Comments from new SGA President

[bigCasu]

Just gonna leave this right here

http://theappalachianonline.com/2016/04 ... re-change/

Another change that Howard and Dawson hope to implement is the re-prioritization of student fees.

Students pay $3,257 in fees per year. Out of that amount, $738 go to athletics, which is by far the biggest student fee. Only $294 go to health services. Howard said he would like to decrease the emphasis put on athletics so that other areas can flourish

[JTApps1]

I'd like to know what areas aren't flourishing..

[WataugaMan]

Common Sense 101: Less emphasis on athletics equals less alumni and local support to the University ($$$$). Flourish?????

[EastHallApp]

First of all, congrats to the young man. Seems like a promising kid who wants to make his school better and will do big things in life.

As to athletics funding... I'll just refer to his own words: "And if you can find what people are passionate about, it’s not that hard to inspire them.”

Well, people are passionate about college athletics. Not all people, of course, and that's fine. But enough that athletics drive donations and interest in the school. So I don't think we'll be seeing any major cut to student fees for athletics.

[moonshine]

Good on these guys for trying to get students engaged. It's my understanding that previous students voted on the current fees and they are spelled out in print for all to see prior to enrolling at Appalachian so none of this should come as a surprise. It would have been nice to hear how much money and where they would like to allocate away from athletics. Students most definitely pay for services they do not all use but have the ability too.


http://theappalachianonline.com/2016/04 ... advantage/

"We are already seeing increased student fees."

Can anyone clarify if the student fees have been increased, specifically "athletic fees", since App made the move to the Sun Belt? I was under the impression the university had not increased fees to pay for the move.

[tromboneman]

The comment in the article said that there has not been an African American president of SGA since 1975.
That is not true. One of my former African American students was SGA president in the early 80s.

[T-Dog]

I hate the idea that we should decrease an emphasis on athletics to help other areas. Why not use each to elevate the other? You can have your cake and eat it.

[Gonzo]

If only xe would extrapolate that "I don't want to pay for anything for which I don't derive a benefit" philosophy and apply it to what I presume are xe's other political positions xe wouldn't be such a Bernie-voting parasite.

Of course that begs the question: is an athletics fee of $738 something from which many students don't derive a benefit? The data says that college athletics offers marketing benefits on a national scale that are unachievable by any other means. The data says college athletics helps maintain a report with alumni who donate money. Obviously those benefits are more complex than, say, the fee they pay for having a pool table or 4 in the student union. I would argue it's a better use of money.

They need to do their own research before listening to the handful of rabble-rousing, social justice warriors with tenure. The same professors who conscripted their captive audiences to go out and perform for the news cameras before the Georgia Southern game and say things like "our professors don't make enough money." Gee. Maybe "conflicts of interest" exceed the scope of the women's studies department.

Luckily xe is merely a member of student government rather than someone with much input on budget setting. Best leave that to the ADULTS.

[TheMoody1]

My son is at Clemson and pays $0 in athletic fees. However the total fees and tuition are $6,900 a semester for in state.The $3,200 at App is a bargain, so maybe they should lower the athletic fee and raise tuition.

[App1990]

I must say that the students are more informed than many of us. For those interested to become more informed, the student fee issue underlies a bigger conversation about athletics on campus, which also appeared with parking on Thursday night games. Here some background and information.

First, student fees have been raised since moving to the Sun Belt, considerably actually. Athletics explicitly said the increases were to pay for the increased cost of the move to the Sun Belt. This was expected because, whether the move was good or bad overall, it was expected to increased the annual operating loss (the move increased costs much more than it increased revenue).

Second, the problem was that Cobb, Peacock, etc. misled people about how they were going to pay for the move. They promised to not make students pay for the move. Think George Bush Sr.'s "no new tax pledge". But actually there were plans that increasing athletic fees would be required to cover the increased net losses over time. Rather than waiting, they moved to raise athletic fees considerably the next couple of years, so much that the increases already exhaust the upper bound of the increases planned over the long term. BUT they did not raise ticket prices, which came across (with some truth) that students were paying for the move, not fans. Students began to pay attention, partly because the questionable "no new tax" pledge. They also point out that despite promises that student athletes would not miss any more classes after the move to the Sun Belt, they are missing about twice as much (so much that minimum standards about missing classes had to be lowered a great deal).

