(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:45 AM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 05:29 AM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  

(05-26-2015 02:57 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  I was only commenting on the fact that your SEZ has a lot of loft space, fluff and puff, looks larger than its actual usable square footage. You seem to want a comparison between it and the USM facilities so I will be brief.

Our Duff Center is in the North End zone and was completed several years ago at a cost of $11mil. The state provided $2.5mil and the rest was donations. That $11mil in those days would be comprable to your $14mil for the SEZ. Tech N end zone is empty except for scoreboard.

SEZ, your South end zone project, is being built for $14mil and made possible by about a $9mil bond issue to be paid off by a student facility enhancement fee. The USM South end zone project was $36mil, none of which was paid for by students fees or taxpayer funds. It was private donations and to compare your SEZ with that structure would be laughable.

you might think it is laughable, but your coaching staff doesn't. I know all the one's with Tech connections and they have all expressed a concern that this will give us a leg up in recruiting. That and beating them the last couple of years.

But hey! you know it all when it comes to what is wrong with Louisiana Tech

I say we kick out Dr. Guice and Tommy McClelland and let Eager Eagle replace them. Like you said, he knows EVERYTHING that's wrong with Tech so I'm sure he has great ideas of how to fix everything and make us the next Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State. Please save us from ourselves oh wise one.

Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:45 AM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 05:29 AM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  you might think it is laughable, but your coaching staff doesn't. I know all the one's with Tech connections and they have all expressed a concern that this will give us a leg up in recruiting. That and beating them the last couple of years.

But hey! you know it all when it comes to what is wrong with Louisiana Tech

I say we kick out Dr. Guice and Tommy McClelland and let Eager Eagle replace them. Like you said, he knows EVERYTHING that's wrong with Tech so I'm sure he has great ideas of how to fix everything and make us the next Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State. Please save us from ourselves oh wise one.

Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

So basically you think everyone but the Texas, Ohio State, and Alabama's of the world need to fold up shop. Gotcha.

(05-27-2015 10:10 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:45 AM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  I say we kick out Dr. Guice and Tommy McClelland and let Eager Eagle replace them. Like you said, he knows EVERYTHING that's wrong with Tech so I'm sure he has great ideas of how to fix everything and make us the next Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State. Please save us from ourselves oh wise one.

Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

So basically you think everyone but the Texas, Ohio State, and Alabama's of the world need to fold up shop. Gotcha.

Rumor has it Terry Bradshaw took his girlfriend in college and he has been bitter ever since!!

(05-27-2015 10:10 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:45 AM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  I say we kick out Dr. Guice and Tommy McClelland and let Eager Eagle replace them. Like you said, he knows EVERYTHING that's wrong with Tech so I'm sure he has great ideas of how to fix everything and make us the next Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State. Please save us from ourselves oh wise one.

Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

So basically you think everyone but the Texas, Ohio State, and Alabama's of the world need to fold up shop. Gotcha.

Not at all. What I am saying is that programs that rely on taxpayer supliments to cover anything more than like 25% of their expenses should compete only at the level they can afford. Schools who take more are distinctly short on fans and need to consider playing at the level they can afford. This includes a huge block of schools.

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:45 AM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 05:29 AM)DAWGZILLA Wrote:  you might think it is laughable, but your coaching staff doesn't. I know all the one's with Tech connections and they have all expressed a concern that this will give us a leg up in recruiting. That and beating them the last couple of years.

But hey! you know it all when it comes to what is wrong with Louisiana Tech

I say we kick out Dr. Guice and Tommy McClelland and let Eager Eagle replace them. Like you said, he knows EVERYTHING that's wrong with Tech so I'm sure he has great ideas of how to fix everything and make us the next Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State. Please save us from ourselves oh wise one.

Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Ahhhhhhhh...I see other school's fans do not like body bag games either. Our school loves them....

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 08:45 AM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  I say we kick out Dr. Guice and Tommy McClelland and let Eager Eagle replace them. Like you said, he knows EVERYTHING that's wrong with Tech so I'm sure he has great ideas of how to fix everything and make us the next Texas, Alabama, or Ohio State. Please save us from ourselves oh wise one.

Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

If Louisiana wants to lower the subsidy but allow us to charge students an athletic fee like you and everyone else in the conference does, I'd be fine with that. You can charge a fee for students attending games, we can't. Maybe you should drop your athletic fee and let students decide whether or not they want to pay to attend games.

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Law already exists disallowing using any state or college general funds for athletics therefore only student fees can go towards athletics and the amount should be clearly stated to the students. New law that takes effect next year limits the percentage of overall athletic budget that comes from these fees based on your status (i.e FBS P5 - 20%, FBS G5 - 55%, FCS - 70%, etc. on down through Div III)

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  Listen up oh thin skinned ones. Reread my posts and show me, if you will, anything I said that was WRONG with La Tech. I am not saying it is wrong to have only a scoreboard in your North end zone nor am I saying there is anything wrong when your SEZ only cost $14mil. nor is it wrong to refer to Ruston as our modern day Dogpatch. Notice please that I am talking about RUSTON, not La Tech.

You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

I define subsidy as any forced payment that does not come from the fans (since you seem to think Tech is "short on fans" and not worthy of "this level.").

The numbers above are from the fans only (boosters, ticket sales, merchandise etc...). We have a little way to go, but we are worthy of this level... especially football and basketball. The additional $3 million would help us to improve in soccer, tennis, volleyball, etc... and we do need to do that.

(05-28-2015 10:43 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

If Louisiana wants to lower the subsidy but allow us to charge students an athletic fee like you and everyone else in the conference does, I'd be fine with that. You can charge a fee for students attending games, we can't. Maybe you should drop your athletic fee and let students decide whether or not they want to pay to attend games.

But didn't the state of LA just recently allow schools to do it....provided it is approved by the student body?
Also, our subsidy rate is at 26%, and we would be @$15.6 million w/o any subsidies.....and growing very rapidly. That would put us at the very top of CUSA schools. JS

(05-28-2015 11:08 AM)VermilionWhite Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:43 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

If Louisiana wants to lower the subsidy but allow us to charge students an athletic fee like you and everyone else in the conference does, I'd be fine with that. You can charge a fee for students attending games, we can't. Maybe you should drop your athletic fee and let students decide whether or not they want to pay to attend games.

But didn't the state of LA just recently allow schools to do it....provided it is approved by the student body?
Also, our subsidy rate is at 26%, and we would be @$15 million w/o any subsidies.....and growing very rapidly. That would put us at the very top tier of CUSA schools. JS

But you are not in CUSA so its a moot point.

(05-28-2015 11:16 AM)pilot172000 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 11:08 AM)VermilionWhite Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:43 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

If Louisiana wants to lower the subsidy but allow us to charge students an athletic fee like you and everyone else in the conference does, I'd be fine with that. You can charge a fee for students attending games, we can't. Maybe you should drop your athletic fee and let students decide whether or not they want to pay to attend games.

But didn't the state of LA just recently allow schools to do it....provided it is approved by the student body?
Also, our subsidy rate is at 26%, and we would be @$15 million w/o any subsidies.....and growing very rapidly. That would put us at the very top tier of CUSA schools. JS

But you are not in CUSA so its a moot point.

And we have the second best APR scores in the state as well. Behind only those folks in BTR.

(05-28-2015 10:43 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 06:33 PM)RonBurgundy Wrote:  You're always looking for a way to snipe at and bad mouth Tech or Ruston. I don't ever recall you saying one positive or even neutral thing about either.

I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

If Louisiana wants to lower the subsidy but allow us to charge students an athletic fee like you and everyone else in the conference does, I'd be fine with that. You can charge a fee for students attending games, we can't. Maybe you should drop your athletic fee and let students decide whether or not they want to pay to attend games.

Mr. St Gregg you can accept my word for it but if not check with someone in the Tech athletic dept and they will tell you the rule was changed about 2yr ago whereby the state universities ARE authorized to impose student athletic fees IF it is put to a student vote and approved by the majority of students. All Tech needs to do is put it to a vote, no more and no less. That probably wouldnt pass the smell test though because the students were convinced and voted some 2yrs ago to impose a student facility enhancement fee which is being used to pay off the bonds sold to build your SEZ so this would be doubling up.

(05-28-2015 01:43 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:43 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

If Louisiana wants to lower the subsidy but allow us to charge students an athletic fee like you and everyone else in the conference does, I'd be fine with that. You can charge a fee for students attending games, we can't. Maybe you should drop your athletic fee and let students decide whether or not they want to pay to attend games.

Mr. St Gregg you can accept my word for it but if not check with someone in the Tech athletic dept and they will tell you the rule was changed about 2yr ago whereby the state universities ARE authorized to impose student athletic fees IF it is put to a student vote and approved by the majority of students. All Tech needs to do is put it to a vote, no more and no less. That probably wouldnt pass the smell test though because the students were convinced and voted some 2yrs ago to impose a student facility enhancement fee which is being used to pay off the bonds sold to build your SEZ so this would be doubling up.

It's paying for a lot more than that..and that was about 2 years ago and at the time you could not have student fees fund athletics. You could have student fees for buildings and athletic buildings could be included in that..

Three years ago it was.

http://www.myarklamiss.com/story/d/story...qIlR5yfRLA

Don't argue with a fool, Greg. He will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  

(05-27-2015 09:02 PM)eager eagle Wrote:  I have on many occasions over the years related that I think La Tech is a fine educational institution and that Dogpatch is a nice little place to raise a family in a wholesome and quite atmosphere. The thorn in my side is the result of the La Tech athletic department sucking the taxpayers tit to cover over half their annual expenses. If you dont have the fans then compete at the level you can afford or else toss in the towell.

CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.

(05-28-2015 02:26 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:50 AM)Saint Greg Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:44 AM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 10:35 AM)eager eagle Wrote:  

(05-28-2015 08:18 AM)T_Won1 Wrote:  CUSA budgets without the subsidies:

1. Marshall - 15 million
1. USM - 15 million
3. ODU - 14 million
3. UTEP - 14 million
5. UAB - 12 million
5. UNT - 12 million
5. WKU - 12 million
5. UTSA - 12 million
9. MTSU - 10 million
10. La Tech - 9 million
11. FAU - 8 million
12. FIU - 5 million

n/a: Rice, Charlotte

Tech's budget is low, but we compete well in this league despite it. We probably need to get it to 12 million, imo.

Depends upon how you define subsidy. The state subsidy for USM was over $3mil therefore our revenue would be near the $20mil mark rather than the $15mil you calculated. Student athletic fees charged to students to attend games, events, whatever are NOT subsidies because they get a benefit in return. State taxpayer suppliments, like that Tech gets, is a true suppliment and you have no student athletic fees so your figure for Tech is correct.

Well, in that case, ODUs subsidy is 0%. All of ODUs subsidy comes from student fees. None from the state or college's general fund.

Aren't they talking about eliminating or limiting student athletic fees in your state?

Yes, but my post has more to do with EEs odd categorization of subsidies. Doesn't matter if it's from the state, students (even if they do see some benefit) or the college's general fund; none of it is from the ticket paying public and/or donors.

What??? It matters GREATLY if you are taking money from the state, versus ticket sales, donors, etc. That is what it means when school's athletic programs are defined as "self-supporting"....that they do not have to rely on a state to keep their programs going. LOL....if anyone should....or BETTER..... understand this it would be folks in our great state of La.