Save the date: All eyes on 2023 for conference realignment
http://www.espn.com/college-football...ence-shuffling
We better be ready by 2023. I hope we have a good 5-year plan.
Printable View
Save the date: All eyes on 2023 for conference realignment
http://www.espn.com/college-football...ence-shuffling
We better be ready by 2023. I hope we have a good 5-year plan.
TMac probably thinks we're gunning for SWAC or SLC membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
One of the suggested new criteria is whether the fan base is willing to pay to watch rather than market size. This may even run contrary to market size. The more fans (or alumni) you have who live too far to travel the better. They will want to pay to see their team instead of even local P5 teams. It may become more market driven. I don't care about SEC games unless they're playing Tech or maybe a conference mate. I really don't give a rat's _ss about watching LSU play Alabama or Georgia play Florida and wouldn't pay to watch them. They will get 100,000+ in the stadium but that's 100,000+ who aren't watching on TV or whatever. ESPN should have a pretty good data bank of who watches out of area games on ESPN3. I don't know if they could track how many watch individual games on Game Plan but it shouldn't be hard on ESPN3.
Nothing to track from ESPN GamePlan or ESPN FullCourt since those TV packages have not existed the last two football or basketball seasons.
Thanks. Since I didn't try to use them I didn't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by FriscoDawg
ESPN has become as bad of liars and liberal as CNN of late. Not sure what to believe from ESPN anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
They've been all about liberal politics for many years. Any PC cause at all, just mark them down for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
yep you can put Roger Goodall and the NFL in the same PC boat.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
I'm sure they can is this Orwellian world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
.
by 2023 you will see some shuffling of MWC, CUSA and AAC - the power conference will have to cut ties with some of their schools or bring in some new schools. Either way, if Tech does not screw up majorly between now and 2020, we will be fine. The realignment decisions will be made in 2020 and announced that fall.
I would bet a couple of schools get called up to help even out the numbers in the P5 levels. Already been advised that Tulane has been told "thanks but no thanks" from the B12 - so who moves up is a crap shoot - Memphis maybe? Marshall is looking hard at going back to the MAC.
We want two AAC schools to move up to have a real secure shot at that conference - but again, it will be some type of realignment with what is left of the MWC, CUSA and AAC.
With Tulane being told "thanks but no thanks", will we have the votes to get in to the AAC? I would think Tulane would vote no to keep us out and I have gotten the feeling over the years reading articles that the others do not look favorably on being conference mates with TECH.
Didn't they vote in favor of us joining C-USA?Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
We can dream of getting in the AAC when we double our current budget.
We are having cake walks to raise money and our AD refuses to hobnob with the common folk.
Why wouldn't they? They knew they were leaving. We were in C-USA together what? One year.Quote:
Originally Posted by techdawg28
“You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy” than Ragin Pagin.Quote:
Originally Posted by ULM2009
I hear what you're saying, but keep in mind we're talking about an AAC of 10 years from now, not the AAC of today. Take away a handful of the biggest budget schools, and their average would come down dramatically.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
We had Tulane's support in 2004 and in 2012. And Tulane was not invited to the Big East/AAC until November, 2012, long after casting a vote in favor of Tech's CUSA invitation in April, 2012.Quote:
Originally Posted by techdawg28
Tulsa and Memphis will not vote for us.
Yet Tulsa voted for us in 2012 when we were invited to CUSA. And Memphis has a completely new leadership team from just four years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by faninmonroe
And that's the problem. By the time we get invited it will just be a watered down C-USA/Belch conference.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
The only place to go from the AAC is a power conference. I don't think we'll see more than 2, maybe 4 AAC teams make it there between now and then. Not 7 like C-USA's realignment. Many of the teams will remain, and it will be one step closer to "relevant."Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
Of course, if their TV $ is significantly reduced when they renegotiate soon, the collective budgets may dramatically reduce as well. Many of them are running such high budgets to both get into a money conference, and attract higher TV $Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
There are 12 football playing members of the AAC. The 5 best candidates to move from the AAC to a Power 5 conference are:Quote:
Originally Posted by techdawg28
USF
Cincinnati
UCONN
Houston
UCF
Everybody else in the AAC is just waiting on us to get there. They aren't going anywhere. And IMO, the best options for the AAC to expand are:
LA Tech - Great geographical fit. Athletically sound in all sports, essentially 5 hours or less from SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Memphis, Tulane & USM.
Southern Miss - Great legacy fit. Athletically sound in all sports. Shares many of the same geographic advantages that LA Tech has.
Old Dominion - Great geographic fit in the east. Appears to be athletically sound in most sports. Within 5 hours drive of Navy, ECU, & Temple.
Rice - Academics, academics, academics. Also fits well geographically.
*FAU - Nice geographic fit in the east, assuming USF or UCF (or both) need to be replaced. The AAC will want to keep a presence in Florida.
Just my opinion, but the only way WKU and/or MTSU get invited to the AAC is if they both get invited at the same time. Having them both in the same region helps the geography. Otherwise, either one could end up being an outpost.
These are the kind of on-going talks that T-Mac needs to be having with AAC officials today.
If Memphis is still there neither MTSU nor WKU would be an Outpost, but would rather bridge the west and east. If Memphis were to be taken, they would still be a bridge and would essentially replace Memphis. Plus, their on the field/court success would be quality adds for the AAC.
I think we're a solid candidate, but we need some titles and big wins over the next few years to make sure we're first in line.
We'll also need to continue to improve our academic profile, which Guice seems to be doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by techdawg28
The Big 12 is still perceived as the most vulnerable, as Texas or Oklahoma could cripple the league by leaving. But revenue totals are encouraging -- its 10 members will split $348 million from the 2016-17 academic year -- and the internal squabbling that has plagued the conference seems to have disappeared.
This quote is from Adam Rittenberg's story that Dawg06 posted. Rittenburg doesn't explain the reason the internal squabbling within the Big 12 has disappeared. Texas has basically told the rest of the conference where it can shove its proposed future plans for the league. Everybody knows the score and is quietly planning for the day the league implodes.
I would be surprised if the league actually makes it to 2023. Five schools leaving at one time would nullify the Grant of Rights. But I would be absolutely shocked if it survives past 2023. If the NCAA allows the remnants to stay together - Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, etc...- and rebuild, that would trigger major realignment within the G5.
without Oklahoma and Texas, who really wants Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, TCU, etc.?
I don't think it is a question who wants them but a question of out of the possibilities in the G5 and them who is better. There very well could be some of the G5 who are better fits than the leftovers from the Big12 but that would take some mighty convincing arguments. The leftovers from the Big 12 would generally have more pull than anyone in the G5. The question then remains, who in the G5 is most attractive to join with the leftovers from the Big 12. Let us pray that our administration is preparing for our arguments to be at the head of the line of those that are desirable in the coming changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by faninmonroe
Umm..... ME!!Quote:
Originally Posted by faninmonroe
We better be ready.
Amen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg06
I have very little faith in our ability to be ready. I think Guice will be able to take the necessary steps but I'm not so sure about TMac. In fact, I'm fairly certain that he does not have the ability to move us forward.
Perhaps one of the "necessary steps" Les needs to take is to replace TMac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Dawg
Guice is the boss and I'm certain he's very interested in us moving up. I know y'all don't trust TMac but if Guice does then so do I. For now at least.
None of us truly know what's going on behind the scenes, anyway
What "behind the scenes"? We don't have any real BIG donors or otherwise we wouldn't have to be begging for just $30,000 to replace an old worn out sign.
I think what he's referring to is the relationship building between Dr. Guice and his counterparts in other conferences as well as between Tommy and his counterparts in other conferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
There is also the quiet use of third parties that have connections that could help at some point down the line.
