(05-10-2016 11:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 11:15 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 11:04 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 05:50 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  So for decades the Bulldogs and Yellowjackets were the only FBS programs in the state. Now two FBS programs have been added so they will just change the rules. Sigh.

It's not unusual. When we moved up, Arkansas started passing crazy athletic funding laws that were strategically designed to help Arkansas and hurt us. South Carolina is messing with Coastal right now over there stadium expansion, and there are other examples everywhere.

This is a right of passage for most G5 programs.

Hit the nail on the head. The truly most concerning part is that incremental budget increase crap.

It's terrible because it doesn't even take into account revenues if I am reading it right. It just prohibits expense growth of more than 5%. So even if you sold 30,000 season tickets, won the Access Bowl, got a $50 million donation, joined the AAC and a large tv contract, and found a gold mine....you could still only increase your expenses by 5%.

That's stupid.

Agreed. Although if all this happened to a school, said school would be rich for quite some time.

Curious if this affects things like stadium upgrades

(05-10-2016 11:23 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 11:15 PM)RoyK Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 11:04 PM)chiefsfan Wrote:  

(05-10-2016 05:50 PM)SkullyMaroo Wrote:  So for decades the Bulldogs and Yellowjackets were the only FBS programs in the state. Now two FBS programs have been added so they will just change the rules. Sigh.

It's not unusual. When we moved up, Arkansas started passing crazy athletic funding laws that were strategically designed to help Arkansas and hurt us. South Carolina is messing with Coastal right now over there stadium expansion, and there are other examples everywhere.

This is a right of passage for most G5 programs.

Hit the nail on the head. The truly most concerning part is that incremental budget increase crap.

It's terrible because it doesn't even take into account revenues if I am reading it right. It just prohibits expense growth of more than 5%. So even if you sold 30,000 season tickets, won the Access Bowl, got a $50 million donation, joined the AAC and a large tv contract, and found a gold mine....you could still only increase your expenses by 5%.

That's stupid.

Agreed. Although if all this happened to a school, said school would be rich for quite some time.

Curious if this affects things like stadium upgrades

I'm pretty sure that 5% number only concerns state funds.

I would imagine that if someone donated a large chunk privately, that money could be allocated however the athletic department wishes.

The irony here is that the BOR is attempting to limit athletic fees when the BOR of the one who approved the fees in the first place...

(05-11-2016 04:46 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  The irony here is that the BOR is attempting to limit athletic fees when the BOR of the one who approved the fees in the first place...

Agreed, although you actually have to give them a bit of credit/blame to have a little bit of forethought (if you admire their tenacity to hold onto the power they wield). They are setting policy that will now only be undone by a future BoR collective, a collective which will likely see that UGA and Tech presence fade a little more as other state institutions thrive. The only other recourse is through the Governor's office and state legislature, and in this most recent case it was clear we had enough friends in those places to shift that policy.

Ever since they had to bail out poor decision making at West Georgia, the BoR has had to work on defining the right balance of how much is the right level of support. Furthermore, this comes with the headwinds of climbing out of a recession, public saturation for increased educational costs, projected flat growth of student populations over the next 5-10 years, and the awareness of other states and their approach in capping state resources. Georgia has always been in the front of that discussion, IMO. Had we ever been able to lay claim to more state support we probably would have jumped on the Sun Belt offer in 1990 and left the TAAC.

Personally, I like where Georgia Southern and Georgia State sit. Both institutions are growing in a period of time where across the state there have been deep retractions in student applications and admissions. The state's graduating high school seniors have set the tone. Check out Valdosta State's numbers for some sobering stats. Georgia Southern won't be adding more than 500 students per year (at most, by design) over the next five years, but we have continued to raise the bar on admissions and the incoming classes are better each year with SAT/ACT scores and GPA.

There will be winners and losers across the state in this, but it won't be the Eagles and Panthers suffering ... unless our administrative leaders simply fall asleep at the switch. There is so much going on in both camps, that I simply don't see that happening.

That said, there remains a lot of work to be done.

(05-11-2016 03:24 AM)Baldy Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that 5% number only concerns state funds.

I would imagine that if someone donated a large chunk privately, that money could be allocated however the athletic department wishes.

Pretty sure you're right. Trying to confirm.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(05-11-2016 05:20 AM)Eagle22 Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 04:46 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  The irony here is that the BOR is attempting to limit athletic fees when the BOR of the one who approved the fees in the first place...

Agreed, although you actually have to give them a bit of credit/blame to have a little bit of forethought (if you admire their tenacity to hold onto the power they wield). They are setting policy that will now only be undone by a future BoR collective, a collective which will likely see that UGA and Tech presence fade a little more as other state institutions thrive. The only other recourse is through the Governor's office and state legislature, and in this most recent case it was clear we had enough friends in those places to shift that policy.

Ever since they had to bail out poor decision making at West Georgia, the BoR has had to work on defining the right balance of how much is the right level of support. Furthermore, this comes with the headwinds of climbing out of a recession, public saturation for increased educational costs, projected flat growth of student populations over the next 5-10 years, and the awareness of other states and their approach in capping state resources. Georgia has always been in the front of that discussion, IMO. Had we ever been able to lay claim to more state support we probably would have jumped on the Sun Belt offer in 1990 and left the TAAC.

