Most of them (about 71 percent) voted for up to $200 or less (with 21 percent saying zero) would be fine. The fee will be $300.
Donāt they start at 150 and increase, by that time we could have corporate sponsors as well as a large alumni pool so who knows how much we really are going to need, this argument is stupid.
[QUOTE=metro;301436]thats no so!
op-ed is short for opinions and editiorials, thats both pages
(and btw, I rarely see opposing views to the O :lmao:)
nice try thoughā¦ Maureen Dowd, Ed Williams, Schulken, Kathleen, and Curtis usually are lockstep.
I do see the occasional Cal Thomas. (who is a dbag)[/QUOTE]
OK, Metro. I guess the fact that in-house we refer to those two pages as the āeditorial pageā and the āop-ed pageā means weāve been wrong for 100 years, and youāre right.
[QUOTE=Mike_Persinger;301443]OK, Metro. I guess the fact that in-house we refer to those two pages as the āeditorial pageā and the āop-ed pageā means weāve been wrong for 100 years, and youāre right.[/QUOTE]
You two are great. I think Mikeās right on this one:
Since when does the Observer worry about money? My property taxes go up nearly every year and the Observer editorial board stands and applauds. From light rail to the arena (and many more), money is rarely a concern. Why does this touch a nerve down there? The fact that football will be balanced by an increase in womens sports should appease those who argue fairness. Was there editorials dissuading the Panthers expansion team because most people are Cowboys/Redskins fans in the area? Iām all over the place, but I donāt understand the reasoning.
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? Thatās what youāre planning to do to students, or more accurately studentsā parents.
The editorial didnāt say donāt 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.
We have the cheapest school around for the quality education you recieve. Raise the fee 300 dollars and it doesnt change that fact!
Just thank of it as an investment. You spend the extra money know and when you graduate and get in the real world more companies and people will know the name of your school.
I have recently graduated and you would be shock at the amount of people that live in the relative area and dont even know the school exsist!
I will donate as much as the student fee increase our more each year. And I thank that this is a good way for Alumni to show There support.
From the students i still know on campus there willing to do there part to bring football to charlotte!:49ers:
Sorry, but that $3,040,400 is annual, recurring expenses such as salaries for coaches, trainers, etc., facilities upkeep, supplies, etc.It wonāt go away and is related to the expansion of the athletics department as a whole.
I know to be competitive weāll have to be at 9 million in a decade, but thats a decade from now. thats 50k more alumni and 15-20k students at the school from now.
I am not trying to take away from Mac, i am sure he was being conservative, he knows this game, I am just refuting the handful of observer prints that have that ā$9.25 Millionā number as if it is gospel
thats no so! op-ed is short for opinions and editiorials, thats both pages(and btw, I rarely see opposing views to the O :lmao:)
nice try thoughā¦ Maureen Dowd, Ed Williams, Schulken, Kathleen, and Curtis usually are lockstep.I do see the occasional Cal Thomas. (who is a dbag)
Actually, Mike is right about the definition of āOp-Edā. It refers to the page opposite of the newspaperās editorial page, and in the Observer, that page is usually filled mainly with nationally syndicated columns, their own staffās columns, a few from their ācommunity columnistsā, and The Buzz.
What heās wrong about is saying that the op-ed opinions are usually counter to their own boardās. How can the columns by their own staff (Ed Williams, Mary Schulkin, Fannie Flono, Jack Betts, etc) be considered counter to their opinion, when several of them are ON the paperās editorial board? Also, they seem to stack the page with columns by their idols, the NY Timesā and Washington Postās writers (Dowd, Dionne, etc.), who agree with them in spades. The only ones I find much agreement with are Kathleen Parker, Walter Williams and occasionally Cal Thomas.
Has anyone done the math on what our fees would be by adding the $300 and then comparing them to the total student fees paid in the system?
If so can you post it?
You two are great. I think Mike's right on this one:
its about time MP gets one right
Metro 100
MP 1
OK, Metro. I guess the fact that in-house we refer to those two pages as the "editorial page" and the "op-ed page" means we've been wrong for 100 years, and you're right.
If one of us did write an opinion piece that spells out our arguments, do you know where we could send it in hopes of it being published to counter such arguments against the pursuit of Football? I have no qualms of giving a crack at it.
[QUOTE=NinerAlex;301406][B]Other past unsigned Observer Editorials:
[/B]āCommunism: eh Not So Badā
āChild Labor = Cheap Shirtsā
āGandhi: Troublemakerā
āMussolini does make Buses Run on Schedule!ā
Yup! Itās a shame the hometown paper canāt find it in itself to support the hometown team -> They are NEVER part of the solution. Always bashing, carping, etc. It must be hell to go through life so bitter.
Read Mary Schulkinās February 28 column. Kudos to her for writing that, though it appears that she did so only after the facts were pointed out to her by some 49er alumni.
The fact is, we could fund football without those big increases in student fees, if the UNC System Board would fund our school at a fair rate. Why doesnāt the Observer do a big series on that underfunding, like you did on the illegal immigrantsā mistreatment in the poultry industry, or the Beazer Homes series? Afraid of stepping on some toes in Chapel Hill?
