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 couldnât 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 wouldnât have to worry about losing fans for that filler sport inbetween basketball.
[QUOTE=DownwithNBA;301386]Why is UNC-CH so upset about this, [/QUOTE] Iâve 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.
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 highâŚ
Canât 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? Thatâs what youâre planning to do to students, or more accurately studentsâ parents.
The editorial didnât say donât 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]Canât 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 thatâs 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? Thatâs what youâre planning to do to students, or more accurately studentsâ parents.
The editorial didnât say donât 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) itâs a big step.
I donât know if this is a op-ed or a letter or what but how convienent this coward didnât leave their name and what a bunch of ridiculous crap, Iâll 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:
âThat wonât 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. Itâs inappropriate to jack up the cost of a college education that steeply in order to play football.â
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 donât 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 donât give a crap about.) To sum it up the attitude of raleigh is very analogous to communist russia, you donât 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:
âYet nothing short of a miracle is likely to change this fact: Itâs 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.â
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 isnât wrong if the majority wants it.
Overall dosenât 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 donât 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? Thatâs 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 MikeâŚ
[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301395]You would have to refute the report, since thatâs where the bulk of the editorial came from.[/QUOTE] Why was the authorâs name omitted from this story? Mike. We know youâre on our side. Donât you have any say-so? Canât you balance out this bias against us? Can you at least ask them why they write garbage like this without signing their name and donât 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? Thatâs what youâre planning to do to students, or more accurately studentsâ parents.
The editorial didnât say donât 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 âget football by any means necessary.â But we all know where the Observerâs op-ed theoretical home is. Hint: east. Ass clowns like Jack Betts are living proof.
[B]Other past unsigned Observer Editorials:
[/B]âCommunism: eh Not So Badâ
âChild Labor = Cheap Shirtsâ
âGandhi: Troublemakerâ
âMussolini does make Buses Run on Schedule!â
- Put the latest with the rest
Iâm not aware that editorials are ever signed. Anyway, hereâs the link to the feedback page at Charlotte.com:
For âSubjectâ chose âLetter to the Editorâ.
Fire away!
You also must have missed the part where SpangFri came to town in an effort to stop football too. Oh, thats right, theyâre not REALLY Chapel Hill and Raleigh guys!!!wink,winkâŚ
However, besides that, my major problem is with this Observer slant about âathletic fees being the highest in the UNC-Systemâ (in this editorial and in the article last week), but ignoring that the âoverall student feesâ 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! Isnât 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 âathletic feesâ 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]âCommunism: eh Not So Badâ
âChild Labor = Cheap Shirtsâ
âGandhi: Troublemakerâ
âMussolini does make Buses Run on Schedule!â
- Put the latest with the rest[/QUOTE]
Add in:
[URL=http://www.ninernation.net/forum/showthread.php?t=14003][B][COLOR=DarkGreen]âAt Least I admit itâ[/COLOR][/B][/URL]⌠oh wait, that one was signed⌠:lmao: