Observer editorial, cartoon

Iā€™m in the minority here, but I donā€™t believe that the students should shoulder the full burden of the program.

However, can we get the complete story here?

  1. $300+ student fees are necessary for a full fledged D1A program, not the D1AA program we are going to field for several years

  2. I do believe we need more alumni donations and corporate sponsors to offset some of that cost

  3. I went to UT. I paid an athletic fee that I felt in my pocket. Students at UT consider their athletic fees to be a bargain price for season tix to football, basketball and baseball. I totally agreed and agree.

  4. [U]Total cost to attend is the only relevent statistical comparison to make[/U]. Anything else is nothing more than [B]a disingenuous, selective comparison fallacy[/B].

  5. Letā€™s not forget the funding issue. Oh my lord does the Observer staff love to bash the cost while ignoring how poorly funded our entire school is because of the damned politics of this state. How about we tackle that?

And Mike, how about a pro and con discussion that actually mentions all of this? I think Mary makes a decent point at the expense of ignoring a mountain of equally relevent points.

Who are they to say the [B]STUDENTS[/B] shouldnā€™t have an increase when[B] WE[/B] voted and are [B]WILLING to pay.[/B]
Who do they think they are? College football is coming to Charlotte whether they like it or not. GO NINERS!!

3. I went to UT. I paid an athletic fee that I felt in my pocket. Students at UT consider their athletic fees to be a bargain price for season tix to football, basketball and baseball. I totally agreed and agree.

you went to UT?! NICE!

p.s. I just read this article and it ruined my day. Some people at this university know how to piss me off like no otherā€¦

1. $300+ student fees are necessary for a full fledged D1A program, not the D1AA program we are going to field for several years

I have been preaching this for about a year now. We get football in 2012, the fastest we go Division IA is 4 years so 2016. Using the fact that we have 23k students today, and estimates of 38k in 2020, in 2016 weā€™d have about 33k students, say 85% are full time thats about 28k students and at $300 a pop, that is 8.4 million generated a year which is just absurd, that isnā€™t even our athletics budget now.

Corporate and alumni do need to step it up though. Our athletic department pulling in $1.1 million and bragging about it in the city of Charlotte, NC is borderline retarded.

4. [U]Total cost to attend is the only relevent statistical comparison to make[/U]. Anything else is nothing more than [B]a disingenuous, selective comparison fallacy[/B].

I made this same argument several months back and it fell on deaf ears. The people that write these editorials and draw the stupid cartoons donā€™t care about logic, donā€™t care about facts.

The O is a joke. Look at their numbers if you doubt it.

Students should cancel their Observer subscriptions. They should be run off campus the next time they try to sell subscriptions. Shame on you Observer.

http://www.ninernation.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21202

there need to be letters to the editor in response to this editorialā€¦and lots of them.

there need to be letters to the editor in response to this editorial...and lots of them.

To this day has there ever been a fair look at this by the observer? I donā€™t recall ever seeing a single ā€œeditorialā€ that looked at it objectively, much less addressed it in a pro manner. (Note Sorenson doesnā€™t count, though heā€™s right on the money.)

Mike P whatā€™s it like to work for the Satan Company?

Weā€™ll be playing football in 2012ā€¦ at the rate the Observer is going (another 120 job cuts yesterday) they may not even be around to cover our first game!! Or they will ship it in each day from Raleighā€¦ like most of their articles now.

[QUOTE=MKNiner;341948]To this day has there ever been a fair look at this by the observer? I donā€™t recall ever seeing a single ā€œeditorialā€ that looked at it objectively, much less addressed it in a pro manner. (Note Sorenson doesnā€™t count, though heā€™s right on the money.)[/QUOTE]

You canā€™t say Sorensen doesnā€™t count.

Again, for the 1,000th time, editorial department and newsroom are separate. To have one influence your opinion of the other is as wrongheaded as you all say the editorials have been.

Buy a paper, look at sports today, then look at editorial. Then get back to me.

I guess if the O goes under, then the Independent Tribune of Kannapolis/Concord or the Statesville Record & Landmark can take over as the Charlotte Metro paper. It wonā€™t be the Gaston Observer because thatā€™s a division of the O.

[QUOTE=stonecoldken;341961]I guess if the O goes under, then the Independent Tribune of Kannapolis/Concord or the Statesville Record & Landmark can take over as the Charlotte Metro paper. It wonā€™t be the Gaston Observer because thatā€™s a division of the O.[/QUOTE]

If the O goes under, there will be MUCH bigger problems than who covers the Niners.

You can't say Sorensen doesn't count.

Yes, I can.

Again, for the 1,000th time, editorial department and newsroom are separate.

Precisely. Which is why Sorenson doesnā€™t count. Iā€™m talking about your freakin editorial hacks. Sorenson is a sports guy. Heā€™s not part, I donā€™t believe, of your editorial staff. The staff that routinely publishes cowardly unsigned editorials attacking us while simultaniously ignoring the facts of the situation. They write from a position of hypocricy and ignorance and never once, save a letter to the editor, is a different opinion offered. At least not that Iā€™ve seen.

To have one influence your opinion of the other is as wrongheaded as you all say the editorials have been.

It doesnā€™t. Itā€™s just one of many reasons why your paper sucks.

Buy a paper,

Why when I can read it for free online?

look at sports today, then look at editorial. Then get back to me.

As stated earlier, Iā€™m not talking about your sports page.

[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;341959]You canā€™t say Sorensen doesnā€™t count.

Again, for the 1,000th time, editorial department and newsroom are separate. To have one influence your opinion of the other is as wrongheaded as you all say the editorials have been.

Buy a paper, look at sports today, then look at editorial. Then get back to me.[/QUOTE]

Honestly, Mike is right. Have you seen the cover of the sports section? Lately, Mike has actually been doing a lot for us, given our history in the Observer. Is it enough? Not really, but itā€™s a start. So, for that start, I say ā€œThanks Mike, just keep it up.ā€

As far as editorials go, we need to be going over Mikeā€™s head, because he really does have no control over them. So mike, where do we go to have our voice heard?

and reallyā€¦ did I just agree with Mike Persinger?

MK has a very good point, has there been one positive football article from the editiorial department? There is nothing to argue about there hasnā€™t been coverage pro vs con, the anti articles are everywhere, and you wonder why we donā€™t like the O.

[QUOTE=MKNiner;341948]To this day has there ever been a fair look at this by the observer? [/QUOTE]

In that context, most people will interpret this as the ENTIRE Observer, not just the editorial page. If you donā€™t include sports (or news, for that matter), then itā€™s not the entire observer that hasnā€™t taken a ā€œfairā€ look at this.

I donā€™t think anyone in the media has followed this closer than I have.

Honestly, Mike is right. Have you seen the cover of the sports section? Lately, Mike has actually been doing a lot for us, given our history in the Observer. Is it enough? Not really, but it's a start. So, for that start, I say "Thanks Mike, just keep it up."

I for one wasnā€™t talking about the sports section. I love the coverage weā€™ve gotten about football in the sports section. Iā€™ve been addressing the editorial page, which is where this tripe appears.

As far as editorials go, we need to be going over Mike's head, because he really does have no control over them. So mike, where do we go to have our voice heard?

and reallyā€¦ did I just agree with Mike Persinger?

Mike is the resident defender of the O. I donā€™t dispute him cause I think he can do anything about it, I dispute him because he defends the indefensible.

[QUOTE=thelew1014;341970]Honestly, Mike is right. Have you seen the cover of the sports section? Lately, Mike has actually been doing a lot for us, given our history in the Observer. Is it enough? Not really, but itā€™s a start. So, for that start, I say ā€œThanks Mike, just keep it up.ā€

As far as editorials go, we need to be going over Mikeā€™s head, because he really does have no control over them. So mike, where do we go to have our voice heard?

and reallyā€¦ did I just agree with Mike Persinger?[/QUOTE]

Thanks to Mike for the great coverage today.

Thanks to te editorial staff for adding more fuel to our fire. This will be a constant fight, as with everything else we do as a University. Stuff like this will just keep us on our toes.