(01-22-2018 03:53 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:12 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 01:24 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 10:48 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 08:41 AM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Almost everyone who plays in the Sun Belt and CUSA moved up from the FCS and I don’t think a single school except for Idaho obviously would entertain going back.

From a Georgia Southern perspective, we only entered the FBS a few years ago, but our athletic budget has doubled, we’ve added almost 10k seats to our stadium and fill it regularly, and we get more national recognition now than we did even when playing FCS National Championship games.

Georgia Southern just moved up to FBS so you guys are still in the Honeymoon Phase, where alumni are excited and donations are pouring in. That's good.

But it's also true that compared to 5 years ago, you guys are soaking the academic side for $10m more a year, subsidies have risen from $7m to $17m in that time, out-stripping even the growing revenue increases from licensing, donations and ticket sales.

In terms of real revenue - meaning revenue actually generated by football, such as donations and ticket sales - you guys are on a growth trajectory right now, and if the growth continues, you will be an FBS success story. But if that stagnates such that the "growth" is just robbing Peter to pay Paul (student fees/transfers), it will be another failure.

We'll see.

While it's true that students have incurred extra fees during our move-up, it's nothing that the students themselves didn't vote for. There was a campus wide vote of students and faculty to approve the move to FBS that needed a 60% majority to pass. The subsequent FBS fee and stadium expansion fee that were added on top of the athletic fee were approved by student council.

Even though the expenses of athletics have risen since the move up, our academics haven't suffered at all. They've honestly gotten better since. We've raised our academic requirements and and began expanding our academic facilities investing over 150M in the last few years on new buildings and equipment that has turned GSU into the only public research hub south of Atlanta. We haven't even begun the South Campus expansion which will almost double the size of our main campus.

Student votes on these fees are, IMO, problematic for a number of reasons. One is that a significant portion of students might still end up paying for something that they don't want to, and since the program in question isn't about the academic mission, shouldn't have to. E.g., the vote to pass the fee is 60% in favor, 40% against, but the fee is imposed on 100% of students. Much better if those who want a football program pay for it, those who don't, don't.

Second, in a lot of cases these votes have kangaroo qualities. They might be non-binding, meaning the admins will do what they want anyway, or else if the admins lose a vote, then they just keep scheduling them until them until they pass. The pro-fee side gets do-overs.

Third, a lot of times these votes are like votes in communist countries - one person, one vote, one time, because once we win the vote, there won't be any more after that. Once the fee is passed, students may never get a chance vote on it again, or maybe not for many years later, meaning the fee doesn't have a mandate among current students, but it is imposed anyway.

Finally, students are often voting for fees they won't personally have to pay, or at least not much. E.g., seniors and even juniors with just a semester or two left on campus can feel freer to vote for a fee that is going to be imposed until once they are gone, or almost gone. They pass the real costs on to the students who come after. I recall something like that when I was USF. There was an expansion of a student center or something that the admins wanted to build, and they wanted student government to kick in money via a fee. I was an upper-classman with bills to pay and didn't think the expansion was needed, but when i found out the fee would go into effect after i graduated, it was like "Sure, why not"?

Also, it's great news that GS's research capabilities are improving, thanks to big capital expenditures. But whatever the money spent, there would be $10m more of it without the big ramp-up in FBS related fees and transfers. That's not chump change. Enrollment doesn't seem to have grown since the move to FBS, but maybe it will.

Like i said, IMO the jury is out on the move to FBS. It's too soon to tell. Hopefully, it works out well for you.

With respect to student fees---any student at a school when a fee is enacted is stuck with the fees---but at least they had the chance to vote. Those students arriving after the vote dont get a say, but they are aware of the fee before they enroll. Students not interested in athletics or with an intrinsic belief that student fees should not be directed toward athletic endeavors can choose a school with no athletic fees or no athletics at all.

That's not rational. If I am a Drama major and think school X with massive student fees supporting football is the best place for me to develop my craft, it would be silly for me to go elsewhere over that issue. Plus, it's wrong for an institution of higher learning to hold a student's choice hostage like that, putting them in the position of having to choose between something mission-central and football.