e-n palaima: UTSA is throwing a Hail Mary pass

[tonylongoriafan]

What do you think of this?

Web Posted today in the Express News

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/commentary/UTSA_is_throwing_a_Hail_Mary_pass.html

By Tom Palaima - Special to the Express-News As a representative of the Faculty Council of the University of Texas at Austin on the national Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) and Big XII representative on the COIA national steering committee, I have long studied the relationship between NCAA athletics programs and the academic mission of state universities.

Although the horse is already out of the barn, it is worth making a few points pertinent to this debate.

First, whatever the financial plan proposed by UTSA administrators to the regents, heavy odds are that going big-time Division I football will add big-time to the costs of education at UTSA. The most recent study by the NCAA (of the economically flush years 2004-2006) proves that only 17 of the more than 300 Division I athletic programs earned a net profit. Sixteen of those 17 programs in the black fielded “successful” teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision.

Half of all revenues came from ticket sales and sports-booster donations. Trademark revenues (sales of sports souvenirs) also bring in big money for winning teams.

In the current economic climate, it was reported last week that even mighty Ohio State University has had trouble selling its ticket allotments for January's Fiesta Bowl, and sales of trademark items are so bad that stores in Columbus and around Ohio have not even bothered ordering many items that normally were bestsellers.

Second, let's consider the student referendum in 2007, in which 4,600 students out of 28,000 voted (16 percent turnout), 3,000 of whom favored going big-time in football at a cost now of $240 more per year for every full-time student.

If you are managing your money — if you have any — in December 2008 the same way you were managing it in 2007, raise your hand. No one? Good.

In my opinion, given the dire economic circumstances we are facing as a nation and locally, the UT System Board of Regents should have felt morally obliged to require that the UTSA administration take another referendum to see whether students, or their parents, now want to part so easily with $960 over four years as they did in 2007.

On an issue with financial implications for everyone enrolled, why not ensure a close to 100 percent turnout by setting up a system whereby the vote could have been taken during registration? It is easy electronically to require that no one could register without at least reading the proposal and making a quick choice to vote yes, no or abstain. Or the administration could have circulated the ballots via classes as an exercise in civic responsibility.

Finally, the Doug-Flutie effect on my alma mater — Boston College — is cited as one way in which a school could rise to prominence via its sports programs. Indeed, my knowledgeable colleague Michael Granof, an accounting professor at UT-Austin, remarks that the extra fees might be worth it for UTSA students if it raises the visibility of the institution.

Big-time football success can instill pride and school spirit. But keep in mind that the Flutie pass on Nov. 2, 1984, is remembered as the Hail Mary pass because it was so rare that it required that the Mother of our Savior intercede to make the miracle happen. I was a student at BC from 1969-1973. I can guarantee you that the feelings that my friends and I had for BC then and feel for our alma mater now would be just as strong if the Blessed Mother had turned a deaf ear.

BC opened its great Tip O'Neill Library in 1984, named after the former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives who graduated from BC in 1936. It was built with donations from loyal alums and admirers of O'Neill. BC had already achieved national institutional prominence, based on academics, well before Flutie became a name in sports-minded households.

UTSA is banking on a one-in-a-million chance that it will become a seventeen-in-three-hundred success. On Earth or in heaven, these are long and foolish odds.

[utsaguy1999]

More nonsensical babbling from a horses' backside. My question to him, so it's ok for Austin and El Paso to have football but not San Antonio? I hope he proposes this same initiative that he mentions in his letter at his campus and let's see what the UT students have to say.

Regarding voter turn-out for the UTSA initiative, one can't compel people to vote. Maintaining the continued academic investment, but neglecting campus life is bad for any university, be it Austin, San Antonio, or Timbuktu. I just can't figure out why anyone wouldn't support a university, any university, in its attempt to improve the academic and campus life of itself.

[tonylongoriafan]

UTSA is banking on a one-in-a-million chance that it will become a seventeen-in-three-hundred success. On Earth or in heaven, these are long and foolish odds.

i respectfully disagree

[doobs]

There's just something wrong about a commuter school getting a D-I football program.

