space.
Just write a letter, put in whatever âfactsâ you want, and perhaps itâll get published.
Name-calling and questioning her credentials without checking them probably wonât get you far.
Dang, MikeâŚ
:lmao:
So, you have to put quotes around âfactsâ when they come from someone around here? I donât think people will manufacture data⌠no need to.
LOL⌠Mike, you must have a very high opinion of us.
⌠funny.
Rick Bonnell was never an NBA player, an NBA coach or an NBA executive, but I'd say he knows as much about how the league works as any of them.
If youâve never played college basketball or coached it, are you not qualified to have an opinion on Lutz? If you wrote a letter to the editor that was published, would you be open to the same questions on your qualifications.
Sheâs very qualified to comment on higher education, on spending at institutions of higher education, on their mission, etc.
Just because she doesnât think the time is right for football doesnât make her unqualified to have the opinion.
to add to thatâŚI donât think Bill Bellichek ever played footballâŚ
anywayâŚwhy do you guys have to act like punks? Itâs her view and not everyone will have the same views you do. Is it not ok to be different and have an opinion?
to add to that...I don't think Bill Bellichek ever played football....
anywayâŚwhy do you guys have to act like punks? Itâs her view and not everyone will have the same views you do. Is it not ok to be different and have an opinion?
Sure thing, man. I agree.
But, other people are allowed to have opinions as well⌠including negative opinions about her opinion. If not, then itâs hypocritical.