*Rumored Lamar to FBS discussion*

[jdcurran235]

"The Truth" is probable right on the point about we are more of a Regional University. We are a Regional University by where we get our students. But as a LU graduate I know we had many out of state students and international students, especially at the graduate level and engineering disciplines. But the majority of our students are from Beaumont and Houston. Which makes us no different than La Tech or many others at the FBS level.

 

We are a national university by what we offer as our programs are more on par with what other national universities offer.

 

We no doubt need to work on attracting more students from out of the area, but we are at least attracting some. As the reputation continues to improve for LU, we will probably continue to see an increase in enrollment of local and out of town students.

[coachacola]

The Truth does raise some good points, but they have been discussed before. Having more students to better fund athletics like Texas State and UTSA are doing would really help. Being located in a top 50 media market would definitely help. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that Lamar could compete in a Texas-centric WAC or the Sun Belt. And until Dr. Simmons says publicly that Lamar is not going to leave the SLC then we have to assume there's a good chance Lamar will try to move up.

[The Truth]

Just to clarify. A university is classified by where it gets it's students primarily from, not from where it gets it's athletes. The term 'regional' was not meant to offend, but as a descriptor to designate that the other schools get their enrollment nationally or internationally, while Lamar serves a more narrow population.

 

Lamar University's enrollment is primarily made up of students from Texas (roughly 93%) and of that 93% most of them are from the greater Beaumont, Golden Triangle, Southeast Texas region. Roughly .045% of students are international students, and the remaining 6% come from various parts of America.

 

No, and I understand that. My point is we are branching out. Anytime we get a recruit from out-of-state or internationally, it only increases Lamar's branding. This is especially true with athletes, because of their families having interests in the sport their child plays.

 

What about the rest of the stuff I posted? Any thoughts? I'm honestly interested in what you think in the most sincere and least sarcastic way possible.

 

TBones, I think you touched down on some interesting points in your post. I have a different perspective than some fans on this board because I come from the academic side of Lamar University and I see how this move to FBS will cost the student body in the end, especially financially. I don't discount that there are reasons to move to FBS, but those reasons are typically supported only by fans, coaches, and boosters, but the cost of implementing the change falls directly on the shoulders of the students who pay fees. Basically Lamar boosters and fans are driving the FBS bandwagon and ultimately the athletics department will simply become a greater burden financially on the school and suck resources from academic programs that could better use the money to educate the 15,000 students on campus.

 

While I agree that UTA's game attendance is definitely far lower than Lamar's, you can't just look at sports attendance as a measure of a school's preparedness for big time college sports participation. If all we ever looked at to determine a school's worth was how many folks turned up at games, there could be a strong case that schools like UAB should lose their D1 status entirely. Obviously attendance matters, but it obscures the behind the scenes reality of what drives college sports.

 

As for your point about international student athletes being great ambassadors for the university, I would have to say that it's a commonly used, rarely accurate, portrayal of what 'branding' is. International student athletes are NOT driving international applications to the school, and are NOT encouraging new attention to be paid to Lamar. The school receives far more international applications and attention from the success of its engineering programs. From the perspective of revenue to the university, they would be FAR better off attracting new international students who pay full fees than to attract international athletes who get international fees waived and thus support the university financially no better than a local student living on campus.

 

From a branding perspective, Lamar University as a school should sell itself through it's programs, and stop listening to the athletics boosters, fans, and coaches, who oversimplify what college athletics is and how it can help a university. While athletics does serve as a fantastic ancillary support to university life, it is simply NOT the driving force behind what makes colleges successful academically or in the minds of people throughout the country.

[jdcurran235]

The Truth does raise some good points, but they have been discussed before. Having more students to better fund athletics like Texas State and UTSA are doing would really help. Being located in a top 50 media market would definitely help. But I don't think it's unrealistic to think that Lamar could compete in a Texas-centric WAC or the Sun Belt. And until Dr. Simmons says publicly that Lamar is not going to leave the SLC then we have to assume there's a good chance Lamar will try to move up.

 

This is exactly my thoughts. I also think our record of overall university improvement of the last several years is a major selling point of our university. If you take a step back our university as a whole is on the rise. We bring enough to the table that we are at least in the conversation. I wish we could outright say that we are in the Houston market. But to say that we have no part of the Houston market is not true either as we where mentioned in the chronicle in our win over TN Tech. But you are right this has all bean discussed before and everyone is in a wait and see mode right now.

[jdcurran235]

Just to clarify. A university is classified by where it gets it's students primarily from, not from where it gets it's athletes. The term 'regional' was not meant to offend, but as a descriptor to designate that the other schools get their enrollment nationally or internationally, while Lamar serves a more narrow population.

 

Lamar University's enrollment is primarily made up of students from Texas (roughly 93%) and of that 93% most of them are from the greater Beaumont, Golden Triangle, Southeast Texas region. Roughly .045% of students are international students, and the remaining 6% come from various parts of America.

 

No, and I understand that. My point is we are branching out. Anytime we get a recruit from out-of-state or internationally, it only increases Lamar's branding. This is especially true with athletes, because of their families having interests in the sport their child plays.

 

What about the rest of the stuff I posted? Any thoughts? I'm honestly interested in what you think in the most sincere and least sarcastic way possible.

 

TBones, I think you touched down on some interesting points in your post. I have a different perspective than some fans on this board because I come from the academic side of Lamar University and I see how this move to FBS will cost the student body in the end, especially financially. I don't discount that there are reasons to move to FBS, but those reasons are typically supported only by fans, coaches, and boosters, but the cost of implementing the change falls directly on the shoulders of the students who pay fees. Basically Lamar boosters and fans are driving the FBS bandwagon and ultimately the athletics department will simply become a greater burden financially on the school and suck resources from academic programs that could better use the money to educate the 15,000 students on campus.

 

While I agree that UTA's game attendance is definitely far lower than Lamar's, you can't just look at sports attendance as a measure of a school's preparedness for big time college sports participation. If all we ever looked at to determine a school's worth was how many folks turned up at games, there could be a strong case that schools like UAB should lose their D1 status entirely. Obviously attendance matters, but it obscures the behind the scenes reality of what drives college sports.

 

As for your point about international student athletes being great ambassadors for the university, I would have to say that it's a commonly used, rarely accurate, portrayal of what 'branding' is. International student athletes are NOT driving international applications to the school, and are NOT encouraging new attention to be paid to Lamar. The school receives far more international applications and attention from the success of its engineering programs. From the perspective of revenue to the university, they would be FAR better off attracting new international students who pay full fees than to attract international athletes who get international fees waived and thus support the university financially no better than a local student living on campus.

 

From a branding perspective, Lamar University as a school should sell itself through it's programs, and stop listening to the athletics boosters, fans, and coaches, who oversimplify what college athletics is and how it can help a university. While athletics does serve as a fantastic ancillary support to university life, it is simply NOT the driving force behind what makes colleges successful academically or in the minds of people throughout the country.

 

I to worry about pushing to fast into the sports direction and affecting the academics of the school. And I think we should be selling ourselves through our programs. Especially internationally because these students bring the most money into the school. But I also worry about the FBS door closing forever or an indefinite amount of time. And even though sport cost the school money they also bring in money through factors that are hard to calculate. We are going to attract more local people to stay in the area and go to LU because we have football now and if we are playing at a higher level it will help us to recruit students on a statewide level. The impact of sports is hard to calculate in this manor. Also with sports comes a certain stature or perception of the school. If you are playing big time sports you are a big time school. Again it is hard to calculate how this helps the school but it does. Having big time sports helps to bring in donations and more students which in the end generates more money. Going FBS is an investment in the future. This is why I always say that we have to trust in Simmons that he will make the right decisions for the school.

[The Truth]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

[jdcurran235]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Our biggest issue (as I understand it) as a university right now is that we are not attracting enough "high caliber" students as our retention rate is around 60 to 70 percent (these numbers might not be accurate, I am going off memory). This is the biggest hit to the funding formula for us and has a huge effect on our funding from the state. If a move to FBS can attract better students I am all for it cause this will cause a significant increase to state funding. But if the cost of FBS is so high that it cannot be made up through other means such as increased student retention, higher enrollment and increased donations to the school, I don't think Simmons and the board will approve the move anyway. So this FBS discussion could, in the end, just be pie in the sky discussion. The other side of the coin, which is a point I am sure you will probably make, is that we should be attracting these students due to the academics of the school. I don't think that this is always the way to go cause when you graduate high school you are looking for the "college experience". Sports is a vital part of that experience for many graduating seniors and has an effect on where they decide to go to school. What is your take on attracting better students?

 

EDIT: 66% http://www.campuscorner.com/texas-colleges/lamar-university.htm

[The Truth]

I would seriously challenge the idea that sports is a crucial part of the experience to most high school graduates. For fans of college sports, myself included, it was obviously a huge part of the experience. However, I think a better case could be made the the Fraternity/Sorority experience is something high school seniors are looking for at a university, and since that is seriously lacking at Lamar, a good use of funds would be to expand that aspect of college life.

 

I'm still convinced that it's a fallacy to equate athletic success with increased student retention. If you're hoping to attract better students, then increase entry standards and place money into programs that make students feel that they are a part of the educational experience at Lamar. While athletics partially accomplishes that goal, it's just a tiny piece.

[jdcurran235]

I would seriously challenge the idea that sports is a crucial part of the experience to most high school graduates. For fans of college sports, myself included, it was obviously a huge part of the experience. However, I think a better case could be made the the Fraternity/Sorority experience is something high school seniors are looking for at a university, and since that is seriously lacking at Lamar, a good use of funds would be to expand that aspect of college life.

