|
Post by aggie2039 on Jun 24, 2021 18:14:38 GMT -5
greensboro.com/news/local/education/the-syllabus-a-quick-look-at-the-senates-budget-plan/article_be728350-d470-11eb-b041-cfbd21acbe53.htmlThe state Senate came out with its budget this week. While other media outlets are focusing on massive proposed tax cuts, relatively small raises, how the Senate proposes to spend American Rescue Plan money and lots of other big-picture stuff, I'm continuing my tradition of mining the budget for its possible effect on higher ed. • Lastly, the Senate budget would let each UNC System institution account for all athletic scholarships at in-state rates if they choose to do so. This provision would mean big savings for athletic departments and booster clubs, especially at UNC-Chapel Hill, N.C. State and East Carolina. But critics say this plan amounts to a state subsidy of athletic programs.This could be a game changer for us...
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,571
|
Post by Aggie77 on Jun 24, 2021 19:30:26 GMT -5
greensboro.com/news/local/education/the-syllabus-a-quick-look-at-the-senates-budget-plan/article_be728350-d470-11eb-b041-cfbd21acbe53.htmlThe state Senate came out with its budget this week. While other media outlets are focusing on massive proposed tax cuts, relatively small raises, how the Senate proposes to spend American Rescue Plan money and lots of other big-picture stuff, I'm continuing my tradition of mining the budget for its possible effect on higher ed. • Lastly, the Senate budget would let each UNC System institution account for all athletic scholarships at in-state rates if they choose to do so. This provision would mean big savings for athletic departments and booster clubs, especially at UNC-Chapel Hill, N.C. State and East Carolina. But critics say this plan amounts to a state subsidy of athletic programs.This could be a game changer for us... Is this a done deal? As I recall I was violently against this. What was the decision on how the cost variance between in-state and out-sate is captured. As I recall the University was on the hook for the difference. For P5 schools with $100M dollar booster organizations it would be a drop in the bucket. Nothing would change for schools like us.
|
|
|
Post by aggie2039 on Jun 24, 2021 19:36:57 GMT -5
greensboro.com/news/local/education/the-syllabus-a-quick-look-at-the-senates-budget-plan/article_be728350-d470-11eb-b041-cfbd21acbe53.htmlThe state Senate came out with its budget this week. While other media outlets are focusing on massive proposed tax cuts, relatively small raises, how the Senate proposes to spend American Rescue Plan money and lots of other big-picture stuff, I'm continuing my tradition of mining the budget for its possible effect on higher ed. • Lastly, the Senate budget would let each UNC System institution account for all athletic scholarships at in-state rates if they choose to do so. This provision would mean big savings for athletic departments and booster clubs, especially at UNC-Chapel Hill, N.C. State and East Carolina. But critics say this plan amounts to a state subsidy of athletic programs.This could be a game changer for us... Is this a done deal? As I recall I was violently against this. What was the decision on how the cost variance between in-state and out-sate is captured. As I recall the University was on the hook for the difference. For P5 schools with $100M dollar booster organizations it would be a drop in the bucket. Nothing would change for schools like us. Its not a done deal...why were you against it? We pay the difference anyways through student fees. This could open the door for the AAF to start covering some scholarship costs. We could do a lot with the savings Senate Bill 144 gives the state’s public universities the option to charge the substantially lower in-state tuition for out-of-state athletes. But the schools would not get additional money from the state to cover the difference between the in-state and out-of-state tuitions. (that reads to me like the state wouldnt make up the loss of revenue difference for the school) They would have to find the money within their existing budgets. www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/article236762358.html
|
|
Maxell
Official BDF member
Director of BDF Marketing
Posts: 12,437
|
Post by Maxell on Jun 24, 2021 19:55:24 GMT -5
It means that donations and fees that are used for scholarships can go further. It would also mean that the cost of an out-of state scholarship would not be a barrier in recruiting. It could also mean that a sport like women's track could now be fully funded.
|
|
|
Post by aggie2039 on Jun 24, 2021 20:00:41 GMT -5
It means that donations and fees that are used for scholarships can go further. It would also mean that the cost of an out-of state scholarship would not be a barrier in recruiting. It could also mean that a sport like women's track could now be fully funded. Would be closer to fielding a women’s soccer team
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,571
|
Post by Aggie77 on Jun 24, 2021 20:42:09 GMT -5
It means that donations and fees that are used for scholarships can go further. It would also mean that the cost of an out-of state scholarship would not be a barrier in recruiting. It could also mean that a sport like women's track could now be fully funded. It puts us at a disadvantage if the University has to absorb the variance. Yes, we pay the full cost now and without outside resources, in the future also, so no difference for us. The big schools would be able to pay the variance through other cash flush revenue sources outside their athletic budget, or the university, but in concert. Do you think the AAF can absorb cost at a reciprocal level of say The Ram Club at UNC? This change would significantly unburden their athletic budgets that could then allocate funds to other areas; facilities, sports nutrition enhancement, travel accommodations, rec/game room enhancements (gaming systems, tvs), snack bars. These are just the things I can think of, imagine the things on they can think of. The beginning of the Athletic Action Committee.
|
|
|
Post by aggie2039 on Jun 24, 2021 20:52:00 GMT -5
It means that donations and fees that are used for scholarships can go further. It would also mean that the cost of an out-of state scholarship would not be a barrier in recruiting. It could also mean that a sport like women's track could now be fully funded. It puts us at a disadvantage if the University has to absorb the variance. Yes, we pay the full cost now and without outside resources, in the future also, so no difference for us. The big schools would be able to pay the variance through other cash flush revenue sources outside their athletic budget, or the university, but in concert. Do you think the AAF can absorb cost at a reciprocal level of say The Ram Club at UNC? This change would significantly unburden their athletic budgets that could then allocate funds to other areas; facilities, sports nutrition enhancement, travel accommodations, rec/game room enhancements (gaming systems, tvs), snack bars. These are just the things I can think of, imagine the things on they can think of. The beginning of the Athletic Action Committee. What is there to absorb? It just means the university won’t profit off the out of state athletes like they do regular students. The bigger schools won’t pay a difference either, just means they won’t profit off out of state athletes tuition cost. I think the AAF could pay 10-15 in state scholarships
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,571
|
Post by Aggie77 on Jun 24, 2021 21:21:37 GMT -5
It puts us at a disadvantage if the University has to absorb the variance. Yes, we pay the full cost now and without outside resources, in the future also, so no difference for us. The big schools would be able to pay the variance through other cash flush revenue sources outside their athletic budget, or the university, but in concert. Do you think the AAF can absorb cost at a reciprocal level of say The Ram Club at UNC? This change would significantly unburden their athletic budgets that could then allocate funds to other areas; facilities, sports nutrition enhancement, travel accommodations, rec/game room enhancements (gaming systems, tvs), snack bars. These are just the things I can think of, imagine the things on they can think of. The beginning of the Athletic Action Committee. What is there to absorb? It just means the university won’t profit off the out of state athletes like they do regular students. The bigger schools won’t pay a difference either, just means they won’t profit off out of state athletes tuition cost. I think the AAF could pay 10-15 in state scholarships I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, especially the use of the term profit. There is a real cost difference between being an out-of-state or in-state student, hence the cost variance. It's unfair to NC tax payers to subsidize out-state student-athletes for an in-state public education. Surely we can agree with that, if so, then that cost variance has to be absorbed somehow. My understanding is, yes the scholarship would be based on in-state status, but the State wants the full freight of the education "paid in full" just like every other out-of-state student. Which is why schools with limited access to external funds are at a disadvantage. Are you suggesting the residents of NC should share in the cost of educating non-residents? Why not do it for all non-residents students?
|
|
|
Post by aggie2039 on Jun 24, 2021 21:49:32 GMT -5
What is there to absorb? It just means the university won’t profit off the out of state athletes like they do regular students. The bigger schools won’t pay a difference either, just means they won’t profit off out of state athletes tuition cost. I think the AAF could pay 10-15 in state scholarships I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, especially the use of the term profit. There is a real cost difference between being an out-of-state or in-state student, hence the cost variance. It's unfair to NC tax payers to subsidize out-state student-athletes for an in-state public education. Surely we can agree with that, if so, then that cost variance has to be absorbed somehow. My understanding is, yes the scholarship would be based on in-state status, but the State wants the full freight of the education "paid in full" just like every other out-of-state student. Which is why schools with limited access to external funds are at a disadvantage. Are you suggesting the residents of NC should share in the cost of educating non-residents? Why not do it for all non-residents students? Its unfair for students to pay a fee to fund scholarships of their peers to play a sport. The athletes will be on full scholarship so the real question is who should pay for it and how much should it cost them. From a math perspective the state makes more money off the athletes than the tuition difference. GHOE brings $10M to the state of NC... A football scholarship for an in-state player is $15,000. For an out-of-state player, it’s more than $30,000 Funding 300 out of state scholarships @30k = $9,000,000 Funding 300 in state scholarships @15k = $4,500,000 So the state is losing out on $4,500,000 but makes $10,000,000 on GHOE alone...so the state profits $5,500,000 on one event. This doesn't include all the other football and basketball games people come to and stay the night, or the publicity the state gets when we win championships. The state is not going to ask the schools to pay the difference...that defeats the purpose of the bill. Another key point is that schools would have the option to opt in or out of charging in-state tuition to athletes. I am 100 percent confident the Chancellor and AD will make the best decision for the university not just athletics.
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,571
|
Post by Aggie77 on Jun 24, 2021 23:19:23 GMT -5
I don't understand the relevance of student fees, and revenue events in a discussion on SB 105, allowing out-of-state students in-state tuition. They would to merit there own discussion. This is the language I was referencing. This is another run at it from Senate Bill 144 in 2019. " Senate Bill 144 gives the state’s public universities the option to charge the substantially lower in-state tuition for out-of-state athletes. But the schools would not get additional money from the state to cover the difference between the in-state and out-of-state tuitions. They would have to find the money within their existing budgets." What does it mean "cover the difference"? Apparently this didn't pass. Here's the discussion we had then: What Could A&T Do with an Extra Million in the Budget?Senate Bill 105 2021/2021 has this language, but same goal. Page 7245 ALLOW IN-STATE TUITION/ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS46 SECTION 8.7.(a) G.S. 116-143.6 reads as rewritten: 47 "§ 116-143.6. Full scholarship students attending constituent institutions. 48 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Board of Trustees of a constituent 49 institution of The University of North Carolina elects to do so, it may by resolution adopted 50 consider as residents of North Carolina all persons who receive full scholarships, unless the51 scholarship is for athletics, scholarships to the institution from entities recognized by the Page 731 institution and attend the institution as undergraduate students. The aforesaid persons shall be 2 considered residents of North Carolina for all purposes by The University of North Carolina. 3 (b) The following definitions apply in this section: 4 (1) "Full cost" means an amount calculated by the constituent institution that is 5 no less than the sum of tuition, required fees, and on-campus room and board. 6 (2) "Full scholarship" means a grant that meets the full cost for a student to attend 7 the constituent institution for an academic year. 8 (c) This section shall not be applied in any manner that violates federal law. 9 ( d) This section shall be administered by the electing constituent institution so as to have10 no fiscal impact.11 (e) In administering this section, the electing constituent institution shall maintain at least 12 the current number of North Carolina residents admitted to that constituent institution. 13 (f) A change in residency status under this section shall not impact the financial aid 14 amount a student is able to receive as determined by the Free Application for Federal Student 15 Aid." Senate Bill 105I think I like the new language less. What's your interpretation?
|
|
|
Post by aggie2039 on Jun 24, 2021 23:44:12 GMT -5
I don't understand the relevance of student fees, and revenue events in a discussion on SB 105, allowing out-of-state students in-state tuition. They would to merit there own discussion. This is the language I was referencing. This is another run at it from Senate Bill 144 in 2019. "Senate Bill 144 gives the state’s public universities the option to charge the substantially lower in-state tuition for out-of-state athletes. But the schools would not get additional money from the state to cover the difference between the in-state and out-of-state tuitions. They would have to find the money within their existing budgets." What does it mean "cover the difference"? Apparently this didn't pass. Here's the discussion we had then: What Could A&T Do with an Extra Million in the Budget?Senate Bill 105 2021/2021 has this language, but same goal. Page 7245 ALLOW IN-STATE TUITION/ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS46 SECTION 8.7.(a) G.S. 116-143.6 reads as rewritten: 47 "§ 116-143.6. Full scholarship students attending constituent institutions. 48 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the Board of Trustees of a constituent 49 institution of The University of North Carolina elects to do so, it may by resolution adopted 50 consider as residents of North Carolina all persons who receive full scholarships, unless the51 scholarship is for athletics, scholarships to the institution from entities recognized by the Page 731 institution and attend the institution as undergraduate students. The aforesaid persons shall be 2 considered residents of North Carolina for all purposes by The University of North Carolina. 3 (b) The following definitions apply in this section: 4 (1) "Full cost" means an amount calculated by the constituent institution that is 5 no less than the sum of tuition, required fees, and on-campus room and board. 6 (2) "Full scholarship" means a grant that meets the full cost for a student to attend 7 the constituent institution for an academic year. 8 (c) This section shall not be applied in any manner that violates federal law. 9 ( d) This section shall be administered by the electing constituent institution so as to have10 no fiscal impact.11 (e) In administering this section, the electing constituent institution shall maintain at least 12 the current number of North Carolina residents admitted to that constituent institution. 13 (f) A change in residency status under this section shall not impact the financial aid 14 amount a student is able to receive as determined by the Free Application for Federal Student 15 Aid." Senate Bill 105I think I like the new language less. What's your interpretation? Wow, that reads like everyone on full scholarship could get charged in state tuition…that could be an even greater win. Our endowments would go further…we could give a scholarship to 2 kids for the price of one. I’m not a lawyer but it doesn’t specifically call out athletics scholarships… Why don’t you like the new verbiage?
|
|
|
Post by oldschool on Jun 25, 2021 1:50:09 GMT -5
Hi I don't claim to understand everything concerning this legislation .What is boils down to me is the in-state cost is the actual cost to educate 1 student .Schools now charge an extra fee to out-of -state students ,but it does not actually cost more to educate 1 out-of-state student .Right now the schools are paying the difference for out-of-state athletes ,so this will give back to the schools the monies it is currently paying out for out-of -state athletes ,and the state will eat the difference . As aggie2039 stated ,I'm sure our administration will make the best decision for us .But it looks like a winning situation for us ,even if it means taxpayer subsides to athletics ,and even if it means the larger schools will get a bigger benefit ,it is a benefit to us none the less .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2021 5:08:46 GMT -5
It means that donations and fees that are used for scholarships can go further. It would also mean that the cost of an out-of state scholarship would not be a barrier in recruiting. It could also mean that a sport like women's track could now be fully funded. We would still have the 25% out-of-state student cap to contend with
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,571
|
Post by Aggie77 on Jun 25, 2021 9:23:18 GMT -5
Wow, that reads like everyone on full scholarship could get charged in state tuition…that could be an even greater win. Our endowments would go further…we could give a scholarship to 2 kids for the price of one. I’m not a lawyer but it doesn’t specifically call out athletics scholarships… Why don’t you like the new verbiage? 1. The heading of the section is ALLOW IN-STATE TUITION/ ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS, thereafter the language relates to ATHLETIC SCHOLARSHIPS. 2. It states, "all persons who receive full scholarships, scholarships to the institution from entities recognized by the institution and attend the institution as undergraduate students." My issues are 1. full scholarships not partials 2. scholarships to the institution from entities. In my tiny brain this is worst than before because now an "entity" can fund all full scholarships. A university will now be able use the budget for all full scholarships for other purposes. Does A&T have access to an "entity" that will fund all full scholarships? I'm not saying we can't receive some miniscule benefit, my point is, at this point in time, this action puts us at a disadvantage in all areas of collegiate athletics.
|
|
Aggie77
Official BDF member
Member Since: September 2004
Posts: 5,571
|
Post by Aggie77 on Jun 25, 2021 9:49:31 GMT -5
Hi I don't claim to understand everything concerning this legislation .What is boils down to me is the in-state cost is the actual cost to educate 1 student .Schools now charge an extra fee to out-of-state students ,but it does not actually cost more to educate 1 out-of-state student .Right now the schools are paying the difference for out-of-state athletes ,so this will give back to the schools the monies it is currently paying out for out-of-state athletes ,and the state will eat the difference . As aggie2039 stated ,I'm sure our administration will make the best decision for us .But it looks like a winning situation for us ,even if it means taxpayer subsides to athletics ,and even if it means the larger schools will get a bigger benefit ,it is a benefit to us none the less . That's one way to look at but, so why not have in-state tuition for everyone that can get in a NC state college and universities. Actually out-state students subsidize instate students to a some degree, so there's a chance instate tuition could rise. This legislation doesn't mentioned capture of the tuition variance. We can only assume it's being waived, so nobody is paying it. That's a good question! It sounds like you are all in on "entity" funding of all full scholarships or should be a cap, or can it be any "entity"? I have no doubt the leadership will maximize the benefit, but the question before you, does the legislation put us at a disadvantage competing in D1 college athletics?
|
|