[tonylongoriafan]

There's just something wrong about a commuter school getting a D-I football program.

former commuter school

[bleedorange&blue]

There's just something wrong about a commuter school getting a D-I football program.

Have you not set foot on campus over the last 3 years. There are now nearly 4000 dorms on campus.

Commuter school no more:toast:toast:toast

[tonylongoriafan]

In my opinion, given the dire economic circumstances we are facing as a nation and locally, the UT System Board of Regents should have felt morally obliged to require that the UTSA administration take another referendum to see whether students, or their parents, now want to part so easily with $960 over four years as they did in 2007.

$960 is a small price to pay for football...i spent more than than on 4 tickets and a parking pass for the cowboys/giants game a few weeks ago.

furthermore, it just wasn't one vote that passed, it was several that started in 2004. in addition, the City of San Antonio/Bexar County Voters approved $22 in 2008...so WTF?

i don't think many students have 401k's or other retirement accounts which affect their spending. hell, i'm 27 and have several retirement accounts, i'm watching that shit everyday and NO ONE else i know my age cares.

my point is you want to help students with money, lower the costs of books, raise the % of buy back because that's all the students care about when it comes to money. the fees are well worth what they get in return.

[bleedorange&blue]

Second, let's consider the student referendum in 2007, in which 4,600 students out of 28,000 voted (16 percent turnout), 3,000 of whom favored going big-time in football at a cost now of $240 more per year for every full-time student.

In my opinion, given the dire economic circumstances we are facing as a nation and locally, the UT System Board of Regents should have felt morally obliged to require that the UTSA administration take another referendum to see whether students, or their parents, now want to part so easily with $960 over four years as they did in 2007.



First off, this was the 2nd referrendum done to get a more accurate feel on the student body being represented. The initial one was done in the fall of 2003, my senior year. Around 950 students voted, less than a thousand. That was obviously more than quadrapuled by this most recent turnout.
IF THE STUDENTS HAD SUCH A DISDAIN OR THOUGHT IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE, DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD'VE TURNED OUT WITH MUCH MORE URGENCY TO NEGATE THE REFERRENDUM???????? They had 2 chances as well.

Finally, if you think $960 over 4 years is the main factor on whether UTSA should field a NCAA division 1 football team, THIS GUY'S OPINION IS THAT MUCH MORE OF A JOKE.......:lmao:lmao

Break it down by semester & that's an extra $120. YEAH, LIKE THE TEXTS/BOOKS DON'T INCREASE BY THE HUNDEREDS every semester because each professor has their preferences towards certain vendors & authors!!! YEAH, THAT NEVER HAPPENS...........:lmao:lmao:lmao

I was a poly sci major & routinely had books that would double or triple in cost all becaue the next professor wanted to deal with a different text instead of the previous professor who had that course the semester before.

YEAH, THE KICK IN THE ASS IS HOW MUCH you get offered once you try to the sell book back! DON'T MISS THOSE DAYS!:downspin::downspin:

[fyatuk]

YEAH, THE KICK IN THE ASS IS HOW MUCH you get offered once you try to the sell book back! DON'T MISS THOSE DAYS!:downspin::downspin:

Not that I went to UTSA, or anywhere in town for that matter, but I never had this issue. I've never sold a textbook back. I still have every single one. I even have some that my old HS were giving away because they had been replaced, and a couple from HS I claimed I lost and paid for.

I'm a bit off, I know.

[Blake]

former commuter school

not trying to argue anything here.....I'm just curious...

what are the numbers of students who have come here from another city to attend UTSA as a "first choice school"?

I always figured (and still do) that the bulk of UTSA's attendance numbers comes from commuters that grew up here in SA.

[fyatuk]

not trying to argue anything here.....I'm just curious...

what are the numbers of students who have come here from another city to attend UTSA as a "first choice school"?

I always figured (and still do) that the bulk of UTSA's attendance numbers comes from commuters that grew up here in SA.

There's also been a large chunk for a while that came from out of town and went to UTSA for a year or two before transfering to UT Austin. Not sure how many, but that was a significant amount.

To me, the real key would be how many people come from out of town and stay to graduate.