 

I'm still convinced that it's a fallacy to equate athletic success with increased student retention. If you're hoping to attract better students, then increase entry standards and place money into programs that make students feel that they are a part of the educational experience at Lamar. While athletics partially accomplishes that goal, it's just a tiny piece.

 

That is a very good point about the Fraternity/Sorority experience, as this was one of my biggest complaints while at LU. Also the fact that there was nothing to do in the surrounding area once classes where over for the day. I know there is some work being done on both of these fronts. I think CA posted about these movements on another thread.

[TexGator]

I'd actually love to see it. But, many people are making it sound like Lamar being an FBS program is a no-brainer from both sides.

 

If Lamar gets the call, I want them to answer it and go running. But, the reasons to pick a program for move-up seem to doom the idea.

 

As someone who grew up in Beaumont (parents both graduated from LU and I attended about 6-8 games a year between basketball and baseball), moved to Houston in the 90's, and did grad-school work through LU, I have a decently-wide view of how Lamar is viewed by people outside the Golden Triangle (while remembering how married to the community LU is).

 

Lamar isn't even on the radar of the Houston area. Once you cross the Trinity River, Lamar falls off the radar (even if you can still get KLVI on the radio all the way in Katy, Cypress, and Spring). So, those that say LU brings in awareness from the Houston area are inaccurate. Some of us pay attention to LU, but mainly those who have a connection to the Golden Triangle.

[TexGator]

San Marcos is no closer to the Austin airport than LU or SHSU is to Houston. I dont buy the tidy trip argument. It is only an 1hr drive to hobby and maybe an 1:20 to IAH.They do want in the larger markets though. The thing is they need football and I dont see them getting football teams any other way. They have no choice but to get teams in mid size cities. IE Bozeman, but they dont want to be in the WAC.

 

Has anyone talked to Jack from Bobcat report lately. Or can anyone contact him to ask if he has heard anything.

 

San Marcos to Austin 38 miles (airport with traffic is about 1:10 minutes)

Beaumont to Houston (edge) 64 miles (takes about 50 to 55 minutes depending on traffic. Drove this everyday for a semester in college while I was interning at Lyondell)

Beaumont to Downtown 83 miles

Beaumont to IAH 74 miles (airport with traffic is about 1:20 minutes. There is also a shuttle that runs between IAH and BPT if you ever want to take advantage of the free parking at BPT)

 

Don't know where you got your numbers, but Hobby is 90 miles from Lamar and IAH is 94 miles to Lamar.

 

While it doesn't seem like much to us who drive it all the time, but adding 2 hours of travel to go to a school that, honestly, has distinguished itself with success over the last quarter-century.

 

Beaumont is the 141st-largest media market. (the 5 schools the WAC added are all in top-40 markets)

Lamar has the following success in the sports that make decisions (by their relevance to most of America):

Football- 9 wins since bringing football back in 2010

Men's Basketball- 1 NCAA tournament appearance (0 wins)

Women's Basketball- 2 NCAA tournament appearances (3 wins- all in 1991)

Baseball- 6 NCAA Regional appearances (1 super-regional appearances)

What among that screams out "We're and FBS program!" We need winning before we need to worry about moving up to an FBS conference unless you can find an extra 300,000 people to move to the Beaumont area.

 

I'm having a hard time of following the athletic accomplishments you listed. What's the time period?

 

What I see for Men's Basketball is five NCAA tournaments and never losing in the first game until 2000. One run was to the Sweet Sixteen. Add to that, there were four NIT appearances. Lamar still holds the seventh longest home winning streak in NCAA history (80 games ... saw every one of them). If you are leaving out Lamar's NCAA tournaments in the 80's, consider that one of the news conference points made for Seattle's invitation to the WAC was it's basketball history even though the Division I portion of SU's history was mainly in the 1950's. They were NAIA from 1980 to 2001 and not back to DI until 2009-2010 season and will not be eligible for NCAA basketball championships until the 2012-2013 season.

 

For Baseball, we've been in the NCAA Regionals twelve, not six times.

 

Here are some observations concerning the other comments.

 

Below is an example of the kind of sports coverage a future WAC program, UTA, smack dab in the middle of the #5 media market gets. Articles for UTA are listed in "Other" on the Dallas Morning News website.

 

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/

 

We received more or at least equivalent coverage from the Chronicle, a #6 media market newspaper, in our win against Tennessee Tech.

 

Link: http://www.chron.com/sports/article/Lamar-pulls-away-from-Tennessee-Tech-85-65-2293270.php

 

(UTA's game was in Arlington. Ours was an away game.)

 

We don't control the Houston market, but we are close enough (adjacent counties) to have some influence and interest. It's not like a wall was built at the Jefferson / Chambers / Liberty county lines. (Houston market extends to Chambers and Liberty counties according to the maps.) Another interesting tidbit is that the DFW media market consists of 13 counties while the Houston-Galveston-Baytown market includes only 9 counties. I personally think there is enough interaction between the Houston and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange areas that a reasonable case could be made that they should be combined, but BPO probably wants to be separate for at least a couple of reasons. No. 1 would be the possibility of increased EPA restrictions if the two areas were combined. No. 2 would be the natural desire to be recognized as a separate entity.

 

True, Beaumont-Port Arthur is ranked 141 in tv markets, but the markets for a couple of other WAC candidates are even smaller. Missoula is ranked 165. Butte-Bozeman is ranked 189. (Beaumont-Port Arthur actually lost some of its share during the conversion from analogue to digital tv signals, but I don't think those people went away.) I'm not sure that market share would be as much of a consideration now for a conference that is trying to stay viable in football.

 

Bozeman and Missoula are not exactly airport hubs. I would think travel to IAH and Hobby and then to Beaumont would be easier and less expensive than getting to Montana. There aren't very many direct flights to either Bozeman or Missoula while airflight to Beaumont via the Houston airports is extremely convenient. Convenience of the Houston airports is one of the main ridership challenges for the Southeast Texas Regional Airport.

 

My apologies- I was speaking of the last 25 years (in other words, basically since the Pat Foster era ended). You are correct that MBB and Baseball have some positive history before that. Again, I apologize for leaving that phrase out. (I'll take my beating now :sick: )

[coachacola]

I'd actually love to see it. But, many people are making it sound like Lamar being an FBS program is a no-brainer from both sides.

 

If Lamar gets the call, I want them to answer it and go running. But, the reasons to pick a program for move-up seem to doom the idea.

 

As someone who grew up in Beaumont (parents both graduated from LU and I attended about 6-8 games a year between basketball and baseball), moved to Houston in the 90's, and did grad-school work through LU, I have a decently-wide view of how Lamar is viewed by people outside the Golden Triangle (while remembering how married to the community LU is).

 

Lamar isn't even on the radar of the Houston area. Once you cross the Trinity River, Lamar falls off the radar (even if you can still get KLVI on the radio all the way in Katy, Cypress, and Spring). So, those that say LU brings in awareness from the Houston area are inaccurate. Some of us pay attention to LU, but mainly those who have a connection to the Golden Triangle.

I think a big reason Lamar is off the radar in Houston (as far as sports go) is because Lamar hasn't been any good in basketball for a long time. I remember when LU's home basketball win streak fell to La Tech and Karl Malone, one of the Houston TV stations was actually there for the game. Lamar actually needs to have some relevance on the national level or nobody outside SETX will notice. Going FBS is like the old chicken and the egg dilemma, which came first? IMHO Pat Knight and the basketball program needs to step and lead Lamar out of obscurity.

[Guest NorthoftheBorder]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

Just to clarify. A university is classified by where it gets it's students primarily from, not from where it gets it's athletes. The term 'regional' was not meant to offend, but as a descriptor to designate that the other schools get their enrollment nationally or internationally, while Lamar serves a more narrow population.

 

Lamar University's enrollment is primarily made up of students from Texas (roughly 93%) and of that 93% most of them are from the greater Beaumont, Golden Triangle, Southeast Texas region. Roughly .045% of students are international students, and the remaining 6% come from various parts of America.

 

Here is it's Carnagie profile:

 

http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/lookup_listings/view_institution.php?unit_id=226091&start_page=institution.php&clq=%7B%22ipug2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22ipgrad2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22enrprofile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22ugprfile2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22sizeset2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22eng2005_ids%22%3A%22%22%2C%22search_string%22%3A%22lamar+university%22%2C%22level%22%3A%22%22%2C%22control%22%3A%22%22%2C%22accred%22%3A%22%22%2C%22state%22%3A%22%22%2C%22region%22%3A%22%22%2C%22urbanicity%22%3A%22%22%2C%22womens%22%3A%22%22%2C%22hbcu%22%3A%22%22%2C%22hsi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22tribal%22%3A%22%22%2C%22msi%22%3A%22%22%2C%22landgrant%22%3A%22%22%2C%22coplac%22%3A%22%22%2C%22urban%22%3A%22%22%7D

 

Where are these numbers in the link you provided?

 

There are more than 0.04% from outside the U.S. in fact I think U.S. News reports it at around 8%. Also I'm not sure if you count Houston as South east Texas but there are a few thousand students from there as well. There is also a few students from the other Texas metros like Austin and Dallas. I'm just wondering where you got your numbers from I didn't see them in your link.

 

Somewhere in your argument you make the case that LU has 50% of its students online, this is simply wrong, so while you may have a point that people are fudging numbers here, it appears you do so as well.

