Observer editorial

Hope everyone enjoyed the editorial today in the Observer. Looks as though the Chapel Hill gang in Charlotte is going to kick off a campaign to stop football in Charlotte. Maybe the powers at the Observer should the a look at another post on NN and see how we compare to the rest of the A10. The Observer seems to be in an investigative mood lately. Perhaps they could do an invesigation into how and why most of the tax money we send to Raleigh goes to two schools. and Charlotte is at the bottom of the list per student. It couldn’t be so they can pay their coaching staff millions(nothing from Friday and Spangler on this). Talk about athletics becoming more important than academics. The powers at Chapel Hill and Raleigh want to stop this move right now.

Why is UNC-CH so upset about this, mind your own business and maybe if you fielded a quality PRODUCT you wouldn’t have to worry about losing fans for that filler sport inbetween basketball.

[QUOTE=DownwithNBA;301386]Why is UNC-CH so upset about this, [/QUOTE] I’ve heard they were upset about our move to CUSA back in the mid nineties too. And that was just for basketball. That made no sense. Why were they not upset about UNCP gettting football. Their entire attitude is baffling.

[URL]http://www.charlotte.com/opinion/story/521048.html[/URL]

Why is the article the only one for which you can not comment?

First of all, the school is older than 61 years old, but as a 4 year University in the UNC system, we are only 42 years old. Second, I get tired of people focusing in on student fees. It is a valid point, but if you are going to look at the money situation, then look at the whole thing! They are completely ignoring why our student fees are so high… :hammer:

Can’t someone from here organize an editorial to refute much of these false claims by the opponents of our push for football?

I must be missing the part where Chapel Hill and Raleigh are against this and trying to stop it.

If they were raising your property taxes, and you had no say in the matter, by $300 a year, would you sit so idly by? That’s what you’re planning to do to students, or more accurately students’ parents.

The editorial didn’t say don’t do it. It said put more burden on someone other than students, by implication the business community and alumni.

If you can reduce the reliance on fees (which I suspect Dubois will ask, in part through a fundraising campaign and season ticket drive or PSL-like program), the opposition goes away.

[QUOTE=Charlotte2002;301393]Can’t someone from here organize an editorial to refute much of these false claims by the opponents of our push for football?[/QUOTE]

You would have to refute the report, since that’s where the bulk of the editorial came from.

[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301394]I must be missing the part where Chapel Hill and Raleigh are against this and trying to stop it.

If they were raising your property taxes, and you had no say in the matter, by $300 a year, would you sit so idly by? That’s what you’re planning to do to students, or more accurately students’ parents.

The editorial didn’t say don’t do it. It said put more burden on someone other than students, by implication the business community and alumni.

If you can reduce the reliance on fees (which I suspect Dubois will ask, in part through a fundraising campaign and season ticket drive or PSL-like program), the opposition goes away.[/QUOTE]

I would guess the opposition would just find some other reason to try to stop us.

[QUOTE=Charlotte2002;301396]I would guess the opposition would just find some other reason to try to stop us.[/QUOTE]

Possibly. But if you knock the pegs out from under their best argument (too much reliance on student fees, which is true in my opinion) it’s a big step.

I don’t know if this is a op-ed or a letter or what but how convienent this coward didn’t leave their name and what a bunch of ridiculous crap, I’ll assume this was written by snotty von stuffington III, fifth generation UNC-CH grad.

First of all the dolt author fails to mention that the athletic fees should drop as alumni intrest and giving rise as a result of football.

Point two of this idiotcy reveals:

“That won’t end the matter, but if the numbers hold, it should. UNCC has one of the highest levels of student debt and student financial need (including unmet student need) among 16 state campuses. It’s inappropriate to jack up the cost of a college education that steeply in order to play football.”

Thanks for pointing out the bias of the UNC system in what you thought was an argument against football. Basically this points out that Raleigh thinks we don’t deserve crap even though we need funds as badly as any school, and we sure as hell better not get there on our own, then we are harassing our poor students (who they don’t give a crap about.) To sum it up the attitude of raleigh is very analogous to communist russia, you don’t get crap unless we say so.

