(01-28-2015 12:57 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  I was speaking in general terms, not necessarily directed at Virginia. For example, I think ECU at 40% student fees is too high. It's good for somebody that doesn't have the luxury of a massive TV deal but it's still too much IMHO.

The bottom line is that there are massive amounts of money spent on college athletics. If the money is there, they're going to find a way to spend it. Look at some of the biggest athletic budgets in the nation, most of them STILL find a way to lose money. It's a lot like gov't agency spending. They've got "X" dollars and you better believe that they'll find a way to spend every cent or it will be cut the next year. It's ridiculous. I'd love to see some kind of incentive to SAVE / rollover money rather than forcing students to carry more of the load.

I believe that the average for athletic student fees is 57% nationally.

Quote:According to data from 2012-13 compiled by USA Today, the average subsidy provided to mid-major athletic programs through student fees and other university funds was 57 percent.

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/01/house-bi...ic-program

40% is good for a G5 program.
Likely only the P5s with the massive media revenues can realistically get to 20% or below

I like ODU's presence it's a huge plus for the conference . Hope they're around for a long time.

(02-14-2015 11:47 PM)Matrix Wrote:  I like ODU's presence it's a huge plus for the conference . Hope they're around for a long time.

Yeah...ODU was one of the best adds. Good football, good basketball, good market.

(02-14-2015 11:47 PM)Matrix Wrote:  I like ODU's presence it's a huge plus for the conference . Hope they're around for a long time.

Completely agree. They certainly have had a excellent first year in the conference as a full member.

(01-15-2015 04:40 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 12:27 PM)Flat Tire 2 Wrote:  In the Commonwealth of VA, it alrady against the law to use tax dollars to build athletic facilities; so Virginia has a history "against" college athletic spending. I think you will see some sort of action to lower the amount of student fees going to athletics at some point in the near future. JMHO.

You can debate the value of athletics, but the parents of students are looking for lower tuition costs. In Virginia, you can go the UVA or VA Tech if you want college athletics. Those schools don't take much money, if any, from tuition to pay for their programs.

Yeah, because they are in the cartel conferences. If the SEC or ACC come calling and invite all the CUSA schools to join, they yeah, I think we could take that money and reduce fees. Otherwise this is just some jerkwad trying to make the rich richer and keep the have nots from making any forward progress.

I can't believe ODU or JMU alumni will stand idly by while some FOOL (who claims to be a thrifty steward of the taxpayers) passes this so-called frugal crap legislation! Football is the FRONT PORCH of "almost" every major public university in this country. Kill it and you terminally wound the growth of undergraduate enrollment for these institutions. Student activity Fees fund the single most attractive aspect of college life! I suspect most of the Non-Cartel 5 would be irreparably damaged if these funds were cut!

(01-15-2015 04:40 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 12:27 PM)Flat Tire 2 Wrote:  In the Commonwealth of VA, it alrady against the law to use tax dollars to build athletic facilities; so Virginia has a history "against" college athletic spending. I think you will see some sort of action to lower the amount of student fees going to athletics at some point in the near future. JMHO.

You can debate the value of athletics, but the parents of students are looking for lower tuition costs. In Virginia, you can go the UVA or VA Tech if you want college athletics. Those schools don't take much money, if any, from tuition to pay for their programs.

Yeah, because they are in the cartel conferences. If the SEC or ACC come calling and invite all the CUSA schools to join, they yeah, I think we could take that money and reduce fees. Otherwise this is just some jerkwad trying to make the rich richer and keep the have nots from making any forward progress.

I can't believe ODU or JMU alumni will stand idly by while some FOOL (who claims to be a thrifty steward of the taxpayers) passes this so-called frugal crap legislation! Football and basketball are the FRONT PORCH of "almost" every major public university in this country. Kill it and you terminally wound the growth of undergraduate enrollment for these institutions. Student activity Fees fund the single most attractive aspect of college life! I suspect most of the Non-Cartel 5 would be irreparably damaged if these funds were cut!

(02-15-2015 02:42 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 04:40 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-15-2015 12:27 PM)Flat Tire 2 Wrote:  In the Commonwealth of VA, it alrady against the law to use tax dollars to build athletic facilities; so Virginia has a history "against" college athletic spending. I think you will see some sort of action to lower the amount of student fees going to athletics at some point in the near future. JMHO.

You can debate the value of athletics, but the parents of students are looking for lower tuition costs. In Virginia, you can go the UVA or VA Tech if you want college athletics. Those schools don't take much money, if any, from tuition to pay for their programs.

Yeah, because they are in the cartel conferences. If the SEC or ACC come calling and invite all the CUSA schools to join, they yeah, I think we could take that money and reduce fees. Otherwise this is just some jerkwad trying to make the rich richer and keep the have nots from making any forward progress.

I can't believe ODU or JMU alumni will stand idly by while some FOOL (who claims to be a thrifty steward of the taxpayers) passes this so-called frugal crap legislation! Football and basketball are the FRONT PORCH of "almost" every major public university in this country. Kill it and you terminally wound the growth of undergraduate enrollment for these institutions. Student activity Fees fund the single most attractive aspect of college life! I suspect most of the Non-Cartel 5 would be irreparably damaged if these funds were cut!

Got a Witness!!!

Be very wary if some pencil pusher in your school's administration starts using the word, "study" to evaluate your athletic program's future. See how that worked out for UAB, eh?

(02-14-2015 11:47 PM)Matrix Wrote:  I like ODU's presence it's a huge plus for the conference . Hope they're around for a long time.

I think Ol' Dirty will be around for the next 8 or so years, until we go BIG12 or ACC.

Looks like ODU will be capped at 55% of it's budget can come from student fees. It's nice to see people doing the right thing for the "regular students." Kids are on the hook for too much as it is. The way this reads it seems like ODU gets a "grace period" until 2020.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604....l+HB1897ER

Quote:C. The subsidy percentage shall not exceed:

1. 20 percent for NCAA Division I-A institutions affiliated with the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, or Southeastern Conference;

2. 55 percent for NCAA Division I-A institutions affiliated with conferences other than the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten Conference, Big 12 Conference, Pac-12 Conference, or Southeastern Conference;

3. 70 percent for NCAA Division I-AA institutions;

4. 78 percent for NCAA Division I-AAA institutions;

5. 81 percent for NCAA Division II institutions that operate intercollegiate football programs;

6. 85 percent for NCAA Division II institutions that do not operate intercollegiate football programs;

7. 89 percent for NCAA Division III institutions that operate intercollegiate football programs; and

8. 92 percent for NCAA Division III institutions that do not operate intercollegiate football programs.

Quote:2. That for the purposes of this act, Old Dominion University (University) shall be considered a Division I-AA institution until July 1, 2020, and if the University continues to operate a Division I-A intercollegiate football program on July 1, 2020, the University shall subsequently be considered a Division I-A institution.

How many other states will follow Virginia's lead?

January called. It wants this thread back.

(03-25-2015 09:34 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  January called. It wants this thread back.

Nice input. The bill just passed. It was brought up in January.

We're already close to compliant with this law. Frankly, it's much to do about nothing, and our administration fully supports it.

(03-25-2015 09:38 AM)monarchman Wrote:  We're already close to compliance with this bill. Frankly, it's much to do about nothing, and our administration fully supports it.

73% vs 55% is "close to compliance"? By my calcs, you're going to have to come up with ~$6.5M not using student fees to maintain a $37M budget. That doesn't even factor in the FCOA coming up.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

YEAR---TICKET SALES----CONTRIBUTIONS---RIGHTS / LICENSING---STUDENT FEES----SCHOOL FUNDS---OTHER--------TOTAL REVENUES
2013---$3,365,856--------$3,806,308---------$1,702,903--------------$27,089,358-------$0------------------$965,058-----$36,929,483 (73% subsidized)
2012---$3,253,574--------$3,650,714---------$1,374,052--------------$26,024,503-------$382---------------$944,196-----$35,247,421 (74% subsidized)
2011---$3,012,066--------$3,565,247---------$1,518,616--------------$23,897,742-------$1,619-------------$898,454-----$32,893,744 (73% subsidized)

(03-25-2015 09:50 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 09:38 AM)monarchman Wrote:  We're already close to compliance with this bill. Frankly, it's much to do about nothing, and our administration fully supports it.

73% vs 55% is "close to compliance"?

73% was from the '12-'13 academic year. According to the latest audited athletic financial statements ('13-'14) we're right at 65% so definitely heading in the right direction.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA14.pdf

One of the larger concerns was the ability to use fees to build a new stadium (which will be needed to create the revenues necessary to come into compliance with the law). I remember reading that the sponsor of the bill feels that would be grandfathered in since we've begun the planning. The bill won't take effect at all until next academic year (beginning in '16).