 

As for this discussion. I've been quiet on this topic for a while. I no longer believe that LU is actively pursuing moving up, mainly because of the fragility of the WAC.

 

As for the argument that FBS wouldn't offset in cost. I disagree, simply based on how successful the revival of football has been in creating revenue for Lamar. If for instance LU gained an additional 500 to 1000 students as a direct or indirect result of a move to FBS conference it would easily pay for its self although not in such a direct way as you might believe.

[The Truth]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

 

No sir, you see you have now lost credibility with me. I've had in depth conversations with people on the funding of LU athletics and other areas of the University. Namely Dr. Simmons and Dr. Lassen. The cuts were due to state cuts like you have suggested but the money for athletics is not taking money away from any academic money. In fact if you knew about university funding you would know salaries are paid for by one source of funding completely independent of other areas. Formula funding is very complex and if you want to learn more about it there are a few presentations I can send you in your PM.

 

IF your bolded statements were true LU would actually be in violation of Texas law. LU's bill is itemized, tuition payments cannot go towards athletics.

[TBonesLU]

Let's all keep in mind that athletics and academics are paid in separate accounts. One does not take from the other. If they did, however, the academic side would be more likely to be needing money right now than the athletic department. I've stooped as low as to post a few times in the "Bayou" blog on The Beaumont Enterprise site as no one on there seems to understand that the closing of the ECDC is due to the statewide budget cuts. Lamar having a football team is independent of any money or lack thereof in the academic capacity of the school. Please keep this in mind. Please.

[TBonesLU]

San Marcos is no closer to the Austin airport than LU or SHSU is to Houston. I dont buy the tidy trip argument. It is only an 1hr drive to hobby and maybe an 1:20 to IAH.They do want in the larger markets though. The thing is they need football and I dont see them getting football teams any other way. They have no choice but to get teams in mid size cities. IE Bozeman, but they dont want to be in the WAC.

 

Has anyone talked to Jack from Bobcat report lately. Or can anyone contact him to ask if he has heard anything.

 

San Marcos to Austin 38 miles (airport with traffic is about 1:10 minutes)

Beaumont to Houston (edge) 64 miles (takes about 50 to 55 minutes depending on traffic. Drove this everyday for a semester in college while I was interning at Lyondell)

Beaumont to Downtown 83 miles

Beaumont to IAH 74 miles (airport with traffic is about 1:20 minutes. There is also a shuttle that runs between IAH and BPT if you ever want to take advantage of the free parking at BPT)

 

Don't know where you got your numbers, but Hobby is 90 miles from Lamar and IAH is 94 miles to Lamar.

 

While it doesn't seem like much to us who drive it all the time, but adding 2 hours of travel to go to a school that, honestly, has distinguished itself with success over the last quarter-century.

 

Beaumont is the 141st-largest media market. (the 5 schools the WAC added are all in top-40 markets)

Lamar has the following success in the sports that make decisions (by their relevance to most of America):

Football- 9 wins since bringing football back in 2010

Men's Basketball- 1 NCAA tournament appearance (0 wins)

Women's Basketball- 2 NCAA tournament appearances (3 wins- all in 1991)

Baseball- 6 NCAA Regional appearances (1 super-regional appearances)

What among that screams out "We're and FBS program!" We need winning before we need to worry about moving up to an FBS conference unless you can find an extra 300,000 people to move to the Beaumont area.

 

I'm having a hard time of following the athletic accomplishments you listed. What's the time period?

 

What I see for Men's Basketball is five NCAA tournaments and never losing in the first game until 2000. One run was to the Sweet Sixteen. Add to that, there were four NIT appearances. Lamar still holds the seventh longest home winning streak in NCAA history (80 games ... saw every one of them). If you are leaving out Lamar's NCAA tournaments in the 80's, consider that one of the news conference points made for Seattle's invitation to the WAC was it's basketball history even though the Division I portion of SU's history was mainly in the 1950's. They were NAIA from 1980 to 2001 and not back to DI until 2009-2010 season and will not be eligible for NCAA basketball championships until the 2012-2013 season.

 

For Baseball, we've been in the NCAA Regionals twelve, not six times.

 

Here are some observations concerning the other comments.

 

Below is an example of the kind of sports coverage a future WAC program, UTA, smack dab in the middle of the #5 media market gets. Articles for UTA are listed in "Other" on the Dallas Morning News website.

 

Link: http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/

 

We received more or at least equivalent coverage from the Chronicle, a #6 media market newspaper, in our win against Tennessee Tech.

 

Link: http://www.chron.com/sports/article/Lamar-pulls-away-from-Tennessee-Tech-85-65-2293270.php

 

(UTA's game was in Arlington. Ours was an away game.)