Personally, I like where Georgia Southern and Georgia State sit. Both institutions are growing in a period of time where across the state there have been deep retractions in student applications and admissions. The state's graduating high school seniors have set the tone. Check out Valdosta State's numbers for some sobering stats. Georgia Southern won't be adding more than 500 students per year (at most, by design) over the next five years, but we have continued to raise the bar on admissions and the incoming classes are better each year with SAT/ACT scores and GPA.

There will be winners and losers across the state in this, but it won't be the Eagles and Panthers suffering ... unless our administrative leaders simply fall asleep at the switch. There is so much going on in both camps, that I simply don't see that happening.

That said, there remains a lot of work to be done.

^^^^^ this^^^^^^

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(05-11-2016 03:24 AM)Baldy Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that 5% number only concerns state funds.

I would imagine that if someone donated a large chunk privately, that money could be allocated however the athletic department wishes.

I believe that to be the case. No way would they say we can't increase >5% expenses if we have ways of funding the increase through private means.

(05-11-2016 06:46 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:24 AM)Baldy Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that 5% number only concerns state funds.

I would imagine that if someone donated a large chunk privately, that money could be allocated however the athletic department wishes.

I believe that to be the case. No way would they say we can't increase >5% expenses if we have ways of funding the increase through private means.

I wonder if they would try to get you to lower the subsidy then.

(05-11-2016 06:49 AM)rokamortis Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 06:46 AM)TheEagleWay Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 03:24 AM)Baldy Wrote:  I'm pretty sure that 5% number only concerns state funds.

I would imagine that if someone donated a large chunk privately, that money could be allocated however the athletic department wishes.

I believe that to be the case. No way would they say we can't increase >5% expenses if we have ways of funding the increase through private means.

I wonder if they would try to get you to lower the subsidy then.

Per the article, this is only their first run at this issue. I imagine they attempt to lower it over time and/or put further restrictions on future fee proposals.

If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

Also, GT and UGA can raise there fees to astronomical levels and still be below the max allowed. Not that they would, but they could raise those fees and how does that help the student and cost control? The should look at the dollar amount in fees paid per semester for athletics and not the percentage of the total budget. Also, GT and UGA 5% is much higher than GSU or GS. It heavily favors the 'big' boys and makes smaller schools stress about meeting the new requirements. We are ok now, but this is just the beginning and the numbers will continue to shift lower. GSU and GS both need to drastically increase donors to meet future restrictions.

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

Also, GT and UGA can raise their fees to astronomical levels and still be below the max allowed. Not that they would, but they could raise those fees and how does that help the student and cost control? The should look at the dollar amount in fees paid per semester for athletics and not the percentage of the total budget. Also, GT and UGA 5% is much higher than GSU or GS. It heavily favors the 'big' boys and makes smaller schools stress about meeting the new requirements. We are ok now, but this is just the beginning and the numbers will continue to shift lower. GSU and GS both need to drastically increase donors to meet future restrictions.

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Wait a minute...so UAB brought it's program's near-death experience on itself?

(05-11-2016 07:49 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Wait a minute...so UAB brought it's program's near-death experience on itself?

The Board was trying to help UAB by controlling expenses. But UAB ruined it all by ducking as the help whizzed past.

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

Students would also vote for no classes on Friday...doesn't always make it a great idea. Honestly, this is a financially smart move. Eagle22 is right, after the mess created at Valdosta State and West Georgia the BOR has to move to ensure it doesn't spread to other institutions.

(05-11-2016 07:54 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Georgia State students voted to impose fees on themselves. Why should a group of old guys from other schools tell them they can't?

Students would also vote for no classes on Friday...doesn't always make it a great idea. Honestly, this is a financially smart move. Eagle22 is right, after the mess created at Valdosta State and West Georgia the BOR has to move to ensure it doesn't spread to other institutions.

Well, cool. Hope y'all enjoy it.

(05-11-2016 07:54 AM)ButlerGSU Wrote:  Students would also vote for no classes on Friday...doesn't always make it a great idea. Honestly, this is a financially smart move. Eagle22 is right, after the mess created at Valdosta State and West Georgia the BOR has to move to ensure it doesn't spread to other institutions.

Sure, but don't try to pass this off as being about the student's out-of-pocket costs. Most students aren't going to give a rat's rump about a $70 per semester reduction in fees to cut a sport or its budget when it costs thousands of dollars per semester anyways.

It's fine to have a conversation about what kind of things universities can do without in order to make college more affordable, but don't scapegoat athletics. There are plenty of other things that could be put on the chopping block that aren't needed.

(05-11-2016 07:49 AM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 07:18 AM)Usajags Wrote:  If you remove the political conspiracy theories, I see this as more oversight to keep over eager presidents and AD's from dumping to much money into athletic programs. They are trying to prevent a UAb situation from happening. Schools forcing the FBS cost onto students and raising the price of education even higher for a program that doesn't have the true support that is required to keep these programs alive.

You have to realize these schools are businesses, they have to pay for the things they have, there customers are students. As their overhead rises, so does their price. We all want our government to live within a budget, well this is part of that. They are controlling expenses.

Wait a minute...so UAB brought it's program's near-death experience on itself?

I blame UAb fan and a fiscally responsible administration. If you owned a company, and you had a division that was spending money with little to no return, little to no support from the buying public, you to would shut it down, or your company would go out of business. It's how the market works.