$200: the final straw for this Gopher alum & lifelong fan

Donate To GopherHole
Section 100

Section 100

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
569
Reaction score
415
Points
63

Section 100 said:
www.startribune.com

In order to stay competitve in college athletics, the U has a plan; students paying students

Despite Twin Cities campus students being charged $200 a year, the U still faces a $9 million athletic budget deficit.
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com

This is it. Students have to pay student-athletes. We have a senior at the U; she has to pay $200 to her classmates this year? Fuck that.

I'm not giving another dime to the U.
Click to expand...
you do realize that the U is not the only one doing this? That isn't meant as a dig, just that this has been going on for awhile at places and has gone up quite a bit at many more. Unsure if this is a "separate" fee, or just that the U needs to disclose what they're doing with the fees they already charge (the list is long for random fees https://onestop.umn.edu/finances/costs/fees)

South Carolina is charging 300 a year, Clemson 150 a semester, WVU is doing it, a bunch of the SEC, etc.

I'm not saying its not ridiculous this is where athletics has gone and that this is how they have decided to approach the entertainment that athletics provides, but if this is the straw that's an interesting one to choose in light of where everything else has gone given how much athletics (football really alone) ripple in terms of what they do for revenue generation, facilities, campus experience, etc.
 

On principle I think it's an awful decision. Tuition already covers fees related to the athletic department, adding costs to pay athletes that many (probably a plurality) of these students will never go to watch looks dirty. The excuse of "yeah, well other schools are doing it" rings hollow. And sure, "$200 is a drop in the bucket for how much a semester at the U costs," but this is just the entry fee. This isn't a fixed cost, they'll continue to bump it up by percentage points year by year just like tuition generally.
 

I can see if a student ponies up for a student tix package of some sort...across the target revenue sports...that such a purchase could responsibly count toward this fee.

As an alum myself and stepping back to what the U is spending money on, I'm not sure this fee is the most egregious item being paid for by the students through their tuition and fees.
 



This is so incredibly wrong! Tuition-paying students should not have to pay for athletes. Not every school is doing this, e.g, University of Wisconsin

1. Raise ticket/user fees on tickets.
2. Get more sponsors.
3. Get more concerts.
4. Get more NIL.
5. Get a more creative athletic director.

The Board of Regents should reverse this decision
 


Ahem, non-scholarship students have been effectively paying for athletic and other scholarships since time began. This is just an itemized extra cost.
 




What the U should have done is bury the $200 somewhere in the $30,000+ cost of attendance for an in-state student.
 

Panthadad2 said:
What the U should have done is bury the $200 somewhere in the $30,000+ cost of attendance for an in-state student.
Click to expand...
i think they legally have to say its being used for this/what their money is allocated for. but yeah if you look at the U's fees, they have a whole bunch of shit buried in there in your fees that you may or may not use as a student
 

Panthadad2 said:
What the U should have done is bury the $200 somewhere in the $30,000+ cost of attendance for an in-state student.
Click to expand...
upnorthkid said:
i think they legally have to say its being used for this/what their money is allocated for. but yeah if you look at the U's fees, they have a whole bunch of shit buried in there in your fees that you may or may not use as a student
Click to expand...

Yeah, my comment was made at least partially tongue-in-cheek. It's really hard for me to get riled up about another $200 fee when it's a tiny drop in the bucket for funding a kid's college education.
 

This study sheds some light: https://econofact.org/who-wins-with-college-sports

The data isn't immediately from the last two years but offers some insight. Such as this piece:

Large and persistent athletic department deficits lead schools to increase student athletic fees (many exceed $1000 per student yearly) and contribute to increases in tuition.

Here's another section:
Even as commercial revenue streams have grown for top-billing football and men’s basketball, athletic expenditures exceed revenues at the vast majority of schools. In 2019, only 25 of 130 schools in the high-grossing Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) whose members are large, mostly public universities (with some exceptions such as Notre Dame, Northwestern, and Stanford) reported positive net revenues (see here). In fact, the median athletic program in FBS in 2019 (the last pre-pandemic year) had an operating deficit of $18.8 million.

I think the reality is this is just part of the larger arms race taking place in college athletics. Not sure what the end game is, but I feel the system is going to need some major restructuring.
 



upnorthkid said:
i think they legally have to say its being used for this/what their money is allocated for. but yeah if you look at the U's fees, they have a whole bunch of shit buried in there in your fees that you may or may not use as a student
Click to expand...
I like your posts upnorth, but can't say the argument of charge em a little more because they are already being charged a bunch moves the needle much.

