warhawk_dude
12:50 PM on April 7, 2011
I agree. This fee would especially put a huge strain on folks with a family. ULM has a huge non-traditional student population. The admins plus students need to remember not everyone has TOPS or scholarships. There a lot of people working hard to feed their kids and also trying to get an education.
HK416
10:58 AM on April 7, 2011
So ULM athletics—which hasn’t had a winning football season in Malone Stadium since 1993—wants students to pay a fine—oops, I mean, fee, to continue funding the losing tradition? Sure, football isn’t the only athletic endeavor on campus but it’s by far the most costly in addition to being the worst performer.
According to its 2011 budget, ULM must transfer $2.9 million from the Education & General fund to athletics to cover the same amount of loss incurred by that department. Football is almost always the biggest revenue-generator for a university's Athletic Dept; yet, ULM football loses $270,000; it costs $3.2 million to maintain but only makes $2.93 million in revenues. ULM isn’t alone. 106 out of the 120 FBS programs lost money in 2009 according to the NCAA. The difference is many of those 106 teams had the benefit of winning programs and repetitive post bowl game appearances around Christmas and New Years—something ULM football hasn’t, nor likely ever will enjoy. Most of them also have enrollments upward to 20,000 students or more, and average a lot more than 15,000 fans in their stadiums during Autumn Saturdays.
While academics must certainly be the focus, universities need solid athletic programs as well. Unfortunately ULM, like other universities in the Sunbelt, Mid American, Western Athletic and Mountain West conferences don’t truly belong in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), which used to be Div I-A. Rather, they are far better suited and resourced to participate in the Football Championship Series (FCS), which used to be Div I-AA. Both FBS and FCS are Division I. The difference is how much more it costs to compete in the FBS compared to the FCS. If one wants to own a high-end Mercedes, they'll pay a lot more $$$ to keep it running than if it were a Ford.
Before making each ULM student pony up nearly $250 a year just to reinforce failure, perhaps the university should first honestly explore the option of moving its football team to the FCS.
bankone1
This is a poorly wriiten article with false information. La Tech receives $200,000 in student fees for athletics not $3 million. Also the numbers on undergraduate enrollment are false.
warhawk_dude
12:19 PM on April 7, 2011
Regarding the new video board project (expensive toy), I've always been against it because ULM athletics would never state how they were going to pay for it. Now I know how they are going to do it, tax the student! During state budget cuts, ULM should spend money on education, not athletics.
richlandretiree
2:05 PM on April 7, 2011
Adding more student fees to support athletics is ridiculous! Students are already paying out the nose for an education so why should they have to support a failing athletic program when most of the student body isn't even involved in athletics? Perhaps if the university got rid of the likes of Professors Stockley and Unter they could use those salaries toward athletics. Stockley and Unter serve no purpose at ULM but to bicker and argue with each other.