*Rumored Lamar to FBS discussion*

[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.

 

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.

 

So you're telling me that the 'general fee' that athletics grabs 2.5 million from is NOT money that could go to another academic department? NORTH, it's a choice that the university makes to apply that money to athletics.

[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.

 

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 it has little to do with an athletics program. It's a matter of bugetary priorities at the state and national level.

 

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I appreciate that you see how eventually the people hit hardest by these increasing budgets will be the students, who will one day have no way to pay to get an education because hundreds of dollars per semester are going to fund an athletics program.

 

Education first.

 

If athletics can't be a little more self supportive, then they need to curb their expansion ideals. Maintain a strong budget now, and grow when it makes fiscal sense.

[TBonesLU]

While the cost of Lamar tuition has gone up (it even did while from my freshman year to my senior year), we can all agree that Lamar is very affordable. So forgive me if I don't see a huge problem if the students in the next few years have to pay $30,000 instead of $26,000 for a four-year degree. It's still tens, in some cases hundreds, of thousands of dollars saved compared to other universities. If we want Lamar to grow, we have to spend more in order to make that happen. Of course, I think there should be a limit. However, if we say that we can't make tuition ever go up, we will not see the growth we all want. Texas, Kansas, Houston, etc. are all large schools. I think within 5 years, Lamar could possibly have 20,000 students. With that, we would possibly need to build more housing, larger classrooms, and the like. Those things cost money. Lamar has a large array of donors. We can't expect for them to always be able to give. We've been fortunate. I think you all see where I am going with this.

[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.

 

So you're telling me that the 'general fee' that athletics grabs 2.5 million from is NOT money that could go to another academic department? NORTH, it's a choice that the university makes to apply that money to athletics.

 

Yes, that is money that is for student purposes, like the Setzer Center's funding. It's money that student's pay for services that the student's use which are not academic.

 

I don't know if you saw my other post. Dr. Simmons will tell you if you ask him, LU needed only 300 students to enroll as a direct result of football for it to have no negative impact on the school or burden as you have suggested. Just last year as reported by the school 1100 more on campus students enrolled than the year before. Also after football was lost in 89 the school lost around 2000 students in two years. The school actually put itself in a worse position by cutting football than by keep it. Professors were laid of and programs were cut.

 

So just from looking at what has already happened, you should be very grateful in this wise decision to bring back football as it has actually netted academic programs more money by increasing the number of students at the school. Again don't take my word for it, bring up these issues in faculty or staff senate and see what type of response you get from the administration. Or why don't you schedule a meeting with Dr. Simmons, ask him.

[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.

 

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.

 

So you're telling me that the 'general fee' that athletics grabs 2.5 million from is NOT money that could go to another academic department? NORTH, it's a choice that the university makes to apply that money to athletics.

 

Yes, that is money that is for student purposes, like the Setzer Center's funding. It's money that student's pay for services that the student's use which are not academic.

 

I don't know if you saw my other post. Dr. Simmons will tell you if you ask him, LU needed only 300 students to enroll as a direct result of football for it to have no negative impact on the school or burden as you have suggested. Just last year as reported by the school 1100 more on campus students enrolled than the year before. Also after football was lost in 89 the school lost around 2000 students in two years. The school actually put itself in a worse position by cutting football than by keep it. Professors were laid of and programs were cut.

 

So just from looking at what has already happened, you should be very grateful in this wise decision to bring back football as it has actually netted academic programs more money by increasing the number of students at the school. Again don't take my word for it, bring up these issues in faculty or staff senate and see what type of response you get from the administration. Or why don't you schedule a meeting with Dr. Simmons, ask him.

 

Funny you should say that, because I have talked to President Simmons and also VP of Finance Gregg Lassen. Both agree that it was the right decision to bring back football, and neither one could have predicted the economic climate that put a lot of strain on the university. That being said, it's not certain what the future will bring to Lamar, and since the athletics department only brings in about 40% of it's own revenue (the other ~60% being from student fees and contributions from the general fund) then any expansion of the program will come at a cost to students and at the expense of academic programs until an OVERALL increase in revenues to the university can occur.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

And let me just say that I deeply identify with the academic mission of Lamar and all schools, I would not want LU to put it's self in a bind specifically for athletics. Our administration deeply cares about education, I think they surveyed the landscape 5 years ago and said you know what, it's time to bring back football, because in the long run it's going to help us as a school in other areas. It's unfortunate that the economy tanked at the same time and then even worse the state decided to fudge on it's responsibilities to this generation.

 

And you're correct that Lamar can do other things besides athletics to attract students. But the biggest problem Lamar faces is retention. That is directly a result of LU not being "exciting" enough. Frats and Sororities are a good place to start. Yet the school can only do so much. Lamar has bought land for the Greek organizations to build houses on but they have yet to get sufficient interest from the alumni groups to build. The school is not going to give the property away without these plans so we're stuck. I think it would be great if some concerned alumni could come together and get a sorority and fraternity house built. I think after the first ones were built the other chapters would grow and there would be a push for all of the frats and sororities to build houses near campus.

[Guest bigred360]

I'm not real educated on conference realignment but if Lamar was to go FBS the only way Dr Simmons would go that route is if there were several donors who would put up about $30 million down on improving the football facility and other sporting facilities.

 

He is not going to ask the students to totally fund the move.

 

Plus, I know for a fact you are wrong about the money obtain for the football program from the "football fund" the student voted for with a majority 79% passing.

 

Then there is the fee for the Shelia Umphrey Rec Center that is taken out.

 

Those funds can't go to to academic use unless there was another vote to change where the revenue goes.

 

The changes in education aren't just effecting universities as it is starts at the elementary level and works it's way up to the college level.

 

I highly doubt you'll be seeing any HS dropping any sports but they will lay off some employees.

[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.

 

So you're telling me that the 'general fee' that athletics grabs 2.5 million from is NOT money that could go to another academic department? NORTH, it's a choice that the university makes to apply that money to athletics.

 

Yes, that is money that is for student purposes, like the Setzer Center's funding. It's money that student's pay for services that the student's use which are not academic.

 

I don't know if you saw my other post. Dr. Simmons will tell you if you ask him, LU needed only 300 students to enroll as a direct result of football for it to have no negative impact on the school or burden as you have suggested. Just last year as reported by the school 1100 more on campus students enrolled than the year before. Also after football was lost in 89 the school lost around 2000 students in two years. The school actually put itself in a worse position by cutting football than by keep it. Professors were laid of and programs were cut.

 

So just from looking at what has already happened, you should be very grateful in this wise decision to bring back football as it has actually netted academic programs more money by increasing the number of students at the school. Again don't take my word for it, bring up these issues in faculty or staff senate and see what type of response you get from the administration. Or why don't you schedule a meeting with Dr. Simmons, ask him.

 

Funny you should say that, because I have talked to President Simmons and also VP of Finance Gregg Lassen. Both agree that it was the right decision to bring back football, and neither one could have predicted the economic climate that put a lot of strain on the university. That being said, it's not certain what the future will bring to Lamar, and since the athletics department only brings in about 40% of it's own revenue (the other ~60% being from student fees and contributions from the general fund) then any expansion of the program will come at a cost to students and at the expense of academic programs until an OVERALL increase in revenues to the university can occur.

 

Exactly why we shouldn't expand without some hard numbers backing up an expansion of our programs.

 

Don't worry, while I would love to see LU go FBS you may get your wish as I just don't see it happening like I used too.

 

And say Lamar went back to pre-football levels. Like I said we would lose a few students, but lets assume your right and it would be minimal, maybe 100 students. You would still need to get rid of the football fee, that money would not automatically move back to the university side revenue sheet, it would go back into the student's pockets. So the University would only gain that $2.5 million we spoke of earlier. The school lost around $16 million as a result of the STATE budget cuts. Do you see where I'm going with this? We would still be in the negative and 2.5 million dollars is not going to save any programs.

 

In fact if we're more realistic and consider that we might lose a total of say 1000 students as a result of losing football then you can see that we actually worsen our plight.

[LUSportsFan]

"In fact if we're more realistic and consider that we might lose a total of say 1000 students as a result of losing football then you can see that we actually worsen our plight."

 

I think we have already been down that path and our plight did worsen. I like the path we are currently on a lot better and do not want to return.

[Guest CardAmbassador]

"In fact if we're more realistic and consider that we might lose a total of say 1000 students as a result of losing football then you can see that we actually worsen our plight."

 

I think we have already been down that path and our plight did worsen. I like the path we are currently on a lot better and do not want to return.

 

This is exactly why they say the study of History is so important. It was no coincidence that directly after Lamar dropped football in 89 the school experienced it's worst down turn in it's history.

 

One more argument for football before I head out.

 

Lamar University's $100 million dollar campaign has been vital in these hard times and it's not coincidence that it was started around the same time football was brought back. One of the huge reasons we have raised $89 to date is due to the notoriety football has brought to Lamar. Alums from everywhere are reconnecting with the school in large part due to football.

 

LUSportsFan is a great example of this, the fact that this website even exist is a healthy reflection of the passion people hold for this university and it is only a result of football being brought back. There are so many ways in which football has benefited the school and ways that it's loss already negatively impacted the school that I think this issue is resolved.

 

JDCurran made $1000 donation the engineering department recently. I think the fact that he is on this site keeps him involved with this school, even though he is in Alaska, is in part due to the return of football. Right there LU benefited from football.

[jdcurran235]

"In fact if we're more realistic and consider that we might lose a total of say 1000 students as a result of losing football then you can see that we actually worsen our plight."

 

I think we have already been down that path and our plight did worsen. I like the path we are currently on a lot better and do not want to return.

 

+100

[coachacola]

Funny you should say that, because I have talked to President Simmons and also VP of Finance Gregg Lassen. Both agree that it was the right decision to bring back football, and neither one could have predicted the economic climate that put a lot of strain on the university. That being said, it's not certain what the future will bring to Lamar, and since the athletics department only brings in about 40% of it's own revenue (the other ~60% being from student fees and contributions from the general fund) then any expansion of the program will come at a cost to students and at the expense of academic programs until an OVERALL increase in revenues to the university can occur.

Have you talked to Dr. Simmons lately? Do you know if his stance on leaving the SLC for the WAC or Sun Belt has changed? Last year there was an article in the Beaumont Enterprise talking about Lamar looking to go FBS but nobody from Lamar has mentioned it lately. From what I have gathered they would much rather rejoin the Sun Belt than the WAC.

[LU1991]

"In fact if we're more realistic and consider that we might lose a total of say 1000 students as a result of losing football then you can see that we actually worsen our plight."

 

I think we have already been down that path and our plight did worsen. I like the path we are currently on a lot better and do not want to return.

 

This is exactly why they say the study of History is so important. It was no coincidence that directly after Lamar dropped football in 89 the school experienced it's worst down turn in it's history.

 

One more argument for football before I head out.

 

Lamar University's $100 million dollar campaign has been vital in these hard times and it's not coincidence that it was started around the same time football was brought back. One of the huge reasons we have raised $89 to date is due to the notoriety football has brought to Lamar. Alums from everywhere are reconnecting with the school in large part due to football.

 

LUSportsFan is a great example of this, the fact that this website even exist is a healthy reflection of the passion people hold for this university and it is only a result of football being brought back. There are so many ways in which football has benefited the school and ways that it's loss already negatively impacted the school that I think this issue is resolved.

 

JDCurran made $1000 donation the engineering department recently. I think the fact that he is on this site keeps him involved with this school, even though he is in Alaska, is in part due to the return of football. Right there LU benefited from football.

 

I couldn't agree more. Like it or not the alums are exited about football and are more likely to contribute to the university because of it. I have a few professor friends and I know they are feeling the pinch, so I understand where The Truth is coming from. They see money being spent on football and the facilities and at the same time jobs are being lost and salaries stagnated.

 

Without the changes that have been made by Dr. Simmons in the past few years, I believe Lamar would be in a lot worse shape today. IMHO the forward thinking will only help the university in both academics and sports.

 

I was attending Lamar when they cut football and I know what a bitter pill that was. At that time, the powers that be were happy with the status quo. Lets not go down that river again.

[jdcurran235]

Quoted from another website:

 

"Could the MWCUSA be more than a football alliance aimed at attracting a BCS bowl bid? Or are we reaching closer to a two or more division league that covers the nation in all sports? El Paso journalist Chris Lopez, via his twitter, noted that UTEP athletic director Bob Stull dropped this bomb at todays press conference.

@zepol

Chris V. Lopez

UTEP AD Bob Stull says C-USA merger with Mountain West moving forward and now all sports rather than just football being discussed.#UTEP

Dec 01 via EchofonFavoriteRetweetReply"

[jdcurran235]

Mostly just useless banter from the scout board. Interesting take on the subject though.

 

Should the WAC go ahead and invite Lamar this spring???

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=8356137

[TBonesLU]

Mostly just useless banter from the scout board. Interesting take on the subject though.

 

Should the WAC go ahead and invite Lamar this spring???

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=8356137

 

I can honestly say that I like UTSA and Texas State fans. They seem to like everything we have to offer. I like this quote:

 

"I would vote yes, but has Benson burnt his bridges on this one. After many occasions of saying Lamar is on the very low end of his list. Lamar should say on h*ll no to an invite."

 

While I agree with that comment, I don't think we have that kind of leverage. Benson has pissed me off though.

[TexGator]

Mostly just useless banter from the scout board. Interesting take on the subject though.

 

Should the WAC go ahead and invite Lamar this spring???

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=8356137

 

I can honestly say that I like UTSA and Texas State fans. They seem to like everything we have to offer. I like this quote:

 

"I would vote yes, but has Benson burnt his bridges on this one. After many occasions of saying Lamar is on the very low end of his list. Lamar should say on h*ll no to an invite."

 

While I agree with that comment, I don't think we have that kind of leverage. Benson has pissed me off though.

 

I think the thread said it best when they compared Lamar to the fat girl. I don't think LU is the "fat girl"- more like the "formerly fat girl the rest of the guys haven't noticed yet how cute she's getting"... we just might need a little lipo and a tummy tuck to be at the beauty pageant. :woohoo:

[jdcurran235]

That was pretty funny

[The Truth]

I'm getting the feeling that the WAC is coming to a close soon...bowls will end it.

[TBonesLU]

I'm getting the feeling that the WAC is coming to a close soon...bowls will end it.

 

To this date, I'm more inclined to believe the opposite of what you say.

[The Truth]

I'm getting the feeling that the WAC is coming to a close soon...bowls will end it.

 

To this date, I'm more inclined to believe the opposite of what you say.

 

That doesn't surprise me.

[coachacola]

Looks like the Big East is about to make their move and take teams from the CUSA and the Mountain West. CUSA will be down to 9, the MW down to 8. We'll see who gets poached from the Sun Belt and WAC and how this affects Lamar.

[geezer]

What is the breakdown between football and non-football members left in MWC and CUSA? Did the MWC add any non-football members, if not the total is 17 so might they just finish their merger, especially if Air Force decides to bolt.

[lu cards]

saw this post on the wac board.was very impressed with the work this lamar fan pu into it.http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=451&f=2368&t=8356137&p=3

[LU1991]

Boise State, San Diego State, Houston, SMU and UCF will join the Big East Conference in 2013, sources told CBSSports.com.

 

Boise State and San Diego State will join the Big East as football-only members, while Houston, SMU and UCF will join as all-sport members. Boise State is expected to put its non-football sports in the WAC, while San Diego State would place its non-football sports in the Big West, sources told CBSSports.com.

 

http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/29532522/33728643