Finally, our administration will have to line up internal constituencies. Some of you would be surprised how many administrators on campus, including some athletic council members, believe that staying one step ahead of ULM should be good enough for Tech.
I understand your point, but the truth is we've had individual donors give millions to the last two major projects, which total more than $34 million in construction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
Every major donor to those projects is going to be approached at some point in the future for the next major project. If you were LG the next time you ask them to pull out their wallets would you ask each for $30,000 or $3 million plus?
OmahaDog would be an excellent possibility from my observations. I have no idea how the $ would compare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
Is that an opinion?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
FactQuote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
Correct. Unfortunate but correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Well I'm glad that opinion was not the predominant one, or else we wouldn't be fighting to be one of the top 2 programs in the state, we would be fighting for the penultimate oneQuote:
Originally Posted by stodgdog
It held us back for years. Had we been in position to move up at the appropriate time, we may be in the ACC right now. We spun our wheels for at least 10 years while Dan Reneau was in charge. Thankfully, we have leadership in place who will help us to keep moving forward...other than our AD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearpaw
Most of all we need a bigger budget and that is the hardest to get done. If I remember correctly, that is why our current AD was hired. As much I read from posts on here with consternation about his doings, I wonder if we have looked at his actions through that very lens. It might explain a few things. But then again, if it doesn't, we need the right person to fix that very problem doing it right now!
No doubt about it, our budget will be our biggest limiting factor when conference realignment resumes. If we're not super aggressive in finding a way to increase that budget, things will not go well for us when the next big shuffle happens.Quote:
Originally Posted by WWDog
I believe that student athletic fees are the only way we'll ever be able to increase our budget in any appreciable way. Right now, I'm pretty sure that we're very limited with what we can do with student fees. It may literally take an act of congress to change this situation. Tech and ULL would support allowing student fees without affecting state general funding, but would UNO, ULM, SLU, NSU, MSU, Nichols, Southern, and GSU? Probably not, so it'll be an uphill battle in Baton Rouge to get it done. It's going to take some very good salesmanship. We'll see if TMAC is up to the task.
I agree about our budget. So many assume our AD is responsible for the increased giving. That's not accurate. For starters LTAC giving is down. Dr. Guice has been more responsible than anyone, but the Brooks Hull hire is much more important to the increase than what our AD has done (or not done).
We could have an enthusiastic alumnus win one of those big $1billion Powerball tickets. Maybe they could donate $2-10million a year of the $10-$50million annual annuity ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
You keep repeating that "LTAC giving is down". I find this difficult to believe. Versus WHAT? Versus a previous one year anomoly at some point? Or is it a trend?Quote:
Originally Posted by PawDawg
Our football program has seen more bottom line success in the last 5 years than at any time since the 1970's. Over the past 5 years we have had bigger average crowds, seen our facilities improve dramatically and watched the game-day experience keep improving. Other sports have done well too. Just not sure I believe this comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
The proof on LTAC giving being down is the non reporting of the actual amounts.
He did not hire COYHCSH and even though COYHCSH has show respect in media mentions of our AD, it is believed by many that he does not respect him at all.
- Bigger than average crowds? Based on what?
- Facilities have improved. Our AD is not responsible for the funds being raised.
- Game day experience improving? That's just ridiculous. The video board, concessions, ticket promotions are all lacking to say the least.