And $200 to someone paying their tuition probably with a job as well can be a lot of money. Maybe not to the guy with the 6 figure NIL deal that it is going towards, but to them? Ya $200 can be a lot of money.
 

WoodburyTim said:
I like your posts upnorth, but can't say the argument of charge em a little more because they are already being charged a bunch moves the needle much.

And $200 to someone paying their tuition probably with a job as well can be a lot of money. Maybe not to the guy with the 6 figure NIL deal that it is going towards, but to them? Ya $200 can be a lot of money.
Click to expand...
not at all saying it's ok, justified, etc., or saying what the U is doing is good. Went to the U and paid their ridiculous number of fees and tuition that is already pretty high comparatively so I absolutely agree with you. more was saying if they're going to use it for that, they need to say so legally as a budget line item

I don't love the move, but the U is hardly alone in doing this. Would be curious to see what students say about how "important" sports are to their selection of a college, particularly given it absolutely is contributing to the costs (due to facilities, admins, etc) but does have benefits in terms of campus life/atmosphere, socialization, etc.
 

BilldGopher said:
I can see if a student ponies up for a student tix package of some sort...across the target revenue sports...that such a purchase could responsibly count toward this fee.

As an alum myself and stepping back to what the U is spending money on, I'm not sure this fee is the most egregious item being paid for by the students through their tuition and fees.
Click to expand...
I am always a fan of your posts Billd, tell me, what is the most egregious item?
 

HitMeAgainIAmStillMoving said:
I am always a fan of your posts Billd, tell me, what is the most egregious item?
Click to expand...

I'm not Billd, but I have heard people complain about many of them, but AFAIK the granddaddy of them was the MPIRG fee that students started paying in the late 1960s. It set the table for doing this fiscal burdening of students with extraneous fees.
 

It is a strange proposition...Ideally, the product should speak for itself. Students should be encouraged to buy season tickets and show up on game day. Now, you have to spend $200 up-front to hopefully stay competitive and allow the athletics department to deliver a product worth paying for.
 

To the argument that there are a lot of fees that are more egregious than this, the thing that sticks to me it that the U at its core is an academic institution, not an athletic institution. Students are being asked to pony up $200 for athletes who aren't furthering the students' education or maintaining the facilities that permit them to get a high quality education.

The U would look better charging an extra fee per semester for two ply toilet paper in the public bathrooms, at least all the students would be making use of the money they're seeing flushed down the drain.
 


Ewert86PC said:
I'm not Billd, but I have heard people complain about many of them, but AFAIK the granddaddy of them was the MPIRG fee that students started paying in the late 1960s. It set the table for doing this fiscal burdening of students with extraneous fees.
Click to expand...
I was going to bring that up!

When I was there, it was a very small denomination, however, we did have the ability to opt out, which I did every time.

Just as a I think that with a fee like this, the student should have the opportunity to opt out.
 

In other words this is 1% of tuition for instate students and .5% for out of state students per year.
 

Panthadad2 said:
Ahem, non-scholarship students have been effectively paying for athletic and other scholarships since time began. This is just an itemized extra cost.
Click to expand...
Bingo! Now you can see the specific amount to you and you’re outraged? I just hope it goes to the sports that can actually provide a ‘return on investment’ and they’re not compelled to spread it around to make some feel good.

Furthermore, everyone has the right to vote w their feet.
 

watertown 1987 guy n said:
Bingo! Now you can see the specific amount to you and you’re outraged? I just hope it goes to the sports that can actually provide a ‘return on investment’ and they’re not compelled to spread it around to make some feel good.

Furthermore, everyone has the right to vote w their feet.
Click to expand...

Outraged? That's what you read? Lol.

The OP is outraged over a $200 fee on top of a $30,000+ in-state education cost.
 

At schools without big media deals, students pay quite a lot if not most of the athletic department bills. FCS University of South Dakota gets 60 some percent of its athletic department "revenue" from student fees. I'm not saying its right or wrong. In some respects, collegiate activities, whether arts, athletics or otherwise funded by student fees add to the collegiate environment and academic experience. But where the University is receiving many tens of millions of dollars per year in media rights and other revenue streams, it doesn't seem right.
 

Cost of Attendance | Office of Admissions

What is "cost of attendance?"When planning for college expenses, you will want to consider "cost of attendance," which is the sum of tuition and fees, housing, and personal expenses (which range from textbooks to travel to toothpaste). When you apply for financial aid, the University will use...
admissions.tc.umn.edu admissions.tc.umn.edu
 

Not sure if it is still going, but there was/is a student fee incorporated to help pay for the new stadium, too. I think it was/is $25/year.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom