Bear Down Wildcats

Looks like the UofA is following asu in charging the students $150.00 fee that will go to the athletic department. This from Greg Hansen's Sunday notes:

To help keep the UA athletic department’s budget balanced, UA president Ann Weaver Hart is apt to tack a yearly student fee of $150 or so onto the cost of admission, a fee that would result in about $5 million annually for Greg Byrne’s department. ASU last year implemented a similar fee, which raises almost $10 million per year for athletics. “I think it might be appropriate,’’ said Hart. “It would all go to athletics. I don’t like splitting those things. You can’t track it. If there’s a benefit to the students, if it makes their experience better, we might do it.’’

That sucks. The ua has always prided itself on being one of the few school's that's never had to do fees.

Why is that fee necessary? Doesn't our AD program run a profit?

Really disappointing. That $5 million is nice, but it's all to keep sports around that no one pays a dime to watch.

PieceOfMeat wrote:Why is that fee necessary? Doesn't our AD program run a profit?

Is this maybe a sign that the big donation well may be drying up a bit and that they don't want to have to depend on major donations to fund some of the things they want to do?

Chicat wrote:

PieceOfMeat wrote:Why is that fee necessary? Doesn't our AD program run a profit?

Is this maybe a sign that the big donation well may be drying up a bit and that they don't want to have to depend on major donations to fund some of the things they want to do?

The budget is getting bigger due to things like feeding the athletes 3 times a day. Also will help give more money to the assistant coaches.

I dunno, I don't really see the uproar. In terms of what tuition/books/rent/beers cost in college nowdays, $150 seems like chump change.

Olsondogg wrote:I dunno, I don't really see the uproar. In terms of what tuition/books/rent/beers cost in college nowdays, $150 seems like chump change.

The issue, as I see it, is that not every student has an interest in or benefits from athletics and yet every student is charged. If this was $150 to fund just the dance program there would be the same issue.

That's the current price of the red pass. Hopefully they lower the cost of it because asking students to spend $300 is just ridiculous.

I don't Get the fuss either. It's part of the college experience. If you choose not to attend, well your loss. They should try and extend it to the arts as well IMO or add some kind of non sports alternative

It sucks, and the students would / should be pissed.

Why aren't they allowing the students to vote on the fee? That's normal practice. They'll vote "yes". At UCSB, we voted away our football team, but there's nothing wrong with that at UCSB.

Longhorned wrote:Why aren't they allowing the students to vote on the fee? That's normal practice. They'll vote "yes". At UCSB, we voted away our football team, but there's nothing wrong with that at UCSB.

I think ABOR has to approve this fee but if asu has it, I doubt they would not ok the fee.

The good news is that at least it prepares students for the "real world" where everything costs money, whether you use it or not.

I don't spend money on things I don't use...

Just read that students pay $512 a semester in fees. That's $1024 a year. It was already absurdly high. Students would be paying for what experience? Buying students who have fulll ride scholarships that third meal?

As for voting, I don't like the idea of the current student body locking in a fee for future students. Unless there's an opportunity to dump it with a vote, too. Wazzu did this, but they got a rec center out of it.

They should dump sports before they do this. Put the onus on the athletic department, where it belongs.

Yeah...already paying $4800 per semester in tuition, $512 in fees, $500 for books, $3500 for a dorm...

ASUHATER! wrote:I don't spend money on things I don't use...

What about all those channels devoted to spices and women's emotions that you have to get for the honor of getting ESPN? You watch all those?

It sucks when you're playing video games in those luxurious locker rooms and some ingrate carrying five-figure loans won't buy you a pizza. Time to transfer.

There has to be some transparency here in explaining what this money goes toward. If it goes to the big sports like men's basketball or football, where students have to buy a ticket in addition, then it's hard to argue that this is something that all students should pay because it benefits all students.

If you're dinging them for $5 million, spend it on adjunct faculty. They're paid peanuts and have no benefits. That isn't what an AD would do, but it's what a president should do.

gumby wrote:If you're dinging them for $5 million, spend it on adjunct faculty. They're paid peanuts and have no benefits. That isn't what an AD would do, but it's what a president should do.

Better yet, spend it on more tenure-track and tenured faculty lines, which go to the world's current pool of adjuncts so they can live and work like human beings, and then make all of the tenure-track and tenured faculty carry regular teaching loads instead of passing the teaching off to adjuncts and exploiting them. And give appropriate raises to compete with other state institutions who are stealing your faculty, causing you to hire more adjuncts....