(03-25-2015 10:00 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 09:50 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 09:38 AM)monarchman Wrote:  We're already close to compliance with this bill. Frankly, it's much to do about nothing, and our administration fully supports it.

73% vs 55% is "close to compliance"?

73% was from the '12-'13 academic year. According to the latest audited athletic financial statements ('13-'14) we're right at 65% so definitely heading in the right direction.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA14.pdf

One of the larger concerns was the ability to use fees to build a new stadium (which will be needed to create the revenues necessary to come into compliance with the law). I remember reading that the sponsor of the bill feels that would be grandfathered in since we've begun the planning. The bill won't take effect at all until next academic year (beginning in '16).

Thank You. I was just about to post the same information.

Considering we're already at least at 65%, and have until 2020 to comply, along with the stadium being considered a project already started, we are in an excellent position. This law will have little impact to athletics operations and the administration lobbied to make sure of that.

This bill has a much larger impact on JMU whose student fees are around 78% of their budget. They will have to work just to become compliant with the cap at the FCS level (and with no obvious new revenue available). Additionally, the bill creates a board that oversees reclassification. There are extra hurdles that JMU will have to leap in order to move FBS if they don't get an invite before 2016.

(03-25-2015 10:05 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  This bill has a much larger impact on JMU whose student fees are around 78% of their budget. They will have to work just to become compliant with the cap at the FCS level (and with no obvious new revenue available). Additionally, the bill creates a board that oversees reclassification. There are extra hurdles that JMU will have to leap in order to move FBS if they don't get an invite before 2016.

JMU will be at or under the cap simply by reclassifying certain line items that most universities count as academic.

http://www.breezejmu.org/news/article_74...26a13.html

“Two great examples that are big categories and are very expensive are the Marching Royal Dukes and the debt service on the stadium and other buildings like that,” McGraw said. “If the bill were to pass as it is currently written ... [we] could at least mostly — if not entirely — make up for that expense by calling the Marching Royal Dukes an academic expense, as opposed to an athletic expense.”

We do have to reclassify by 7/1/16 to not be subject to the new committee.

(03-25-2015 11:13 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 10:05 AM)monarchoptimist Wrote:  This bill has a much larger impact on JMU whose student fees are around 78% of their budget. They will have to work just to become compliant with the cap at the FCS level (and with no obvious new revenue available). Additionally, the bill creates a board that oversees reclassification. There are extra hurdles that JMU will have to leap in order to move FBS if they don't get an invite before 2016.

JMU will be at or under the cap simply by reclassifying certain line items that most universities count as academic.

http://www.breezejmu.org/news/article_74...26a13.html

“Two great examples that are big categories and are very expensive are the Marching Royal Dukes and the debt service on the stadium and other buildings like that,” McGraw said. “If the bill were to pass as it is currently written ... [we] could at least mostly — if not entirely — make up for that expense by calling the Marching Royal Dukes an academic expense, as opposed to an athletic expense.”

We do have to reclassify by 7/1/16 to not be subject to the new committee.

That's good news about the budget maneuvers to satisfy the cap. JMU could be the first school to have to get the board's approval for a reclassification

(03-25-2015 10:05 AM)monarchman Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 10:00 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 09:50 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 09:38 AM)monarchman Wrote:  We're already close to compliance with this bill. Frankly, it's much to do about nothing, and our administration fully supports it.

73% vs 55% is "close to compliance"?

73% was from the '12-'13 academic year. According to the latest audited athletic financial statements ('13-'14) we're right at 65% so definitely heading in the right direction.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/ODUNCAA14.pdf

One of the larger concerns was the ability to use fees to build a new stadium (which will be needed to create the revenues necessary to come into compliance with the law). I remember reading that the sponsor of the bill feels that would be grandfathered in since we've begun the planning. The bill won't take effect at all until next academic year (beginning in '16).

Thank You. I was just about to post the same information.

Considering we're already at least at 65%, and have until 2020 to comply, along with the stadium being considered a project already started, we are in an excellent position. This law will have little impact to athletics operations and the administration lobbied to make sure of that.

But you have to wonder, with the COA and other items now effective if that won't push that number higher instead of lower....unless ODU isn't going to offer COA or insurance, training tables etc to meet the 55%. The CFP $$ isn't going to help as much as people think.