[lebomb]

not trying to argue anything here.....I'm just curious...

what are the numbers of students who have come here from another city to attend UTSA as a "first choice school"?

I always figured (and still do) that the bulk of UTSA's attendance numbers comes from commuters that grew up here in SA.


Actually allot of students come from all over now......many more than before.

Also, WHY is everyone calling Utsa a commuter school YET are bitching about a football team? Kind of bass akwards dont ya think? Doest getting a football team mean more of a campus life, which in turn will make the school even less of a so called commuter school.

Some of the people that post this shit are just dumbasses......... :rolleyes

[FromWayDowntown]

Actually allot of students come from all over now......many more than before.

Also, WHY is everyone calling Utsa a commuter school YET are bitching about a football team? Kind of bass akwards dont ya think? Doest getting a football team mean more of a campus life, which in turn will make the school even less of a so called commuter school.

Some of the people that post this shit are just dumbasses......... :rolleyes

I don't have the sense that the argument is against UTSA undertaking a football program; I think the argument is against UTSA undertaking a Division I football program.

I'm not sure about the logic of that argument, but I'd guess (without knowing) that a D-1 program entails substantially more cost than a D-2 or D-3 level program would.

With that said, UTSA will make a lot of money in the early years of its program by selling its teams as a sacrificial lamb for road games at huge stadiums with substantial guarantees posted by the home school. I don't know what sort of costs it will incur in using the Alamodome for home games and I don't know what it will cost to build the necessarily facilities on campus to support a team, but with a few big paydays to get their heads kicked in, UTSA's program could be self-sustaining fairly early, particularly if the program's growth is undertaken carefully and somewhat gradually.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Actually allot of students come from all over now......many more than before.

Also, WHY is everyone calling Utsa a commuter school YET are bitching about a football team? Kind of bass akwards dont ya think? Doest getting a football team mean more of a campus life, which in turn will make the school even less of a so called commuter school.

Some of the people that post this shit are just dumbasses......... :rolleyes

Not everybody that disagrees with you is a dumbass. :rolleyes

[lebomb]

Not everybody that disagrees with you is a dumbass. :rolleyes


I know that.........just you are. :flipoff

[fyatuk]

I don't have the sense that the argument is against UTSA undertaking a football program; I think the argument is against UTSA undertaking a Division I football program.

I'm not sure about the logic of that argument, but I'd guess (without knowing) that a D-1 program entails substantially more cost than a D-2 or D-3 level program would.

They can't start a d2 or d3 football program. All athletics are in the same division. They already compete on the d1 level in other sports, so they'd have to drop those other sports to start anything less than d1 football.

UTSA is currently classified as a non-football Division I university (formerly Division I-AAA). Upgrading to FCS (fomerly Div I-AA) gives them up to 63 football scholarships to work with, while FBS has a max of 85.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I know that.........just you are. :flipoff

Really? Because you call everyone that disagrees with you a dumbass and faggot.

[lebomb]

Really? Because you call everyone that disagrees with you a dumbass and faggot.

No just you.













but, I will stop. :toast

[ChumpDumper]

Also, WHY is everyone calling Utsa a commuter school YET are bitching about a football team? Kind of bass akwards dont ya think? Doest getting a football team mean more of a campus life, which in turn will make the school even less of a so called commuter school.Maybe if they played games on campus.

[tonylongoriafan]

i sent the guy who wrote the opinion an email and he responded rather quickly...

...to sum up and parapharse, he's basically more concerned with UTSA slacking on the academics than the success/failure of any athletic program...he provided me a similar opinion from his colleague about oregon state and a study from the department of education about schools with athletic programs losing money. to further his point, not on UTSA specifically, but athletics in are generally a money loser and however this translates into putting a strain on academics is overly negative because the u.s. is already struggling compared to international higher education.

i don't equate academics and athletics in importance and stature. i understand his point but disagree.

[Dr. Gonzo]

i sent the guy who wrote the opinion an email and he responded rather quickly...

...to sum up and parapharse, he's basically more concerned with UTSA slacking on the academics than the success/failure of any athletic program...he provided me a similar opinion from his colleague about oregon state and a study from the department of education about schools with athletic programs losing money. to further his point, not on UTSA specifically, but athletics in are generally a money loser and however this translates into putting a strain on academics is overly negative because the u.s. is already struggling compared to international higher education.

i don't equate academics and athletics in importance and stature. i understand his point but disagree.

That was my concern from the get go.

[tonylongoriafan]

That was my concern from the get go.

that united states universities will fall further behind other international colleges? well, i have no response to that.

from a UTSA prespective, i just don't see it as an issue since academics is leaps and bounds ahead of athletics. i mean the basketball team could make a final four run and it still wouldn't impact the university as much as the new anti-cyber terrorist research and development they're doing...but i don't think it'll take away from it either...i just see it as separate

[Zoroasterisk]

I think this guy has more sense than you guys. Why not spend that extra $240 per students on the library here which is still in the same building it was in 30+ years ago and is running out of room?

I have read his stuff. In Austin he writes columns in the paper regularly. He has been arguing in the newspapers for over ten years about the size of the program and some of the abuses of athletes and the athletics ideal. Some off his stuff is not too bright. But on this one.

[tonylongoriafan]

I think this guy has more sense than you guys. Why not spend that extra $240 per students on the library here which is still in the same building it was in 30+ years ago and is running out of room?



Because the students voted for the extra fees for athletic upgrades. look, i'm all for improving the school from an academic standpoint, but this is not a take from peter to pay paul situation.

the extra fee that was voted (which the students passed several times and bexar county voters also approved a lump sum $$$) is only a very SMALL part of the money needed to construct the new athletic complex and to operate the new football program. the majority of the money needed to start up and operate this program will come from revenues generated from fund raisers. the athletic department is about to start their biggest fundraising campaign ever because all of these plans are contingent upon the $$$.

arguments based upon whether the program will be a success or a failure are a matter of prespective and are certainly open to debate. but to automatically imply that a football program will be a DRAIN on the university because it's not a money maker? that's where i whole heartly disagree. i personally communicated with palaima about this article over the past few weeks and he's sent me various similar opinions of others in academia.

my argument is that academics and athletics, while parallel, are totally separtate issues, especially from a funding and money perspective. what football and an athletic department adds to a university is a totally separate discussion than how it takes away from it...and i think that's the overall feel of palaima's argument because of success of universities abroad.

back to your point, to imply (paraphrasing) "why are we spending $85 million dollars on new athletic facilities when we could build a new library and/or academic building?" is just not accurate and not how things work.

i got it, let's end the war in iraq right now, take the money we were gonna spend over the next year and stimulate economy. even jesus christ himself (mr president elect) knows that while the two issues are parallel, they are in fact separate. :p:

[Roadies4life]

That dude is a dumb fuck. Just like J.T, doobs, etc. Ignore it and move on. Some random fuck ranting his moronic opinion.

[lebomb]

That dude is a dumb fuck. Just like J.T, doobs, etc. Ignore it and move on. Some random fuck ranting his moronic opinion.

X2


You know, the reason only 17 teams make a so called PROFIT in D1 football, is because only a select few teams are allowed to go to the championship bowl game. Therefore only 3 or 4 conference share the gottdayum money every single year. DUH!!! How smart do you have to figure that one out? Open that shit up and have a playoff, so more schools would have a chance at that cash. I also believe more people and students would attend games if they knew all D1 football was an equal playing field and not just a dozen teams that are allowed to win it all. Spread the wealth mufawkus! Greedy basturds!!!

:ihit

[tonylongoriafan]

X2


You know, the reason only 17 teams make a so called PROFIT in D1 football, is because only a select few teams are allowed to go to the championship bowl game. Therefore only 3 or 4 conference share the gottdayum money every single year. DUH!!! How smart do you have to figure that one out? Open that shit up and have a playoff, so more schools would have a chance at that cash. I also believe more people and students would attend games if they knew all D1 football was an equal playing field and not just a dozen teams that are allowed to win it all. Spread the wealth mufawkus! Greedy basturds!!!

:ihit

LMAO lebomb advocating a playoff system...we know, we know bcs sucks! :blah