New student fee to redo Arizona stadium

[ChooChooCat]

Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

Wait, so the UA Athletic Department is somehow not a part of the University of Arizona? Their budget is completely separate? Come on, choochoo, don't be so simple. The UA is a single entity, so any funds spent anywhere affect the amount left over to pay for all the other activities taken on by the university.

If donors step up and give $4-5 million specifically to be used for the bubble, that's one thing. In any other scenario it costs either the students or the tax payers.

Never said it wasn't part of the U of A, it's just run off its own money. Arizona Athletics profits pays for Arizona Athletics not taxpayer dollars.

[ChooChooCat]

Yep. I certainly don't think Livengood was a bad AD. I think the biggest thing at the end of his tenure was just that he wasn't a high energy type, it felt like he was someone who was just going with the flow. Byrne is the complete opposite. He was a badly needed shot of adrenaline for the school.

Livengood's biggest downfall was ignoring Arizona football in regards to facilities (in general, not an indoor practice facility). Granted he finally put a plan together as he was out the door and Byrne followed through with that plan, but still too little too late for his stay here.

[dirtbags]

i also have always heard that the athletics dept is a financially-independent entity from the rest of the university, and that it never receives funding from the state or students. but i remember seeing this report of athletics programs' 2014-15 finances and noticed that, while Arizona is profitable, it took in close to $9MM in subsidies -- defined as the sum of student fees, direct and indirect institutional support, and state money minus funds transferred back to the school -- which accounts for over 10% of total revenues. anyone know what comprises this figure for our program?

[Newportcat]

Dirtbags

It's the free scholarships all the scholarship athletes get. Basically the U of A does not charge any tuition for our scholarship athletes so it is a subsidy. The U of A doesn't write a check to our athletic department but gives them this subsidy. As they say there are no free lunches but also a misnomer to think the U of A writes a check to the athletic department.

Also one thing which no one brings up is goodwill. The athletic department gives each student a lot of goodwill that they are not charged for. Meaning when I tell people I went to U of A almost always they say "great basketball program". When I meet people who went to U of A we always chat about the sports programs. It is what binds many people to the school. I have friends who went to UCI and UCSD and they all say they wish they would have had real sports because there is no connection with their school.

That's why I thought the student fee was justified as the athletic department generates a lot of goodwill for the vast majority of students. I remember hearing that one of the biggest times for donations to U of A for all programs was after U of A won the 97 championship.

[Newportcat]

Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

cal, stanford and ucla don't have indoor facilities (at least as of last year)

those schools will never have an indoor facility as those schools do not need them as the weather is perfect the vast majority of the year especially Stanford and UCLA. UCLA actually moves their preseason practice to San Bernardino now because Jim mora doesn't want his team to be that soft playing in the nice LA weather.

[Newportcat]

Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

Wait, so the UA Athletic Department is somehow not a part of the University of Arizona? Their budget is completely separate? Come on, choochoo, don't be so simple. The UA is a single entity, so any funds spent anywhere affect the amount left over to pay for all the other activities taken on by the university.

If donors step up and give $4-5 million specifically to be used for the bubble, that's one thing. In any other scenario it costs either the students or the tax payers.

Having given money to the U of A, and coming from a family who has given money to the U of A specifically the athletic department I can personally tell you that the athletic department is separate from the U of A in terms of all athletic facilities are paid for by donors. Now the u of a will put their balance sheet up to back debt for athletic projects like Lowell Stevens but all those debt payments are made through u of a athletic funds. Meaning we didn't raise $72M in cash for Lowell Stevens, part of it came from debt because we could sell additional revenues will come from the improvements for selling the new seats and suites and that additional revenue can service debt we took on. We also received a sizable amount of cash so debt levels are fine.

Now with something like the indoor facility, they can't really raise debt for it as it will not generate revenues so it has to be paid for 100% by donors. If anyone says anything about this facility in terms of it affecting Arizona tax payers has zero idea how these type of facilities work at the U of A. The only way it gets built is 100% through donations or profits from the athletic department.

Total costs is between $20m to $25m as they want a permanent facility and need to tear down the old baseball stadium and re do the practice fields so additional costs from that. It's a lot of money to raise and hopefully some big donors step up.

[Newportcat]

Yup that state of the art bubble got Oregon state there in 1941.

Will an indoor practice facility guarantee us a rose bowl...of course not however will it hurt our chances of making a rose bowl, not even close. We have never made a rose bowl and getting an indoor facility will only help our chances as no recruit will ever look at it as anything but a huge positive for us. And if we ever want to make a rose bowl we need to consistently recruit better talent as its been our problem from Day 1. We have to go into enemy territories for 98% of our recruits so we better have something good to sell them.

[dirtbags]

Dirtbags

It's the free scholarships all the scholarship athletes get. Basically the U of A does not charge any tuition for our scholarship athletes so it is a subsidy. The U of A doesn't write a check to our athletic department but gives them this subsidy. As they say there are no free lunches but also a misnomer to think the U of A writes a check to the athletic department.

thanks @newport - i don't think that $9MM includes athletic scholarships. the methodology indicates that the subsidy number deducts any funds that are transferred back to the school (like scholly amounts). including scholarships in the subsidy number would also mean that texas, UK, lsu, ohio state, a&m, and a number of other power 5 programs do not offer up any athletic scholarships since their subsidies are zero in the database. or maybe it's simply an accounting method thing, i dunno.

[Puerco]

Why are we bringing up tax payers in this debate? They wouldn't pay a dime towards any athletic facility. It all comes out of the AD budget (money made from profits) as well as donations. Always has and always will. Now if you want to bitch about Rich Rod's salary as a taxpayer then you have ground to stand on.

On another note not having an indoor facility hurt us in the sense that literally every one else in our conference and vast majority of power 5 schools have one. Not having one is a negative for us and a positive for others, it just is. An indoor facility is a need in situations where the monsoons do not play nice and also to get rid of a negative against us in recruiting.

Wait, so the UA Athletic Department is somehow not a part of the University of Arizona? Their budget is completely separate? Come on, choochoo, don't be so simple. The UA is a single entity, so any funds spent anywhere affect the amount left over to pay for all the other activities taken on by the university.

If donors step up and give $4-5 million specifically to be used for the bubble, that's one thing. In any other scenario it costs either the students or the tax payers.

Having given money to the U of A, and coming from a family who has given money to the U of A specifically the athletic department I can personally tell you that the athletic department is separate from the U of A in terms of all athletic facilities are paid for by donors. Now the u of a will put their balance sheet up to back debt for athletic projects like Lowell Stevens but all those debt payments are made through u of a athletic funds. Meaning we didn't raise $72M in cash for Lowell Stevens, part of it came from debt because we could sell additional revenues will come from the improvements for selling the new seats and suites and that additional revenue can service debt we took on. We also received a sizable amount of cash so debt levels are fine.

Now with something like the indoor facility, they can't really raise debt for it as it will not generate revenues so it has to be paid for 100% by donors. If anyone says anything about this facility in terms of it affecting Arizona tax payers has zero idea how these type of facilities work at the U of A. The only way it gets built is 100% through donations or profits from the athletic department.

Total costs is between $20m to $25m as they want a permanent facility and need to tear down the old baseball stadium and re do the practice fields so additional costs from that. It's a lot of money to raise and hopefully some big donors step up.

I'll respond to choochoo here as well, because it's pretty much the same point.

Okay, I know that the UA Athletic Department is a profit generating function within the University of Arizona. My point is that it is, in fact, merely a department within a larger, loss-making (if you take taxes and tuition out of the equation) organization. If you run a business, like Google for example, you will have certain functions within the business that are generating a profit and others that do not. Profit from the 'good' functions is then used to finance the activities of the rest of the organization. With Google cash from the search engine funds driverless cars, hardware development, in-home networking, and terminator robots, just to name a few.

Applying the model to the UA, the Athletic Department profits should be funneled into the University's general budget for use in reducing the overall dependence on taxes and in lowering tuition. Saying that the function is profit-making and therefore deserves to do what it will with those profits makes no sense from the point of administering the overall university.

I think that addresses the point of mine you were responding to, Newport. Athletics is a part of UA, and anything it spends affects the rest of the university and therefore indirectly the tax payer. (Private donations directly to the athletic department excepted)

Now, regarding the indoor facility: I have absolutely zero moral objection to it if it is funded by donations which are dedicated to UA Athletics, and to some large extent the athletic department should have some ability to invest a portion of the profit it generates. I still doubt the need for it, but if enough people want it and the cash is available, then why not?

[PHXCATS]

Understand your line of thinking but people who pay money and donate money to U of A Athletics do not necessarily care about U of A academics nearly as much or at all in some cases. I love U of A but take more pride in athletics than even advances and awards my college receives and personally I don't really care much about any other colleges other than mine and the university as a whole. Point is that it is not okay to fund academics from athletics money after all is said and done after a profit from that standpoint of the investors of that money want it to go towards bettering athletics not academics.

[Newportcat]

Whoever said the U of A athletic department makes a profit??? It does not, basically breaks even every year. They should also NEVER send money back to the U of A even if they did make a profit as they should invest it into facilities, coaches and assistant salaries, admin salaries, maybe even giving student athletes larger stipends. The function of the athletic department is not to turn a profit, it is to be fiscally sound and basically break even every year. So if they are able to generate more revenues from say ticket sales, that money should go right back in to investing into the department. I do think the long term goal would be to get rid of the U of A providing free tuition to student athletes and have the athletic department cover their tuition costs but we need roughly $8M in additional revenues each year to accomplish that and that sort of money does not grow on trees.

Puerco, I am glad you do not have any moral objections to someone like myself donating money to the athletic department or the new indoor facility, that makes me sleep better at night.

[azgreg]

It's my understanding that very few athletic departments break even much less make a profit. The exceptions are the Michigan's of the world.

[Newportcat]

Here is the information on it

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/" target="_blank

If you take the tuition subsidy away from our athletic department, you will see we do not make a profit but basically break even

[Jefe]

Finished on schedule! The sign and the window "A" went on this week

[wyo-cat]

I haven't been inside yet, but the state of the art pools have been open since fall camp began. They are a huge upgrade from the ice bags in big, round cattle troughs. The pools themselves are a huge upgrade in facilities for recruiting.

[UAEebs86]

From Dave Heeke's weekly e-mail:


DETAILS ON THE APPROVED STUDENT FEE
The Arizona Board of Regents voted to approve the University’s budget submission for the 2017-18 school year last Thursday and a part of that was the implementation of a student fee for athletics. The fee, which will go into effect for the 2017-18 academic year, is intended to support athletics programs, facilities and the improvement of the student and fan experience at our venues. During the four-year phase-in period, which includes only incoming graduate and undergraduate students, the fee is expected to produce approximately $800,000 in the first year, $1.6 million in the second, $2.4 million in the third, and then $3.2 million per year moving forward.
The expected revenue produced by the student fee, along with a generous, private $5 million donation, will make it possible for athletics to borrow approximately $75 million to get started on some, but not all, of our various infrastructure projects. Once we’ve finalized the list of projects to be addressed initially, we’ll share that information publicly, but those details are still being determined.
The fee is $100 per year for incoming undergraduate students, while returning undergraduate students will not be subject to the fee. Incoming undergraduate students, who will pay the fee, will receive free admission to all ticketed sporting events other than football and men’s basketball. They, along with returning undergraduate students, will need to purchase the appropriate ZonaZoo membership for access to football and men’s basketball games.
Incoming graduate students will have the choice to pay a $50 yearly fee as they can opt out. Incoming graduate students that choose to pay the fee will receive free admission to all sporting events other than men’s basketball. They will need to purchase a new, graduate-student-only ZonaZoo ‘White’ pass in order to have access to men’s basketball games. Returning graduate students who opt out of the fee will need to purchase the appropriate ZonaZoo membership for access to ticketed sporting events.
We want to thank everyone who was involved in this process from student leadership to the Board of Regents. We had a number of productive conversations with key stakeholders over the last year, and by working together, we were able to land on a reasonable outcome. This will certainly benefit our student-athletes and those attending our events as we strive to continue to be a point of pride for our University, students, alumni and the Tucson community.
For a complete listing of student athletic fee details, click HERE.


http://admin.arizonawildcats.com/sports ... c-fee.aspx

[azcat49]

So I wonder if Arte ponied up the 5M?

[qwertyus]

Dirtbags

It's the free scholarships all the scholarship athletes get. Basically the U of A does not charge any tuition for our scholarship athletes so it is a subsidy. The U of A doesn't write a check to our athletic department but gives them this subsidy. As they say there are no free lunches but also a misnomer to think the U of A writes a check to the athletic department.

Also one thing which no one brings up is goodwill. The athletic department gives each student a lot of goodwill that they are not charged for. Meaning when I tell people I went to U of A almost always they say "great basketball program". When I meet people who went to U of A we always chat about the sports programs. It is what binds many people to the school. I have friends who went to UCI and UCSD and they all say they wish they would have had real sports because there is no connection with their school.

That's why I thought the student fee was justified as the athletic department generates a lot of goodwill for the vast majority of students. I remember hearing that one of the biggest times for donations to U of A for all programs was after U of A won the 97 championship.

Surprised that nobody's brought that up. "Goodwill" is one way to put it. I'd call it "brand awareness". After the UA baseball program won the CWS in 2012, the UA got their highest number of applicants ever, for example. Not a 1-1 causation, but there's a correlation between how well your sports programs do, and how aware people are of your school.

The alumni connection is sorta what made me go to UA and not UCSC (that, and I didn't know what I wanted to do, so Eller was more attractive to me than a basic Econ degree at Santa Cruz). I wanted to go to a place where I could enjoy college athletics. Not playing them, I could only muster mediocre intramural ability, but the gameday experiences were appealing to me. There's no Zona Zoo at Santa Cruz!

Plus, with my academic scholarship, school expenses were about even, even though I was paying out-of-state. Really makes me wonder how the UC's get away with charging so much. Hell, now they're just going for out-of-state people even harder, so they can get 60,000/year out of more people...

[Jefe]

Got an offer to tour Lowell Stevens that I couldn't pass up. The team was just loading up for the Ft Huachuca trip and Coach was walking out as we walked in. His office was off limits so no bathroom pic, sorry Longhorned, but I tried

Hot/Cold tanks with HydroWave jets



Training room in the background where the players get taped up, x-rayed, concussion testing etc



Everything in the weight room was UA branded



Check out these beasts. Tagaloa with the bench press record at 482 and 225 record with 38 reps. TJ with a 4.24 40'



Headed out to the field. The turf is incredible



Threw some 40 yard bombs and punted a 25 yard field goal through the uprights in some loafers



About half of the locker room. Smelled magical



Sands Club



and the view

[CalStateTempe]

Way cool.

[ANGCatFan]

Thanks Jefe, I'm in Bend Oregon at 99% eclipse and the Weight Room board is so much cooler! Here are the current players I see on the board.

Vertical Jump: Tharpe DL 29.5, Schooler LB 36.5, Tilford RB 38, Brown WR 36.5, Aragon ST 31.5

Bench Press: Bruno DL 455, Wood TE 355, Mashack DB 376, Reiter ST 355

Press 225: Fanene OL 34, Miller LB 24, Wood TE 22, Mashack DB 21, Reiter/Reinhardt ST 17

Squat: Eletise OL 670, Brown WR 514, Mashack DB 475, Reinhardt ST 493

Clean: Wood TE 365 HC, Dawkins QB 321, Reinhardt ST 334

40: Fields LB 4.69, Johnson WR 4.24, Cruikshank DB 4.48

3 Cone: Fields LB 7.03, Wood TE 7.23, Taylor RB 6.73, Dawkins QB 6.73, Ellison /Johnson WR 6.75, Holland DB 6.70, Pollack ST 7.23

Pro Agility: Wood TE 4.3, Taylor RB 4.09, Ellison WR 4.02

[Merkin]

[azcat49]

Nice, will RR be around to benefit by it?

[ChooChooCat]

I literally posted the link to all the projects a week ago or so lol.

[Merkin]

[Jefe]

Dont be Nike Dont be Nike

[azpenguin]

Dont be Nike Dont be Nike

Don't be Adidas Don't be Adidas

[prh]

Dont be Nike Dont be Nike

Don't be Adidas Don't be Adidas

Please be Under Armour Please be Under Armour

(sorry can't help myself. I just like them a lot more than either Nike or Adidas)

[azgreg]

[azgreg]

[qwertyus]

Good to see that. Hoping the new academic facilities help this as well. Gotta graduate your athletes.

[azgreg]

[prh]

Even though the sun comes up every day, we get a little rain and sometimes a bit hot.

Awesome to hear about this moving forward. A "sports performance center," that will be really sweet, assuming they have facilities similar to what some other schools and world class facilities have for the entire health and management of athletes.

[Newportcat]

So student fee was passed and will make some really necessary improvements including

New pool
Basically brand new student section for football
Massive softball stadium improvements
New indoor facility
New locker rooms for many sports at mckale including soccer golf swimming etc

I know some were against it but the fee was lowered to $100 for undergrads and $50 for grad students and they can opt out too

Really no way we were going to raise money for the new pool or indoor without it

[azgreg]

[Newportcat]

Has worked started on the indoor practice facility yet?

[Jefe]

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/s ... 596197.htm

Judge OKs $20M Student Fee Refund Lawsuit Against University of Kentucky

A Kentucky judge has ruled that a lawsuit seeking refunds for University of Kentucky students who had to vacate campus because of the COVID-19 pandemic could continue, the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.

Franklin County Circuit Court Judge Phillip Shepherd ruled last week that claims for a refund of close to $20 million in mandatory student fees can move forward. He dismissed a portion of the case that demanded a partial tuition refund. The university had sought to dismiss the case entirely.

The fees support facilities like labs and gyms, most of which were closed to students after the university switched to online classes in March, the lawsuit stated.

“Our position is the university has inappropriately retained close to $20 million dollars in fees – mandatory fees for services and facilities that the students did not have access to,” students’ attorney Andre Regard said,

Jay Blanton, UK’s spokesperson, said the university was reviewing the order and had no immediate comment on it. Previously Blanton has defended the fees, saying they “support critical facilities and services that students have asked to support over the years and that remained available to them, such as mental health and wellness counseling.”

According to a breakdown of the fees paid during the 2019-2020 school year, a full-time student with at least one class on campus paid $160 for student health services, $131.25 for the operation of the student center and $80 for use of a large, on-campus gym. Students paid less than $20 for organizations like student government, activity planning boards and the student-run radio station and newspaper.

When the campus closed in mid-March, a few hundred students remained in on-campus dorms, while the vast majority returned home to complete the semester. The university partially refunded housing and dining fees at a cost of nearly $14 million.