Here is my son's Fall 2017 account summary. Are athletic fees rolled up in undergrad fees? Seems reasonable if you have a yearbook fee you should also be able to have an athletic fee especially since they still get in at no additional cost with their ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
Estimated Fee Charges: Fall 2017
Code Description Date Debits Credits Balance
BEGINNING BALANCE 0.00
2011 UNDG TUITION 11 HR 0711 1,851.00 1,851.00
2031 UNDG FEES 11 HR 0711 1,098.00 2,949.00
2690 LAGNIAPPE FEE 0711 30.00 2,979.00
2641 TECHNOLOGY FEE-11HRS 0711 55.00 3,034.00
2591 ENERGY SURCHRGE-11HR 0711 80.00 3,114.00
2630 ENGINEERING/SCIENCES 0711 60.00 3,174.00
2625 E&S LAB SUPPORT FEE 0711 70.00 3,244.00
Ending Balance 3,244.00
Good question, but likely in UNDG fees. Back in the old days we had a student activity fee which I believed covered concerts and athletics. I have gone to the Tech Website and can find no detailed description of some of the fees - general fee ($95.39) and University Assessed Fee ($695.94) These two are quite vague I can find no other description. In addition there is a student assessed fee of $119.50. There are four others you don't list - Building Use fee ($44.50) in case you actually want to go to class, Academic Enhancement Fee ($16.67), Academic Excellence Use Fee ($80.00), and Operational Fee ($46.00). No where do I see anything for athletics so they must be covered in one of these. These cover the UNDG Fees of $1098.00. Anybody else know anything?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETxBullDawg
These fees have come a long way from the old $50 per semester registration fee and our modest other fees of about $15.00 per semester (it seemed to work out about the same per quarter when we changed). Inflation would probably account for the $65 to $1098 increase (hey it's been 52 years). It's tuition which is the big difference. It used to be zero.
What the hell is an "Energy Surcharge" fee? :laugh: We're as bad as a hospital that charges $25 for an aspirin.Quote:
Originally Posted by ETxBullDawg
Keep in mind, you can have student fees for athletics, but the total amount generated by the fees and transferred to athletics counts towards the cap mandated by the state. The exception is any student fee used to pay down facility debt or for facility projects. Those monies don't count towards the cap.
In most years in the I-A/FBS era Tech has transferred the maximum allowed by the state. So student fee money provided to athletics wouldn't increase the overall athletics budget unless the state raised the cap.
Looks like my phone bill.....fees, taxes, other unknown crap charges that only a PHD or a teenager can understand!Quote:
Originally Posted by ETxBullDawg
To follow up on my previous post:
Our student body passed a student fee in 2002 and another in 2012 with portions of the proceeds of each fee going to athletics for facility projects. Fee increases that have gone before the student body in the past 25 years have been overwhelmingly supported. The 2012 increase passed with 84% support. The last fee increase that came even remotely close to failing was the Centennial Plaza fee which passed with just over 50% support in 1992.
This hasn't been the case at other schools in the state. Students at ULM and UNO have both rejected student fees that were primarily for athletics, while a fee at UL-Lafayette had to be watered down with money given to more than a dozen student organizations in order for it to garner enough support to barely pass. Students at LSU rejected a fee increase to renovate the LSU union only to see the LSU Board of Supervisors impose the fee anyway.
At the same time there have been debates by various campus committees at Tech about these fees when they've been proposed. Over the years almost every student fee that's passed has had a higher pricetag when first proposed internally within Tech.
And cutting those proposals has gone beyond Dr. Reneau. Even when Reneau was in favor of certain fees at certain amounts there have been administrators and faculty members who have insisted they be whittled down to where they have only a minimal impact. The argument has always been 'not to soak the students'. The shame of it all has been the fact Tech is the one place in the state where a large student fee for athletics would likely have enough support to pass a student vote, yet the students have never even been given that opportunity. And Tech still has relatively low tuition and fees.
As I have posted previously in this thread Dr. Guice has to deal with internal politics that few here ever see.
As I noted it is very difficult to pin down some of these fees. It would probably take an FOI request to get the school to enumerate what all of these fees actually go for and then I would bet they would stone wall you as long as possible. Also as I noted the UNGD fees are about the same as our old fees from 1966 adjusted for inflation (I used 5% compounded yearly for 52 years so it's pretty rough), but at least they told us what they were for.Quote:
Originally Posted by HogDawg
HT:Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Techsan
All of these fees have a history to them. Some are university assessed. Others are student assessed, while some of the student assessed fees have been implemented with votes within individual colleges. Trust me, nobody would stone wall you.
Here is info on the Technology fee:
http://www.latech.edu/administration/policies-and-procedures/1304.php
Here is the info on the Energy Surcharge:
http://www.latech.edu/techtalk/output/n%20-%20gas.htm
At least these fees have some sort of name or purpose but hey are almost chump change. But what about the Under Graduate fees like the University Assessed fees of $695? And I really had to go onto the University Web site and dig to find this one. And as for the tuition, I won't even go there.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Internal politics? If Dr. Guice is truly in charge of leading our university, he can't let a few liberal academians push him around. Tell them how things are going to be and if they don't like it, show them the door. It's not like Dr. Guice will be up for re-election in four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
Haven't you heard of tenure. If they're old enough maybe retire them.Quote:
Originally Posted by brtransplant
And in Louisiana every university administrator who is fired and has any type of case goes ahead and sues.
Historian,Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
I really do think this has changed. http://www.regents.la.gov/assets/doc..._2012_0425.pdf - Page 5
CLASSIFICATION OF STUDENT SELF-ASSESSED ATHLETIC FEES IN REGARD TOTHE POLICY FOR STATE FUND USAGE IN ATHLETIC PROGRAMS
On motion of Regent Rasberry, seconded by Regent Bollinger, the Board voted unanimously to accept the recommendation of the Finance Committee to approve the reporting of the student self-assessed athletic fees on the BoR-3 form separately and transfer those fees separately to support the university’s intercollegiate athletics program in addition to the maximum transfer allowed by the Board of Regents Policy for State Fund Usage in Athletic Programs.
From reading this, it does appear that student self-assessed fees would not count against the transfer as of 2012.
I'd have to read the Finance Committee's recommendation but at first glance it seems to be a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
The last time I asked anyone about this issue was September, 2016. At that time I was told any student fee income generated that wasn't to pay down debt or pay for facilities would be included in the cap. This language might have been issued in order to clear up questions regarding how fees were classified for reporting purposes to the state and NCAA.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
Back in 2012 both Tech and UL-Lafayette wanted to reflect every dollar that hit athletics for any reason in their respective budgets for conference realignment purposes. Tech promised CUSA a $20 million budget. UL-Lafayette believed it wasn't included in realignment discussions because of its budget. This language might have been in response to those needs. But I was told fundamentally nothing has changed with the policy since 2002. And I suspect that's correct, because no school that's transferring the maximum has even tried to introduce a student fee for anything but facility needs.
The problem I've run into over the years with the Regents is the fact that in the past they've issued clarifying memos to the schools with policy changes that, for whatever reasons, don't show up in the minutes. That's how this policy was fully implemented in 2002. Realitycheck and I both went through a host of documents before I finally found the actual policy change.
Here are the minutes from the Finance Committee meeting on April 25, 2012. On the surface it would seem to be a change in the policy. And lord knows I wish it was. But when you read it carefully notice the language on Page 3 that says "restricted revenue" in multiple places.Quote:
Originally Posted by GermDawg
Then notice the guest list on the last page. Dr. Rea attended every meeting in Baton Rouge when Dr. Reneau was not present. He was the lone attendee from Tech. However, at this particular meeting, there were 4 people from UL-Lafayette present.
As I previously posted, I suspect this was a change pushed by UL-Lafayette to reflect certain revenue for reporting purposes. I've never heard of any type of fundamental shift in this policy. If so, one of the max transfer schools would have put the issue in front of the students by now.
http://www.regents.la.gov/assets/doc...il-25-2012.pdf
The change is confusing because there isn't a revision to the 2007 policy: http://www.regents.la.gov/assets/doc...5/policies.pdfQuote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
However, the minutes are pretty clear to the intent. I would love to know our administration's opinion on the matter.
I believe the restricted vs. unrestricted funds is simply a determinant of any condition or restriction attached to the monies by the funding source.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
IE: An endowment or donation to a specific department in the university would be considered a restricted revenue, as it couldn't be spread about as needed. General funding from the state would be considered unrestricted. I found an old LSUHC New Orleans' BOR-3, and I'm pretty sure that's what we're looking at. https://www.lsuhsc.edu/admin/vcaf/Bu...orms/bor3b.pdf
So in these terms, as long as the self-assessed student fee is restricted for use specifically to athletics, and not the general funding of the university, it would not count against the GF transfer.
I would disagree with that -Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
IF it was otherwise, you would of seen someone already test those waters - especially during the O & G boom
Based on all interpretations our of the AG's Office everything remains status quo -
Is there an AG's opinion stating such? And, if you take that reading of the minutes and policy, what effect DID the change have? What would a restricted student self assessed fee that is not counted look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
I don't necessarily think that just because it hasn't happened means it can't. I would argue that the reason it hasn't been done yet is because you'd likely only get one shot at it. In an environment where the universities (including Tech) have had to raise tuition and fees yearly just to avoid layoffs, another fee is hardly palatable, and the size of the fee would need to be substantial to make a real dent in the operating revenues of the athletic department.
As of 2017, the students pay 119.50 in self-assessed fees for a full time student undergraduate. There are 7,850 of these. A $60/quarter fee for just full times over 1 year is $1.4 Million. This replaces a money game.
The only effect it had was how it was REPORTED and formally accounted for - didn't change the "nature" of the fees or how they are counted against the cap - better apples to apples comparison
As the Historian expounded on - the nature of the beast is still the same - you don't have to have a formal AG opinion to ask if it has changed (or expend the political capital, especially give then economic climate of the last 5 years), all you have to do is pick up the phone with their office and ask if there has been a change -
I'm sorry, DFM. But that dog don't hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwayne From Minden
If it has been intimated by the AG that the transfer limit still applies to self assessed student fees for athletics (SASFA?), I am forced to wonder: Who asked? Who from the AGs office answered? And what was provided that so definitively answered the question to the point that no one in administration is willing to swallow it?
As to the reporting you mention: the minutes and motion specifically mention both reporting AND the actual transfer of such funds being different than before. The Finance Committee directly addressed (succinctly, I might add) the exact situation we've always talked about for years as limiting student fees. I quote:
"Currently, any revenues generated through student self-assessed fees have been included in the total maximum allowable transfer to athletics. He (Mr. Barre, Deputy Commissioner for Revenue and Finance) stated it has become evident that whenever a university student body votes to assess themselves a fee to support athletics, the full benefit of that dedicated revenue stream has not been allowed in the maximum transfer calculation, by virtue of the fact that those revenues are netted against the 3% operating budget calculation, thus the impact of the new revenues dedicated by the students to be transferred to support the university's intercollegiate athletics program are not fully realized."
"the staff recommends in order for university athletic programs to be afforded the full amount of student self-assessed dedicated support:
1. that restricted revenues generated by student self-assessed athletic fees be separately identified on the BoR-3 form... and
2. that restricted revenues generated by student self-assessed athletic fees be transferred separately to support the university's intercollegiate athletics program in addition to the maximum transfer allowed by [policy]."
On my reading, the funds are restricted because they are explicitly dedicated for athletics. If I'm incorrect about the nature of restricted funds, then what are restricted funds? They appear to go to great pains to make clear that these are self-assessed and dedicated funds.
My original question still stands:
If the rule change here doesn't allow self-assessed student fees to be reported and transferred outside of the limits of the general transfer cap, then what on earth does it do? The AUP would cover anything regarding inflating athletic budgets using fees, and the motion we're discussion shouldn't have an effect. The AUP governing the athletics reporting was already in place in 2012. Just to Historian's point: All the UL-Laf folks on the guest list you read were academic affairs and one finance person. No athletic presence, from what I can tell.
And to add: I understand that both yourself and Historian have a deep knowledge of the wonky world of state and local govt. finance. I'm no stranger to it myself, but likely not on this level. I do not mean to imply disrespect by disagreement.
My overall point: The universities are aware that self assessed student fees can now augment the budget, but they're scared to try on account of the students voting it down. Secondly, they're afraid to have a fee passed and then see political blowback: i.e., the legislature getting involved to reverse the BoR decision that we've been reading.
As soon as one university does it to serve as canary in the coalmine, the whole UL system will follow along.
NWST, ULM, SLU, MCNeese, Nicholls all have restricted student self-assessed fees listed on their BOR-3. for 2015-2016. ULL and Tech do not.
Banjo - relax
http://www.memecreator.org/static/im...es/4258955.jpg
I agree with you that recent years would've been a bad time to introduce a vote for a student fee for athletics. With state funding for higher ed being slashed every six months, tuition and fees skyrocketing, and TOPS in limbo, the blowback could've been really bad for any school that tried to pass an athletics fee in the last couple years. I don't think any of our faculty and staff have gotten a raise since 2008, and our buildings and grounds staff has been slashed to nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
Keep in mind ULM, UNO, and maybe another school had votes for athletics and other student fees that got rejected in the last few years. Also, all 3 of Tech's self-assessed fees since 2004 have passed overwhelmingly with about 85% in support.
What it could mean - and perhaps what the schools agreed to behind the scenes - is that funds were restricted to what's been allowed since 2002, facility improvements. And that this has more to do with reporting than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
I am almost 100% certain UL-Lafayette was behind this change, because they were concerned about how their budget was being reported. All on a day when they knew internally they were about to be passed over in the conference realignment shuffle. Look at the date - April 25, 2012.
And when I say 'what the schools agreed to behind the scenes' it's because the changes in 2002 were agreed to behind the scenes. I could never find information in the minutes during that era that allowed some of the changes that took place with facilities fees and how they were being used. It took a very specific FOIA request to find correspondence from the AD at UL-Lafayette at the time, Nelson Schexnayder, that outlined what the schools would and would not do if the Board made the changes. That never showed up as an addendum in the Board minutes.
I suspect that happens frequently with the Board of Regents and may have happened in this instance.
If this were actually allowed. Or if it's not allowed at this point. And then a change was made that would give Tech the green light to ask the students to vote on this, I don't think either of these reasons would stop Dr. Guice from doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by LATechBanjo
As I posted a few weeks ago in this thread, there is opposition on campus from certain administrators and faculty members to increases in student fees. Internal politics would be the one thing that would either stop a student fee of this kind or whittle it down to where it had only a minimal impact.
Thank you...Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
No one on this board is better versed in these issues than the Historian -
Can't disagree with that possibility! I'm not surprised by anything occurring behind the scenes in this state and meaning the opposite of what's written.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Historian
As I put in my last post, there are schools that specifically identify restricted self-assessed funds for athletics in 2015-2016. http://www.regents.state.la.us/asset...BOR3_FY17.xlsx
Northwestern lists a total of $1,883,513. (Of interest, in 2013 the students at NWST doubled the existing student athletics fee on themselves). They report the identical amount on the 2015-2016 report as student fees https://www.lla.la.gov/PublicReports.nsf/D9DCB2971B6FC226862580CE005943BC/$FILE/00012629.pdf. They report $3.8Million as direct institutional support. https://businessaffairs.nsula.edu/as...utal-15-16.pdf
I'm not savvy enough to calculate what their total 3% capped amount would be, and the characterization between direct/indirect institutional support. But if someone knows where to find the true operating budget numbers and calculate the transfer cap, it should just be a matter of math. I've looked and can't figure it out though.