Want to keep the budget balanced? Dump women's basketball. If it weren't for Title IX there'd be no problem. But since we have to replace it with something, there must be a cheaper sport out there.

AZCatGirl wrote:Want to keep the budget balanced? Dump women's basketball. If it weren't for Title IX there'd be no problem. But since we have to replace it with something, there must be a cheaper sport out there.

I'm glad it's you who said it. Not a net generator sport at Arizona. Since it has to depend on other programs' revenue, it can't compete at the highest level in any case of women's college basketball in any case. Coaching salaries, travel costs, and facilities management are real.

With tuition hikes all over the country and the continuing bad economy, I don't think it's fair to force universities to keep spending money on women's sports that are nothing but financial black holes. I know it'll never change, but if it did, I don't think any university would need to force a sports fee on students.

From the purely Olympic competition standpoint, Title IX has been a boon for most of the Pac-12 schools.

From a common-sense, and non-politically correct, standpoint, it has been a boondoggle that has ADs caught in ridiculous Sears Cup arms races creepingly contributing to a brain drain of most public Ivys.

After all, if you're pursuing your post-med degree in Tucson with zero time to see any of the games, what in the world are you doing agreeing to pay a $150 athletics fee on top of your med school loans?

Wildcats women's basketball has had zero ambition or definition since Shawntinice Polk's passing, and looking at those results, the higher-educated would be pressed not to equate what they're paying to an early form of corporate welfare--doing more than their part to subsidize the college cash cow.

Fundraising drives and alumni associations hit their wall with me when I see such fees tacked on anyway. And yet here everybody is calling for Byrne to back up the dump truck of cash for the basketball and football staffs every time another school publicly even flirts with Miller or RichRod.

I agree those are guys you keep at Arizona, but there are hidden costs to such priorities.

ASUHATER! wrote:I don't spend money on things I don't use...

You don't pay taxes?

Shame.

Longhorned wrote:Why aren't they allowing the students to vote on the fee? That's normal practice. They'll vote "yes". At UCSB, we voted away our football team, but there's nothing wrong with that at UCSB.

Just up the road here at Cal Poly the students voted to pay for fees to keep the football team.

So yes, let the students vote.

If anything, like CG97 said UA should drop women's basketball. Huge money loser.

Note the UA AD still makes a $4M profit.

Longhorned wrote:There has to be some transparency here in explaining what this money goes toward. If it goes to the big sports like men's basketball or football, where students have to buy a ticket in addition, then it's hard to argue that this is something that all students should pay because it benefits all students.

You would think transparency would be a no-brainer. But they're not doing that with the current fees.

http://www.wildcat.arizona.edu/article/ ... ansparency

Klein said that involving students in the fee-setting process is important, because students are responsible for funding more university operations today than they have ever been.

“It’s not as clear today as it could or should be, [and] it’s extremely important that students understand how their funds are being used,” Klein said. “Students are, today, bigger shareholders in the university system than they’ve ever been before.”

Just now trying to figure out how to do it? Seems it would be easy if you weren't embarrassed about how it's spent. And look at that list of fees. Each one could be considered "chump change," but it adds up. And few of us paid these fees. Easy for us to say, "What's the fuss?"

So the reward for this lack of transparency is:: Another fee! First, say how it will be spent. Be specific. And don't play the game where this money frees up other money to be spent in a way you don't want the public to know about.

As for booting women's sports, you're basically saying the only reason a sport should be on campus is if it is self-sustaining. That there is no educational value to sports. OK, then why does this take place on a college campus? Why are there P.E. classes? Intramurals? Are there other areas of education that must be self-sustaining?

In any event, the self-sustaining model would blow up most football programs. Instead, universities spend even more -- see ASU -- on money-losing programs, with the promise that they will -- one day -- achieve pure profit status. But first they need to keep Todd Graham and Herb Sendek. So, um, students: fork it over, and we'll make you a "partner."

Let's turn to voting on it. Does that mean a future student body can vote on it to make it disappear? No. That would be an advisory vote. Whereas a vote to adopt the fee would be considered a key rationale for making it permanent. And then raising it.

This is why discussions over paying athletes and all the rest need to include the how-do-you-pay-for-it component before moving forward. It's simple to come up with Shabazz Napier sob stories, and then point to those huge TV contracts and say, "Give them a piece."