By the way, Iād be interested to know what percentage of your staff graduated from UNC Chapel Hill.
Ok,
I did my own research and hereās what I found. If someone has better info than what I found on each schoolās website feel free to post it.
Here are the costs based on an undergrad taking 12 or more hours. I assume the athletic fee in included in the General Fees, but someone correct me if that isnāt right.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Charlotte[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Tuition 1,230.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]General Fee 722.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Ed&Tech 119.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]ID Fee 4.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]UNC System .50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Football 300.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][b][i]Total2,376.50 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Chapel Hole[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Tuition 1,852.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Fees 817.29[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Total 2,669.79[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]UNC-R[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Tuition 1,880.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Fees 678.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Total 2,558.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[QUOTE=MKNiner;301468]Ok,
I did my own research and hereās what I found. If someone has better info than what I found on each schoolās website feel free to post it.
Here are the costs based on an undergrad taking 12 or more hours. I assume the athletic fee in included in the General Fees, but someone correct me if that isnāt right.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Charlotte[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Tuition 1,230.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]General Fee 722.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Ed&Tech 119.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]ID Fee 4.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]UNC System .50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Football 300.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2][b][i]Total2,376.50 [/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Chapel Hole[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Tuition 1,852.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Fees 817.29[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Total 2,669.79[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]UNC-R[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Tuition 1,880.00[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Fees 678.50[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=2]Total 2,558.50[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
Long suspected this was the case, but you will not read anything about it.
Mike,
I think the problem I have with it is that it pretty much mirrors your viewpoints, as evidenced by your rush to defend it here.
I have my own problems with the substance, but if this is your staffās opinion, Iād prefer it be stated as such and you name the author(s).
Whoever it is feels compelled to hide behind anonymity. Thatās troll-ish. Iām guessing that they didnāt wanna risk getting the feedback that Mary received?
[QUOTE=NinerAlex;301445]Since when does the Observer worry about money? My property taxes go up nearly every year and the Observer editorial board stands and applauds. From light rail to the arena (and many more), money is rarely a concern. Why does this touch a nerve down there? The fact that football will be balanced by an increase in womens sports should appease those who argue fairness. Was there editorials dissuading the Panthers expansion team because most people are Cowboys/Redskins fans in the area? Iām all over the place, but I donāt understand the reasoning.[/QUOTE]
I guess they do as Mark Packer says, and though it pains me to quote a moron they are āstirring the potā. Creating a buzz is one thing, fight against change too much and we will become durham, where the motto is āwho says change is inevitable?ā
From the report, and before adding $300 for football:
ā¦UNCCā¦System Highā¦System low
Tuition and fees
ā¦Residentā¦ $4091ā¦$5176ā¦$2896
ā¦Non-residentā¦$14503ā¦$20,842ā¦$11777
Total Feesā¦$1630ā¦$1963ā¦$1194
Athletic Feesā¦$445ā¦$572ā¦$126.50
Debt service feesā¦$406ā¦$452ā¦$81
Adding football would take you to $1930 in total fees, nearly the system high, and $745 for athletics, easily the system high.
Most of them (about 71 percent) voted for up to $200 or less (with 21 percent saying zero) would be fine. The fee will be $300.
I dont think that the numbers from the survey regarding how much students will pay hold very well anymore - when the survey was given we were not given any real estimate of how much money it would cost to field football - so naturally 200 or less seemed like a good number, so we voted for it. Now that students can be brought up to speed with solid research, the data should be presented to them to allow them to revote on the cost. I think that many students (including myself at one point) thought that basically all our athletic fees went to was essentially buying season gen admission tickets to basketball gamesā¦
The only thing the survey really shows to me is that students want football
[QUOTE=NinerAdvocate;301471]Mike,
I think the problem I have with it is that it pretty much mirrors your viewpoints, as evidenced by your rush to defend it here. [/QUOTE]
If you mean I wish there was enough community and alumni support to reduce the reliance on student fees ā or evidence of the same ā from the outset, youāre right.
[QUOTE=NinerAdvocate;301471]I have my own problems with the substance, but if this is your staffās opinion, Iād prefer it be stated as such and you name the author(s). [/QUOTE]
It is in the editorial rail, which is and has always been the equivalent of it being āthe newspaperās opinion,ā or at least that of the editorial board. Theyāre not always unanimous, though.
[QUOTE=NinerAdvocate;301471]Whoever it is feels compelled to hide behind anonymity. Thatās troll-ish. Iām guessing that they didnāt wanna risk getting the feedback that Mary received?[/QUOTE]
Hiding behind anonymity. Nowhere else does that happen ā¦
Iād be willing to bet Mary wrote that editorial, given that higher ed is one of her beats.
[QUOTE=zerogeneticsdc;301487] Now that students can be brought up to speed with solid research, the data should be presented to them to allow them to revote on the cost. [/QUOTE]
Iām all for this idea.