It would be a mistake to dismiss the students' concerns. They are very informed and have valid points, and to be honest they know the issues, data and research better than most. Fortunately, this administration is handling it well (yes, the parking issue was part of this bigger concern). The students understand that athletic fees have increased much faster than other fees, that athletic fees are the only fee unrelated to the mission of the university, that athletic fees are the only fee that benefit non-students, that athletic fees are fundamentally a regressive tax that redistributes wealth from relatively poor students to relatively rich fans, that student fees are used to fill in large, recurring operating deficit each year while also serving as an ATM for athletics to spend far more than any responsible business would without this free pot of money, and probably most importantly that despite claims to the contrary directing student fees to athletics does limit the funding for academic activities (e.g., academic needs have been left unmet because the size of the athletic fee constrains the use of other fees for academic purposes).

And impressively, they have read the research that shows shows that alumni giving/interest is enhanced by sports, but is unaffected by the level of sports (playing matters, but it doesn't matter if we are G5 or FCS). And they are aware of the recent studies that show athletics emphasis is associated with poorer student performance (grades decline during successful football seasons) and with increased sexual assaults on campus (assaults increase dramatically on home football games).

What they don't seem to understand it is not just Appalachian. It is a broken system. And I wonder if they realize that Appalachian is not nearly as bad as most G5 programs. The fact is, G5 programs are in a no-mans land that are operating under an unsustainable business model. Things will change. Not sure when, but they will change. Some schools have chosen to stop participating in the system (and done just fine, even better--see Davidson, Northeastern, etc.). Some have chosen to wait and see (JMU, Montana, etc.). Some programs make enrollment decisions to generate student fee revenue rather than to establish academic standards. And many programs have moved forward and struggled a great deal, financially if not competitively (some in the Sun Belt). But we have done amazingly well. When things shake up, we should be in a good position to land on our feet.

P5 lives off of TV. G5 lives off of attendance. The gap between P5 and G5 is growing exponentially by the day. My hope is that G5 will realize this reality and do two things. (1) Reorganize into tighter regional conferences that will save travel, encourage rivalries, and increase attendance, and (2) stop playing the 'keeping up with the Jones' (P5) game and become fiscally responsible by setting a budget based on the fan base interest rather than reaching in to take money from students.

In the end, it is understandable that we love getting most of our entertainment subsidized by them, but it is also understandable that they don't like subsidizing our entertainment. To me they seem pretty impressive because they have their priorities right, and they also seem to be more fiscally responsible than the people we send to DC. I especially like those criticizing the politics of the critics are defending a socialized program of entertainment funded by a tax on students.

[moonshine]

1990, how much has the athletic fee increased since the move was announced? Do the students not vote on the increase?

[jm18668]

Students have an input on fees, but these are utilmately voted on by the board of governors. Student fees are broken down by category: If I remember correctly athletics covers our D1 sports admission (we don't charge for students other schools do), facility enhancements, as well as gyms, pools, recreational facilities and intramurals available to students.

There was a large deficit moving to FBS, increased Yosef donations have helped bridge that gap, but the reality is that the students are shouldering a big portion as well.

I applaud the new SGA president for looking out for current students. I'm almost certain that all students must be covered by a health care plan to be enrolled. The cost per student should be fairly low.

[HeffnerIV]

Many good points above from App1990. We are asking the students to subsidize our entertainment.

Is this candidate then arguing that only sports who can produce the revenue necessary to sustain their full operating costs exist?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Saint3333]

Anyone have the athletic fees by year 2010-2016?

[NattyBumppo'sRevenge]

I think they should keep the fees in place for 11 more years then drop them after that. My oldest is 6 now.

[moonshine]

Just a quick search on the fees and from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 the athletic fees have risen every year. This is not how our previous leadership sold the Sun Belt move.

2014-2015: $701 per year
2015-2016: $713 per year
2016-2017: $738 per year

[WataugaMan]

I don't want to stir the pot here, however, if a $37 per year increase is earth shattering - lord help ya once you get into the "real world"

[Rekdiver]

Again....it's our "progressive" legislature that needs to be voted on, if they would spend more time on education and less on bathroom issues we would be much better.

[EastHallApp]

Thanks for the well-thought-out response, 1990. Agree or disagree with the student's views, better to react like a grown up than a YouTube commenter.

[Saint3333]

By those numbers the athletic fee increased 2.5% per year since 2014 (flat once you factor in inflation).

Overall tuition has increased at a rate of 6% per year. $6,500 in 2014 to $7,400 in 2016.

http://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/ ... -and-fees/#