But here we are possibly charging other students to make this happen, in part.

Other than all that, I say this is a swell idea.

Longhorned wrote:

gumby wrote:If you're dinging them for $5 million, spend it on adjunct faculty. They're paid peanuts and have no benefits. That isn't what an AD would do, but it's what a president should do.

Better yet, spend it on more tenure-track and tenured faculty lines, which go to the world's current pool of adjuncts so they can live and work like human beings, and then make all of the tenure-track and tenured faculty carry regular teaching loads instead of passing the teaching off to adjuncts and exploiting them. And give appropriate raises to compete with other state institutions who are stealing your faculty, causing you to hire more adjuncts....

And this gets us to the Rose Bowl, how?

When ASU did it.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/c ... m/7652535/

The only real backlash has come from Tucson, where there are no athletic fees for University of Arizona students, where Athletic Director Greg Byrne recently raised $30 million from the private sector for the renovation of his basketball arena.

"I would rather not talk about it other than to say at this point the University of Arizona has chosen not to pursue a student fee," Byrne said.

So much for the high ground.

Merkin wrote:

Longhorned wrote:Why aren't they allowing the students to vote on the fee? That's normal practice. They'll vote "yes". At UCSB, we voted away our football team, but there's nothing wrong with that at UCSB.

Just up the road here at Cal Poly the students voted to pay for fees to keep the football team.

So yes, let the students vote.

If anything, like CG97 said UA should drop women's basketball. Huge money loser.

Note the UA AD still makes a $4M profit.

Surprised to see that the football team is only slightly positive.

I'm not surprised.

http://www.si.com/college-football/2014 ... ons-debate

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... s/2814455/

The Knight Commission says Division I schools with football spent $91,936 per athlete in 2010, seven times the spending per student of $13,628. Division I universities without football spent $39,201 per athlete, more than triple the average student spending.

Nearly every university loses money on sports. Even after private donations and ticket sales, they fill the gap by tapping students paying tuition or state taxpayers.

Athletics is among the biggest examples of the eruption in spending by universities that has experts concerned about whether higher education can sustain itself.

gumby wrote: As for booting women's sports, you're basically saying the only reason a sport should be on campus is if it is self-sustaining.

Just the ones that lose $3.6M a year. Use that money to fund other women's sports. I have a niece who was an all star goalie in Tucson, and on her college team in Texas there are no full scholarships, only partials. Aren't most scholarships outside of football and basketball partials?

Even with 85 scholarships, RichRod won't give one to a kicker or punter until they earn it, and only when a junior or senior.

Merkin wrote:

gumby wrote: As for booting women's sports, you're basically saying the only reason a sport should be on campus is if it is self-sustaining.

Just the ones that lose $3.6M a year. Use that money to fund other women's sports. I have a niece who was an all star goalie in Tucson, and on her college team in Texas there are no full scholarships, only partials. Aren't most scholarships outside of football and basketball partials?

Even with 85 scholarships, RichRod won't give one to a kicker or punter until they earn it, and only when a junior or senior.

In football, the response is to hire a better coach, build better facilities, not dump the sport.

ASUHATER! wrote:I don't spend money on things I don't use...

Isn't that the insurance business in a nut shell...

ASUHATER! wrote:Yeah...already paying $4800 per semester in tuition, $512 in fees, $500 for books, $3500 for a dorm...

Ditto ...... ( last one )

A big source of instability is precisely the stability of successful programs. Some programs are perennial winners and net generators. Those two qualities are interdependent. But sustainable winning requires losers. If the losers don't keep supplementing their non-self-sustaining programs, there will be no losing teams for the winning teams to beat. So.... Is continuing to field losing teams the motivation for tax-payers and registered students to pony up?

I'm not being hypothetical. In 1991 I personally voted "no" when asked to approve fees to sustain our losing football program at UCSB. Our Big West foes lost their loser, and eventually the Big West had to get rid of football altogether. Our winning, self-sustaining basketball program was never called into question, but who knows what other program will decide eventually that they can't sustain their financial losses for their losers on the court?

Will we ever have to rethink the current inward-looking campus model (football funding softball), and instead consider a sport-by-sport model across conferences? As in USC football's earnings supporting Washington State's football? And Arizona basketball funding Washington State basketball?

This fee would be such bull. Speaking as a current student, they already tack on way too many fees. The even started adding a fee for online courses, which is a joke, as they cost the university less to run, yet they're adding a fee on top of the tuition already.

Mr.Zebra wrote:This fee would be such bull. Speaking as a current student, they already tack on way too many fees. The even started adding a fee for online courses, which is a joke, as they cost the university less to run, yet they're adding a fee on top of the tuition already.

It doesn't matter if they cost less to run because they involve different entities that aren't sustained by the registration fee in the tuition. U of A and other public institutions now require their registered students (and their families) to pay for the very expensive cost of higher education. Citizens used to pay for it with much higher taxes. Not even tuition existed. But now we live in a culture that abhors taxes, and their idea that we pay for things that we don't personally use or benefit from directly and immediately. We'd rather undermine the incentive of people to go to college or send their kids to college by making it financially devastating. So the people who can afford to pay higher taxes can afford to send their kids to college, while those who could pay a little more taxes instead have to blow through their life savings and mortgages. It's awesome for the economy and our ability to compete in the world.

Longhorned wrote:

Mr.Zebra wrote:This fee would be such bull. Speaking as a current student, they already tack on way too many fees. The even started adding a fee for online courses, which is a joke, as they cost the university less to run, yet they're adding a fee on top of the tuition already.

It doesn't matter if they cost less to run because they involve different entities that aren't sustained by the registration fee in the tuition. U of A and other public institutions now require their registered students (and their families) to pay for the very expensive cost of higher education. Citizens used to pay for it with much higher taxes. Not even tuition existed. But now we live in a culture that abhors taxes, and their idea that we pay for things that we don't personally use or benefit from directly and immediately. We'd rather undermine the incentive of people to go to college or send their kids to college by making it financially devastating. So the people who can afford to pay higher taxes can afford to send their kids to college, while those who could pay a little more taxes instead have to blow through their life savings and mortgages. It's awesome for the economy and our ability to compete in the world.

If you need money for school, just borrow it from your parents!


"This kind of devisiveness, this attack of success, is very different than what we’ve seen in our country’s history. We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business." -- Mitt Romney

doesn't the asu fee stipulate free student admission into all home sports events? are PAWH and ADGB implying an expansion of student admission & zona zoo revenue in lieu of guaranteed fixed revenue from the mandated athletic fee? I went to arizona pre-ZZ (sup, basketball ticket lottery?) and am not familiar with student passes and whatnot. the student body back then continued to raise hell about the $25 rec center fee, so i can imagine the reaction that this athletics fee will incite.

if i am remembering correctly, the asu fee was passed without a student vote, too.

Longhorned wrote:

Mr.Zebra wrote:This fee would be such bull. Speaking as a current student, they already tack on way too many fees. The even started adding a fee for online courses, which is a joke, as they cost the university less to run, yet they're adding a fee on top of the tuition already.

It doesn't matter if they cost less to run because they involve different entities that aren't sustained by the registration fee in the tuition. U of A and other public institutions now require their registered students (and their families) to pay for the very expensive cost of higher education. Citizens used to pay for it with much higher taxes. Not even tuition existed. But now we live in a culture that abhors taxes, and their idea that we pay for things that we don't personally use or benefit from directly and immediately. We'd rather undermine the incentive of people to go to college or send their kids to college by making it financially devastating. So the people who can afford to pay higher taxes can afford to send their kids to college, while those who could pay a little more taxes instead have to blow through their life savings and mortgages. It's awesome for the economy and our ability to compete in the world.

Another Longhorned first down! Good posts in this thread, professor.

dirtbags wrote:doesn't the asu fee stipulate free student admission into all home sports events? are PAWH and ADGB implying an expansion of student admission & zona zoo revenue in lieu of guaranteed fixed revenue from the mandated athletic fee? I went to arizona pre-ZZ (sup, basketball ticket lottery?) and am not familiar with student passes and whatnot. the student body back then continued to raise hell about the $25 rec center fee, so i can imagine the reaction that this athletics fee will incite.

if i am remembering correctly, the asu fee was passed without a student vote, too.

ASU got some student leaders to buy in. But, like, 10 percent of students even vote for those leaders. Free admission is a part of the ASU plan if extra tickets are available. Obviously, they wouldn't be at McKale. Football, usually yes.

Lots of "mights" and "apt to's" in the original article.

Could be using Hansen to float a trial balloon.

Let's save the pitchforks and torches until they actually make plans to do it.

p.s. epic post by Longhorned..... we need rep on this board....

Nothing wrong with popping it.