Does this article ever mention what our fees will be OVERALL compared to the rest on the UNC system? convienently, no.
However this is mentioned:

“Yet nothing short of a miracle is likely to change this fact: It’s neither right nor prudent at this time for the university to ask its students and their families to pay so much more so a football team can chase trophies.”

Thank you lord chancellor on the affairs of right and wrong in the Charlotte area. Who are you, where did you go to school and who taught you how to write an argument? It isn’t wrong if the majority wants it.

Overall dosen’t it seem that so many academics outside of UNCC are resisting this not only for footballs sake, but as the article mentioned earlier we are one of the most neglected universities when it comes to financial aid. If our fees spike then the call for help to raleigh to do their fair share would be even louder, and I don’t think they want to put any more effort into ignoring than they already do, and at that, they are indeed magnificant.

[QUOTE=VA49er;301390]Why is the article the only one for which you can not comment?[/QUOTE] Because maybe they are concerned we will respond with some facts they conveniently omitted from the story? That’s my guess.

[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301394]I must be missing the part where Chapel Hill and Raleigh are against this and trying to stop it. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, I missed that part as well Mike…

[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301395]You would have to refute the report, since that’s where the bulk of the editorial came from.[/QUOTE] Why was the author’s name omitted from this story? Mike. We know you’re on our side. Don’t you have any say-so? Can’t you balance out this bias against us? Can you at least ask them why they write garbage like this without signing their name and don’t allow us to reply?

I must be missing the part where Chapel Hill and Raleigh are against this and trying to stop it.

If they were raising your property taxes, and you had no say in the matter, by $300 a year, would you sit so idly by? That’s what you’re planning to do to students, or more accurately students’ parents.

The editorial didn’t say don’t do it. It said put more burden on someone other than students, by implication the business community and alumni.

If you can reduce the reliance on fees (which I suspect Dubois will ask, in part through a fundraising campaign and season ticket drive or PSL-like program), the opposition goes away.


a real hometown paper would print an op-ed that stated “get football by any means necessary.” But we all know where the Observer’s op-ed theoretical home is. Hint: east. Ass clowns like Jack Betts are living proof.

[B]Other past unsigned Observer Editorials:
[/B]“Communism: eh Not So Bad”
“Child Labor = Cheap Shirts”
“Gandhi: Troublemaker”
“Mussolini does make Buses Run on Schedule!”

  • Put the latest with the rest

I’m not aware that editorials are ever signed. Anyway, here’s the link to the feedback page at Charlotte.com:

Charlotte.com: Feedback

For “Subject” chose “Letter to the Editor”.

Fire away!

You also must have missed the part where SpangFri came to town in an effort to stop football too. Oh, thats right, they’re not REALLY Chapel Hill and Raleigh guys!!!wink,wink…

However, besides that, my major problem is with this Observer slant about “athletic fees being the highest in the UNC-System” (in this editorial and in the article last week), but ignoring that the “overall student fees” will not be, even if the $300 increase holds permanently(which it most likely will not)! Also, this conveniently leaves out that we STILL would be much cheaper overall in costs than Chapel Hill or Raleigh! Isn’t that what it really comes down to anyway? I mean think about it this way, when a high school senior and his/her parents are comparing costs of different universities they are considering attending, do they compare “athletic fees” or do they compare total costs (ie; tuition, room/board, fees, etc.)? I think the answer is obvious. The mystery is why the Observer continues to miss what should be an obvious point? I think I know why!!!

[QUOTE=NinerAlex;301406][B]Other past unsigned Observer Editorials:
[/B]“Communism: eh Not So Bad”
“Child Labor = Cheap Shirts”
“Gandhi: Troublemaker”
“Mussolini does make Buses Run on Schedule!”

  • Put the latest with the rest[/QUOTE]
    Add in:
    [URL=http://www.ninernation.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14003][B][COLOR=DarkGreen]“At Least I admit it”[/COLOR][/B][/URL]… oh wait, that one was signed… :lmao: