USD raising student activity fees to pay for athletics

[Yotes]

Re: USD raising student activity fees to pay for athletics

They were quick to announce cost of attendance, but they can't afford it. They are harmful to D1 athletics. Incompetence reigns supreme in Vermillion. A real shame.


http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/loc...5ab9f4e14.html

This is problematic. Where is Stu Whitney?

I'm late, but you really need to do research rather than fly off the handle and just start spewing BS.

The USD student body voted for a $13.50 per credit hour increase to the activity fee over three years, effective beginning Fall 15. The $4.50 increase for Fall 15 went ahead as planned, but the tuition freeze for 2016-17 prevented the second $4.50 increase that was to occur in Fall 16, and so USD is seeking approval to get the increase that was blocked by the tuition freeze to take place at the same time as the third and final scheduled increase to the activity fee. USD is merely seeking approval to have a previously approved fee increase take effect within the timeline that was originally approved by the USD student body and SDBOR.

Also worth noting, since so many want to ridicule the decision to announce COA, this fee increase - which will go a long way to funding COA - was approved by the students several months before the COA announcement.

[2002jack]

Re: USD raising student activity fees to pay for athletics

I'm late, but you really need to do research rather than fly off the handle and just start spewing BS.

The USD student body voted for a $13.50 per credit hour increase to the activity fee over three years, effective beginning Fall 15. The $4.50 increase for Fall 15 went ahead as planned, but the tuition freeze for 2016-17 prevented the second $4.50 increase that was to occur in Fall 16, and so USD is seeking approval to get the increase that was blocked by the tuition freeze to take place at the same time as the third and final scheduled increase to the activity fee. USD is merely seeking approval to have a previously approved fee increase take effect within the timeline that was originally approved by the USD student body and SDBOR.

Also worth noting, since so many want to ridicule the decision to announce COA, this fee increase - which will go a long way to funding COA - was approved by the students several months before the COA announcement.

I had forgot about this topic and my outrage, but I do appreciate you bringing this back to my attention. I think those that believe the raise in student fees has no association to COA is a very obtuse point of view. This is not a democratic system and the fact that the current "student body" chose to raise their own rates should have minimal influence on the BOR. The BOR is tasked with defending the integrity of the system. The students graduate and move on, the raise in rates will last into infinity. This isn't like the taxpayers of a jurisdiction choosing to raise their own taxes to build a school.

I think the BOR has already approved the raise, but I have no idea. I do think both universities are very fortunate to no longer live under the original BOR decision made in December of 2002.

For Immediate Release: Thursday, December 12, 2002
Regents Adopt Division I Athletics Policy

RAPID CITY – The South Dakota Board of Regents Thursday adopted a new athletic policy that establishes specific financial and policy requirements for any of its institutions that participate at the NCAA Division I level.
The Board also voted 6-2 to support South Dakota State University's application for Division 1-AA status, if SDSU can find an appropriate athletic conference to join.
“This policy was created in response to South Dakota State University’s desire to move its NCAA program classification from Division II to Division I-AA,” Regents’ President Harvey C. Jewett said. “But these requirements, now that they are in effect, will apply as well to any of our institutions that may desire to switch divisions in the future.”
Jewett said the Board believes it is important to establish a detailed athletics policy so that expectations are clear regarding funding, student fees, scholarships, and other criteria. “In effect, adopting this policy leaves the ultimate decision of whether to move to Division 1-AA in SDSU’s hands, as long as the institution complies with all aspects of the Board policy and an appropriate athletic conference can be found,” he said.
"The Board was willing to support the SDSU move in very large part because of the credibility of the SDSU Foundation and its strong financial commitment to the process," Jewett said.
The Regents' new policy makes it clear that support for intercollegiate athletics from the student general activity fee may only increase at the fee’s annual rate of inflation, as determined by the Regents. Additionally, general fund support for salary, benefits, or operational expenses may only increase at rates equivalent to what is otherwise appropriated for the universities’ base budgets. “This provision seeks to limit increases in student fees and state funding to the regular, ongoing costs of operating the institutions, regardless of athletic classifications,” Jewett said.
The policy also says:
§ An institution may not reduce the number of academic scholarships or scholarship amounts in order to fund new athletic scholarships as a Division I school.
§ Any deficit in the intercollegiate athletic budget should be addressed by a reduction in coaches’ salaries or per diem, travel, equipment, scholarships, or athletic program closure. A formal agreement between the institution and the institution’s foundation could also provide the necessary resources to meet any deficit.
§ Athletic scholarships cannot be awarded to any student who does not meet the institution’s standard admissions requirement.
The Board’s policy establishes that all costs for intercollegiate athletics are limited to four sources:
1. student general activity fee revenue;
2. state general fund resources;
3. funds generated directly by athletic programs, such as gate receipts, advertising, concessions, and institutional fundraising; and
4. funds transferred from the institutional foundation to support athletic programs.
The proportion of general activity fees allocated to athletic facilities at the time an institution is approved for Division I status may not be increased to fund new or expanded athletic and support facilities, the Regents’ policy states. Monies from the state’s Higher Education Facilities Fund also may not be used to fund or maintain new or expanded athletic and support facilities.
The policy also requires all of the Regents’ higher education institutions to provide annual reports on their intercollegiate athletic budgets and the academic proficiency of student athletes.

[joeboo22]

Re: USD raising student activity fees to pay for athletics

One of the big black holes that very few people understand is the fees per credit hour. I never really understood it. Why is it based per credit hour? why is it not pro-rated based on 12 credit full-time status. And then the whole question with online classes on who gets those fees? (that was an issue back when I was in college).

The fees are for things like passes to the sports games, access to the school health facility, access to the student union. And I understand if you are a division I school that the sports part of that should be worth more, therefore more money should be going towards the sports part. That may be true, but some schools use it as a crutch. And people can say well the student body passed it. I've been in those meetings, when the A.D. comes in (or their representation), or other important student organizations come in and say we need X amount, and there is no other venue to get that money, its not the easiest decision to make.