Comments from new SGA President

[WataugaMan]

Agree or disagree with the student's views

I believe the students have varying views on this issue, they all don't think the same.

[appbio91]

Wow, great post 1990! He makes a great case that as fans we did not pull our weight in this move. Personally I fully expected Yosef club minimum donation increases and ticket price hikes to accompany the move. Neither really happened. Some expansion of stadium priority seating but nothing across the board. I am surprised to hear that student athletic fees were increased. I should pay more attention since I pay them currently and I am sending another freshman up next Fall. Good job students, hold their feet to the fire.

I have not re-upped for season tickets or Yosef yet. This makes me seriously consider what the experience is worth to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EastHallApp]

Agree or disagree with the student's views

I believe the students have varying views on this issue, they all don't think the same.

Certainly. Hence the use of singular possessive.

[moonshine]

The $37 increase over 2 years isn't earth shattering, however the previous leadership seemed adamant that the move would not be placed on the backs of students which I took to mean that they would not need to increase fees to make this move a reality. A rough calculation of $37 times 18,000 students is an increase of $666,000 to the athletic budget since 2014-2015.

I have the utmost confidence that DG will be able to bring in the additional dollars the program needs to sustain itself but it sounds like he's also looking to make some cuts if necessary. My hope is the current leadership can stem the tide and make good on the previous administration's promise so we as fans don't see a backlash from the students.

[huskie3]

These are two voices elected by approximately 17% of student body (actually less since not everyone voted for them). I choose to listen to the 10,000 voices attending football games on Saturdays.

[Saint3333]

The $37 increase over 2 years isn't earth shattering, however the previous leadership seemed adamant that the move would not be placed on the backs of students which I took to mean that they would not need to increase fees to make this move a reality. A rough calculation of $37 times 18,000 students is an increase of $666,000 to the athletic budget since 2014-2015.

I have the utmost confidence that DG will be able to bring in the additional dollars the program needs to sustain itself but it sounds like he's also looking to make some cuts if necessary. My hope is the current leadership can stem the tide and make good on the previous administration's promise so we as fans don't see a backlash from the students.

2.5% annual increase in athletic fee vs. 6% increase in tuition during that time, one of these increases outpaces inflation, one doesn't. I'd say the promise is still being upheld.

[appbio91]

These are two voices elected by approximately 17% of student body (actually less since not everyone voted for them). I choose to listen to the 10,000 voices attending football games on Saturdays.

History tells us that very few of that 10,000 will continue to support the program after graduation. So one of the points being made is that the fans are not carrying the weight. Someone brought up Clemson has no student athletic fees, not the best comparison given their revenue from one home game is probably close to what we make all year but still relevant because the fans carry the program through sold out attendance and IPTAY contributions. Keep in mind we only have a couple thousand contributing to Yosef.

[appbio91]

Again....it's our "progressive" legislature that needs to be voted on, if they would spend more time on education and less on bathroom issues we would be much better.

Don't want this to fall into a politIcal discussion because so far this is a very good back and forth, but I agree with you 100% brother.

[Gonzo]

A few posters have already started chipping away at all the misinformation in 1990's post. I'll address two of the inaccuracies that were particularly troubling for me (maybe more later):

(1) that "athletics fees are the only fee unrelated to University's mission."

The University's Mission: http://www.appstate.edu/about/mission-values/
A breakdown of ASU student fees: http://studentaccounts.appstate.edu/201 ... on-details

Envisioning a just and sustainable future.

Sporting events are amenities that students may chose to utilize. Students can also use the Student Recreation Center to exercise, exercise elsewhere, or not exercise at all. They can play pool in the Student Union or at Murphy's. Either way they're paying $235 in student fees for the two options. Is playing pool, sitting in the beautiful solarium, or swimming laps at the SRC directly related to the University's mission? Maybe. I think so. The Student Union, with its restaurant, coffee house, etc certainly doesn't yield a profit on its own. The SRC, with what it charges non-students for a gym membership sure doesn't operate in the black ink. Neither institution would survive without a subsidy on the backs of the students who primarily use them. Those aren't "sustainable" as private businesses. Is it inconsistent with the University's mission to have an SRC and a Student Union? Of course not. They are part of the organism of Appalachian State.

The big distinction between an athletics fee and every other fee on that list? Athletics fees are the only student fees that help feed the most powerful marketing tool at our disposal; maintain a report with 100,000 living alumni, most of whom wouldn't otherwise contribute to the University; and create the sense of pride and community that makes us proud to call ourselves Mountaineers.

There isn't a dime better spent by students at Appalachian State than the money they spend on Athletics fees. Their purpose embodies the University's Mission.

(2) Sexual assaults increase dramatically for home football games.

I'm not familiar with that particular study, but I'd venture to guess its source isn't empirical. Empirical data suggests that despite misleading studies by interested groups such as Ms. Magazine and Women's Centers across America claiming that 1 in 5 female college students are sexually assaulted, female college students are actually much less likely to be sexually assaulted than members of the general population. Those stats are from the Department of Justice (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf). The reason for the disparity between studies commissioned by feminist activist groups and empirical government data can largely be attributed to their ever-expanding definition of sexual assault to include mutually intoxicated, consensual sexual contact and the like.

If we pair this widening definition with a campus court system that abandons due process rights, we might see a"dramatic increase in sexual assaults." Right here at Appalachian we have examples. Two former football players, Gainey and Tanyi, sued the school after a false accusation that almost ruined their lives based on the way they were crushed by the biased system. Perhaps they're part of the statistic you sited.

Moreover, even if there were a genuine increase in sexual assaults during football season, you're not seriously suggesting that we temper financial support for athletics in an effort to combat sexual assault, are you? It's called post hoc ergo proctor hoc, and it's a logical fallacy. When the rooster crows, the sun rises, therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. If sexual assault is a problem, there are ways to address it directly rather than erroneously lumping in to your reasons for hating the football team.

[moonshine]

2.5% annual increase in athletic fee vs. 6% increase in tuition during that time, one of these increases outpaces inflation, one doesn't. I'd say the promise is still being upheld.

Not to get technical but the inflation rate has been under 2%, for the most part, since the first quarter of 2012 so both increases are outpacing inflation. Please don't misunderstand, I'm don't have a problem with the athletics fee as I paid them as a student and they are spelled out in the tuition, for those willing to research, prior to any student enrolling at App. I just don't want to see a year over year increase after the previous admin told both students and fans that the move would not be placed on the backs of students. I'm not revolting and I've tried to do my part with my donation, future year pledges and season tickets.

[appbio91]

So we have 100,000 living alumni and 2,500 +/-YC members. Athletics are important but I would venture that many more contribute to App for reasons that have nothing to do with athletics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Gonzo]

I especially like those criticizing the politics of the critics are defending a socialized program of entertainment funded by a tax on students.

I pointed out that irony in the first sentence of my first post. Irony which isn't lost on you, since you're apparently an advocate of lowering athletics fees for students and you tipped your partisan hand by using "no new taxes" as an analogy rather than "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan."

[Saint3333]

2.5% annual increase in athletic fee vs. 6% increase in tuition during that time, one of these increases outpaces inflation, one doesn't. I'd say the promise is still being upheld.

Not to get technical but the inflation rate has been under 2%, for the most part, since the first quarter of 2012 so both increases are outpacing inflation. Please don't misunderstand, I'm don't have a problem with the athletics fee as I paid them as a student and they are spelled out in the tuition, for those willing to research, prior to any student enrolling at App. I just don't want to see a year over year increase after the previous admin told both students and fans that the move would not be placed on the backs of students. I'm not revolting and I've tried to do my part with my donation, future year pledges and season tickets.

Seems nitpicky. We will continue to see increases in all student fees and the overall tuition. Unfortunately higher education costs are rising at much larger rates than inflation and other costs.

Thus far the increase in the athletic fee is MUCH closer to inflation than other areas included in App's tuition.

[hapapp]

One can use whatever logic they choose to try and blunt the points made about the increasing use of student fees for the athletic program, but the most valid point is that the alumni need to give back to a much greater degree than they currently do. We do better than many G5s but we need to work towards having greater alumni support moving forward. I do believe that DG is determined to find ways to increase that alumni support.

[97grad]

I don't want to stir the pot here, however, if a $37 per year increase is earth shattering - lord help ya once you get into the "real world"

Much like the "real world" the direction of the change does a whole lot more to get people riled up than the magnitude.

[bcoach]

and how much have ticket prices risen?

[JTApps1]

Just a quick search on the fees and from 2014-2015 to 2016-2017 the athletic fees have risen every year. This is not how our previous leadership sold the Sun Belt move.

2014-2015: $701 per year
2015-2016: $713 per year
2016-2017: $738 per year

I wonder if all of our fees increased at a similar rate during that period? Without knowing this could be a yearly increase to account for inflation. An increase of 2-3% per year is fairly common for many budgets.

[moonshine]

JT, I didn't dive into the details for each line item but here are the fluctuating fees (does not include ASG or Health Services):

2014-15: $1,515.50
2015-16: $1,437.00
2016-17: $1,481.00

2014-15: http://studentaccounts.appstate.edu/201 ... n-and-fees
2015-16: http://studentaccounts.appstate.edu/201 ... n-and-fees
2016-17: http://studentaccounts.appstate.edu/tuition-and-fees

[App74]

My son graduated in 2010, went to Colorado-Utah-Illinois-Colorado. Unbelievably, interviewers/recruiters in that progression were not aware of Appalachian because of its number of psychology graduates, its diversity, its location, its academics, its parking lot protests, etc.

Strangely enough, they knew about Appalachian because Appalachian beat Michigan. Put a value on that.

[hapapp]

No one is saying there is no value in our athletics program. It is the best way to advertise the school. However, that doesn't mean that the increasing costs associated with it should be increasingly borne by the students. It is time we alums chip in at a greater pace.