 

We don't control the Houston market, but we are close enough (adjacent counties) to have some influence and interest. It's not like a wall was built at the Jefferson / Chambers / Liberty county lines. (Houston market extends to Chambers and Liberty counties according to the maps.) Another interesting tidbit is that the DFW media market consists of 13 counties while the Houston-Galveston-Baytown market includes only 9 counties. I personally think there is enough interaction between the Houston and Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange areas that a reasonable case could be made that they should be combined, but BPO probably wants to be separate for at least a couple of reasons. No. 1 would be the possibility of increased EPA restrictions if the two areas were combined. No. 2 would be the natural desire to be recognized as a separate entity.

 

True, Beaumont-Port Arthur is ranked 141 in tv markets, but the markets for a couple of other WAC candidates are even smaller. Missoula is ranked 165. Butte-Bozeman is ranked 189. (Beaumont-Port Arthur actually lost some of its share during the conversion from analogue to digital tv signals, but I don't think those people went away.) I'm not sure that market share would be as much of a consideration now for a conference that is trying to stay viable in football.

 

Bozeman and Missoula are not exactly airport hubs. I would think travel to IAH and Hobby and then to Beaumont would be easier and less expensive than getting to Montana. There aren't very many direct flights to either Bozeman or Missoula while airflight to Beaumont via the Houston airports is extremely convenient. Convenience of the Houston airports is one of the main ridership challenges for the Southeast Texas Regional Airport.

 

My apologies- I was speaking of the last 25 years (in other words, basically since the Pat Foster era ended). You are correct that MBB and Baseball have some positive history before that. Again, I apologize for leaving that phrase out. (I'll take my beating now :sick: )

 

Don't worry. We won't beat you. Ha ha!

 

Don't forget the regular season championship in '08...Lamar Sanders, Currye Todd, Darren Hopkins, Lawrence Nwevo, Justin Nabors, Kenny Dawkins, Ashton Hall, Jay Brown, Brandon McThay...that team was so good.

[Guest NorthoftheBorder]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

 

The sarcasm was directed at a statment that I do not believe to be correct, that there is only approx 7,500 students on campus and the rest are online learners who are no where near the campus. If you can show me the stats I'll apologize for calling you a liar. But I am not immature for the use of sarcasm. And I stand behind my statement that I believe that Dr. Simmons would not hurt academics. He would protect academics first. The recent budget cuts were not the result of bad spending decisions by the the University's governance. It is an overall economic situation, with maybe bad decisions made at the state level. If you were out here in the "for profit" world for the last few years, you would have seen a lot of hard decisions made by small businesses as they try to keep afloat in a very tough economy. Thank God for my LU education and the experience I have had the last 30 years.

[TBonesLU]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

 

You couldn't have expected anything good coming out of calling a few people out in your first post above. When you took jabs at him and jdcurran with the "fudging numbers" comment and shortly after did it yourself, I would have expected nothing else. That's just my opinion.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

"The Truth" has the same outlook many people who work at Lamar do. They see the athletic programs growing and the schools budget shrinking and they try to make a connection. "The Truth" is university funding is quite complex, through conversations with the VP of finance I know many things to have been claimed to be flat out wrong.

 

There are so many different areas LU gets funding from and many times that money cannot be mixed. HEAF money for instance has tons of rules governing it's expenditure.

 

I also worked for Lamar, in the College of Engineering for Dean Hopper. I know quite a bit about the financial struggles LU was going through right before I left. It's a complete shame that the state of Texas can't step up to the plate and fulfill it's obligation to the people and my generation. We are being called upon to put ourselves in ever great amounts of debt.

 

While it is frustrating what is happening to Lamar's budget you have a very wise leader in Dr. Simmons. Talk to him about these issues, he's the most informed of us all, and I think he has the track record of being most fair to the faculty and staff too. Dr. Simmons was the one that finally got a pay raise for LU workers 4 or 5 years ago. That was a long time coming. Speak to him about funding and you will see that times are tough but you're chasing the wrong culprit if you think Athletics has anything to do with it.

 

In fact because of the surge of on campus students LU has gained as a result of football, you and your colleagues are actually in a much better financial situation.

[The Truth]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

 

The sarcasm was directed at a statment that I do not believe to be correct, that there is only approx 7,500 students on campus and the rest are online learners who are no where near the campus. If you can show me the stats I'll apologize for calling you a liar. But I am not immature for the use of sarcasm. And I stand behind my statement that I believe that Dr. Simmons would not hurt academics. He would protect academics first. The recent budget cuts were not the result of bad spending decisions by the the University's governance. It is an overall economic situation, with maybe bad decisions made at the state level. If you were out here in the "for profit" world for the last few years, you would have seen a lot of hard decisions made by small businesses as they try to keep afloat in a very tough economy. Thank God for my LU education and the experience I have had the last 30 years.

 

Poor spending decisions were definitely made in the past five years that created a situation where the state budget cuts hit HARDER than they needed to hit the faculty and staff at the university. When the athletics budget was nearly doubled to bring back football, that was a CHOICE made by the university. Athletics takes roughly 2.5 million dollars from the general tuition fund (a fund shared by all university departments that disperses general tuition dollars to the whole campus) IN ADDITION to the 2.5 million it gets from funds that are directly earmarked as Athletics charges within student fees. The $30 million stadium costs will be paid in 1-4 million increments over the next decade or so, and that money comes from student fees and tuition dollars as well.

 

In addition to the increase in athletics expenses, the university also invested heavily in capital expansion projects (some necessary after the hurricane, and some just as a chance to expand the university). As those capital projects have matured, the money spent is gone and the projects are only halfway completed. President Simmons has committed to finishing those projects and so they will continue to zap funds from academia for at least another year.

 

So while athletics got a jumpstart and some capital projects got off the ground, yes, a nation/statewide recession hit, and it hit hard. But because the university had leveraged itself heavily during that period, it hit harder. A lot of talented people lost their jobs because of it.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

 

The sarcasm was directed at a statment that I do not believe to be correct, that there is only approx 7,500 students on campus and the rest are online learners who are no where near the campus. If you can show me the stats I'll apologize for calling you a liar. But I am not immature for the use of sarcasm. And I stand behind my statement that I believe that Dr. Simmons would not hurt academics. He would protect academics first. The recent budget cuts were not the result of bad spending decisions by the the University's governance. It is an overall economic situation, with maybe bad decisions made at the state level. If you were out here in the "for profit" world for the last few years, you would have seen a lot of hard decisions made by small businesses as they try to keep afloat in a very tough economy. Thank God for my LU education and the experience I have had the last 30 years.

 

Poor spending decisions were definitely made in the past five years that created a situation where the state budget cuts hit HARDER than they needed to hit the faculty and staff at the university. When the athletics budget was nearly doubled to bring back football, that was a CHOICE made by the university. Athletics takes roughly 2.5 million dollars from the general tuition fund (a fund shared by all university departments that disperses general tuition dollars to the whole campus) IN ADDITION to the 2.5 million it gets from funds that are directly earmarked as Athletics charges within student fees. The $30 million stadium costs will be paid in 1-4 million increments over the next decade or so, and that money comes from student fees and tuition dollars as well.

 

In addition to the increase in athletics expenses, the university also invested heavily in capital expansion projects (some necessary after the hurricane, and some just as a chance to expand the university). As those capital projects have matured, the money spent is gone and the projects are only halfway completed. President Simmons has committed to finishing those projects and so they will continue to zap funds from academia for at least another year.

 

So while athletics got a jumpstart and some capital projects got off the ground, yes, a nation/statewide recession hit, and it hit hard. But because the university had leveraged itself heavily during that period, it hit harder. A lot of talented people lost their jobs because of it.

 

You're still using the word tuition when you shouldn't be.

 

Which Capital projects are started but not completed?

 

Athletics monies come from student fee's the portion of the itemized charges that students pay which is marked "Tuition" does not go to athletics. There are are fees that students pay like the "athletics fee" this money obviously goes to athletics. There is another general fee that students pay which as you correctly note about 2.5 million of which goes to athletics, but that is not academic money as you have suggested.

 

EDIT: while many people have lost their jobs, it has been primarily people unrelated to the core mission. Meaning few professors if any have lost jobs. The areas cut that I know of are, physical plant workers, distance learning workers, ECDC workers (partial related to core mission since students were working here to gain experience), the Dance program (this is very very unfortunate, but it would have been cut either way, as I've state LU has gained many students due to the student life initiatives so we're actually in the positive on those investments.)

 

also you still haven't answered my claim that you are in fact fudging numbers yourself.

[LUSportsFan]

Unfortunately jdcurran, there really isn't any evidence to support the idea that the costs of going FBS will outweigh or even come close to offsetting the real $costs of the move. I know it seems like going FBS can help the university in 'other ways' but there are limits to how this can take place. Boosters and fans would like everyone to believe that all sorts of 'other benefits' exist through college sports, which is true. But in the case of Lamar's size, budget, etc. those benefits will come at a tremendous financial cost to the university and its students, almost 50% of whom are now online learners who don't even get to take advantage of the benefits of college athletics because they're nowhere near Beaumont. The push to please the few comes at the cost of the many.

 

Of the 15,000 students,"almost 50% (or close to 7,500) are online learners who are no where near Beaumont". Wow, I didn't know that fact! No wonder you chose "the Truth" as your screen name. We are all ignorant and misinformed and we desperately needed you to come and give us the truth! Can we get someone to verify this fact for us besides the Truth?

 

First of all, I do not for one moment believe that Dr. Simmons would make any kind of move that would have a ngative impact on academics. I trust he will weigh with great care any decision and if it is just not doable then he would pass in spite of the "vast minority" who would want LU to make the move.

If you are really an employee of the University, then I would think that you would have to truly believe that the University is light years better than 10 years ago.

 

NORTH, I absolutely agree that the university is far better off than it was a decade ago, for a number of reasons. But where I have a problem is the push recently to substantially increase the athletics budget to follow a wish and a prayer to join an FBS conference.

 

To echo your own sarcasm: I don't know if you've heard about a recent budget cut at the state level, but it cost dozens of staff and faculty across the campus and state their jobs. These cuts were necessary in order to balance a LARGE budget loss. While this was going on, the athletic department is running on a larger sum of money that ever before, and taking millions of dollars from the tuition pool to do so. By increasing that cost, it will only serve to sap more money from the academic side of things.

 

Sarcasm wasn't necessary, North. You've shown you're immaturity.

 

The sarcasm was directed at a statment that I do not believe to be correct, that there is only approx 7,500 students on campus and the rest are online learners who are no where near the campus. If you can show me the stats I'll apologize for calling you a liar. But I am not immature for the use of sarcasm. And I stand behind my statement that I believe that Dr. Simmons would not hurt academics. He would protect academics first. The recent budget cuts were not the result of bad spending decisions by the the University's governance. It is an overall economic situation, with maybe bad decisions made at the state level. If you were out here in the "for profit" world for the last few years, you would have seen a lot of hard decisions made by small businesses as they try to keep afloat in a very tough economy. Thank God for my LU education and the experience I have had the last 30 years.

 

Poor spending decisions were definitely made in the past five years that created a situation where the state budget cuts hit HARDER than they needed to hit the faculty and staff at the university. When the athletics budget was nearly doubled to bring back football, that was a CHOICE made by the university. Athletics takes roughly 2.5 million dollars from the general tuition fund (a fund shared by all university departments that disperses general tuition dollars to the whole campus) IN ADDITION to the 2.5 million it gets from funds that are directly earmarked as Athletics charges within student fees. The $30 million stadium costs will be paid in 1-4 million increments over the next decade or so, and that money comes from student fees and tuition dollars as well.

 

In addition to the increase in athletics expenses, the university also invested heavily in capital expansion projects (some necessary after the hurricane, and some just as a chance to expand the university). As those capital projects have matured, the money spent is gone and the projects are only halfway completed. President Simmons has committed to finishing those projects and so they will continue to zap funds from academia for at least another year.

 

So while athletics got a jumpstart and some capital projects got off the ground, yes, a nation/statewide recession hit, and it hit hard. But because the university had leveraged itself heavily during that period, it hit harder. A lot of talented people lost their jobs because of it.

 

What you are saying is more of a sign of the times. There may be specific issues with Lamar, but there are similar issues at other universities. Those issues are totally unrelated to bringing back football. My daughter and son-in-law are on staff at Colorado State University. That university, as well as probably most of the others in the country, is experiencing cutbacks and reduced funding ... just as Lamar is. Staff is being reduced. Pay has been frozen for the last four years there. I personally think that reduced support in education is a short sighted economy. The only issue that I could see is if we reach the tipping point in tuition burdens, then athletics may need to suffer since a portion of the student fees (by student vote) is used to fund athletics.

 

Education is the engine of our future. If we cut off the fuel, we starve the engine. I also think in the big picture that there is a bigger problem than trying to grow a university and an athletics program. It's a matter of budgetary priorities at the state and national level.

 

On the education front, I do see positive things.

 

1. Admission requirements being tightened

2. Moving up to National University status

3. Moving up to Doctoral Research University status

4. Increase in our endowment. Fund raising for the campaign is now at $89,000,000. That shows commitment to me.

[The Truth]

Let's all keep in mind that athletics and academics are paid in separate accounts. One does not take from the other. If they did, however, the academic side would be more likely to be needing money right now than the athletic department. I've stooped as low as to post a few times in the "Bayou" blog on The Beaumont Enterprise site as no one on there seems to understand that the closing of the ECDC is due to the statewide budget cuts. Lamar having a football team is independent of any money or lack thereof in the academic capacity of the school. Please keep this in mind. Please.

 

Athletics is not paid out of a different account than academics. The athletics department is funded through six main streams of income at Lamar:

 

Athletics Fees

Portion of Tuition Fees

Private Donations

Marketing/Development Revenue

Ticket Sales

Game guarantees

 

The two largest chunks of revenue come from student fees (~2.5 million) and athletic fees (~2.5 million). Those two sources are NOT the same, as one comes from the general fund, which is shared with ALL academic departments on campus. Therefore, is 2.5 million goes to athletics, it is being taken from other academic departments. The athletic fee, however, is definitely earmarked for athletics only. If the athletics budget suffers a poor ticket selling year, or they don't get much sponsorship or donations, then the difference is made up from the tuition fees, to balance the budget. Otherwise the athletics department operates at a net loss, and that's worse.