Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49
  1. #41
    Sophomore sirthought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NKY
    Posts
    2,269
    Student fees and tuition are not the same


    UC does apply fees to a lesser extent than other schools, however.

  2. #42
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,713
    Quote Originally Posted by sirthought View Post
    Student fees and tuition are not the same


    UC does apply fees to a lesser extent than other schools, however.
    I think we are splitting hairs a little bit. When the category is listed as 'TUITION AND FEES' and it has not changed, then I assume the total amount that full time students are required to pay has not gone up.

    I do not know how UC is paying for this. I just think I know how they're NOT paying for it. Maybe they cut a bunch of faculty and hired adjuncts. Maybe a parking pass now costs $5000. Maybe they're gouging students who aren't full time or syphoning off the branch campuses some how. Maybe they admit more and more people from out of state and less and less students from in state (that might sort of answer MuskieFan82's question). I don't know. I'm a little curious, but not curious enough to actually look into it.
    Last edited by xubrew; 02-28-2019 at 07:16 AM.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  3. #43
    Sophomore sirthought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NKY
    Posts
    2,269
    Tuition is the part that hasn't changed much. The fees part has raised dramatically, and it has less state oversight.

  4. #44
    Supporting Member xudash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    7,473
    Quote Originally Posted by xubrew View Post
    I think we are splitting hairs a little bit. When the category is listed as 'TUITION AND FEES' and it has not changed, then I assume the total amount that full time students are required to pay has not gone up.

    I do not know how UC is paying for this. I just think I know how they're NOT paying for it. Maybe they cut a bunch of faculty and hired adjuncts. Maybe a parking pass now costs $5000. Maybe they're gouging students who aren't full time or syphoning off the branch campuses some how. Maybe they admit more and more people from out of state and less and less students from in state (that might sort of answer MuskieFan82's question). I don't know. I'm a little curious, but not curious enough to actually look into it.
    They've been making cuts or not filling positions on the academic side. That's been documented.
    X A V I E R

  5. #45
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    65
    UC is banking / borrowing on 2 theories. The first theory is that expansion will occur. That is a flawed path to follow. The whirlwind of expansion and realignment that occured 6- 7 years ago has clearly come to a standstill. The P5 conferences have (in football) set their tables and are enjoying their very rich meals. Everyone else is left to fight for scraps. And expansion does not do the P5 much good because they already have full plates (schedules) for football. Therre is little room to add games to the schedules. There may be more realignment somewhere in the future, but how many years can UC keep losing millions in the hope that a payday comes? (And remember that most say that costs increase dramatically once in those conferences.)

    The second flaw in UC's theory is that if realignent occurs, they will get in. Many have surmised that the P5 will achieve addition by subtraction, that is, they will actually decrease the number of P-type leagues from 5 to 4. Specifically, 4 leagues of 12 teams each. (Right there is your basketball tournament of 48 teams.) The thinking is that there are schools that simply do not play at the P level (think Rutgers and Missouri, and until recently Northwestern) and should be dropped from those conferences. (Remember the A10 adding Fordham? That added nothing to the league and Fordham remains a proverbial bottom feeder or bottom sucker of the money.) If schools are being dropped, it would be hard to imagine that invitations would be sent to already-perceived lower schools (uc)

  6. #46
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,713
    They better be banking on their next media deal, because that really is their best option. It's not even their best option so much as it is their ONLY option.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  7. #47
    Supporting Member xudash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    7,473
    Quote Originally Posted by xucub View Post
    UC is banking / borrowing on 2 theories. The first theory is that expansion will occur. That is a flawed path to follow. The whirlwind of expansion and realignment that occured 6- 7 years ago has clearly come to a standstill. The P5 conferences have (in football) set their tables and are enjoying their very rich meals. Everyone else is left to fight for scraps. And expansion does not do the P5 much good because they already have full plates (schedules) for football. Therre is little room to add games to the schedules. There may be more realignment somewhere in the future, but how many years can UC keep losing millions in the hope that a payday comes? (And remember that most say that costs increase dramatically once in those conferences.)

    The second flaw in UC's theory is that if realignent occurs, they will get in. Many have surmised that the P5 will achieve addition by subtraction, that is, they will actually decrease the number of P-type leagues from 5 to 4. Specifically, 4 leagues of 12 teams each. (Right there is your basketball tournament of 48 teams.) The thinking is that there are schools that simply do not play at the P level (think Rutgers and Missouri, and until recently Northwestern) and should be dropped from those conferences. (Remember the A10 adding Fordham? That added nothing to the league and Fordham remains a proverbial bottom feeder or bottom sucker of the money.) If schools are being dropped, it would be hard to imagine that invitations would be sent to already-perceived lower schools (uc)
    I agree with you overall.

    Some thoughts or tweaks though:

    With regard to the issue of the P5 leaving the NCAA Basketball Tournament as it presently exists, I have zero, and I mean ZERO concern for that ever happening. Two foundational reasons: One: the P5 has always been about solving for football, period, end of story. Two: they could not possibly replicate the broadcast value of the existing tournament by going to their own "club" deal; not even close. Adding to the point, if you happened to catch the CBS pre-game show last Sunday, you witnessed Seth Davis preaching about letting better mid-majors into the tournament over the likes of weaker, middling power conference schools. Clark Kellogg agreed with him completely. Get past that it is an anecdotal point.
    Regardless of what anyone may think of him personally, he's right. And the P5 AD's know he's right. And the CBS, et al executives know he's right. The P5 won't muck up the NCAAT.

    Most of what I've heard about the next big restructure, if it occurs due to media driven outcomes is that it will either kind of look the way it does now with 5 conferences, or they'll morph into 4 conferences, but with 14 members each. The B1G and SEC are already there. I really doubt either conference would cut their membership. The ACC will have to figure out the ND thing. The Pac12 is the one that is in the hardest position to solve for going to 14. But to your point, it is more likely that the next realignment will lead to less room at the inn versus creating more room in it. Besides, at this point, UC is clearly behind the two directional Florida schools and Houston when it comes to this beauty contest. And God only knows at what level of delusion the UCONN fan base is still operating when it comes to their chances for rescue.

    Let's also recall that the Big XII went through an exhaustive consideration of expansion and determined that the (media) figures could not be made to work. At some point, if you're not already lucky enough to be in the club like a BC, Wake Forest, Iowa State, etc., you just may happen to love a program that simply doesn't move anyone's needle enough to care about moving your program up.

    There is a collegiate sports hell, and the AAC and the A10, among others, have found it. And the AAC's next media deal will not turn down hell's temperature enough to matter; it will not be enough to make all this sustainable for the bearputties.
    X A V I E R

  8. #48
    Supporting Member xubrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7,713
    The figure I've heard (take that for what it's worth) is that ESPN would go $500 million for 7 years. That's just under $6 million per school per year, which is a lot more than what they're getting now, but still not what I would call "a lot" when compared to what the P5 gets. I've also been told that UCF, South Florida, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati would get bigger shares. How much bigger, I have no idea. Strangely enough, UConn is not in that group.

    I don't know who else they're talking to, or whether or not they think they can get more than that. Michael Aresco came from CBS, and has played a role in some pretty big deals in the past. He was hired primarily to negotiate the next media deal. I guess we will see how well he does.
    "You can't fix stupid." Ron White

  9. #49
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    26,669
    I assume Wichita State and Navy would get the smallest shares (with Wichita State's being smaller than Navy since football>>>>>basketball).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •