New VA Bill Could Drastically Alter FBS (And FCS) Football Landscape

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/03/mcauliffe-signs-bill-limits-athletic-student-fees


Old Dominion, Norfolk State and many other state schools will have to depend more on fundraising and ticket sales and less on student fees to fund their athletic budgets under a bill signed into law by Gov. Terry McAuliffe Sunday night.

McAuliffe signed HB 1897 without any amendments. The bill, sponsored by Del. Kirk Cox, R-Colonial Heights, sets limits on the percentage of athletic budgets that can be funded through student fees.


ODU essentially has ten years to meet the 55 percent limit, a goal that President John Broderick said is reasonable. According to a USA Today data base of athletic budgets, ODU funded about 73 percent of its athletic budget through student fees in 2012-2013.

Football Championship Subdivision schools such as Norfolk State and James Madison can fund a maximum of 70 percent of their budgets with student fees, and both NSU and JMU may have to restructure their budgets to meet that standard. According to USA Today, Norfolk State funded 80 percent of its athletic budget and JMU 79 percent through student fees.

This is a complete game-changer in regards to any sort of conference realignment. IMO.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

And how did I almost forget this:


The law also requires state schools that want to to add a major sports such as football, or seek to play at a higher NCAA level, to receive approval from Intercollegiate Athletics Review Commission. The commission will have four voting members from the House and three from the Senate.

JMU has been contemplating a move into FBS. If the school decides to move up prior to July 1, 2016, it would not need approvel from the commission. Any decision made after that date would need commission approval.

This is legislation designed to put JMU in a vise.

[DFW HOYA]

How many football schools are we talking about here? JMU, VMI, ODU, Norfolk State, and to a much lesser extent, Virginia State. Doesn't really affect U.Va. or VPI.

Seems to be more of an issue at JMU than anywhere else.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

More broadly, it seems to be an effort by VA lawmakers to purposefully harm and hamper state schools not named Virginia or Tech so that their hegemony will not be threatened.

Reason #1,074 why state legislatures are completely ill-suited to deal with collegiate athletics issues.

[Missingnumber7]

More broadly, it seems to be an effort by VA lawmakers to purposefully harm and hamper state schools not named Virginia or Tech so that their hegemony will not be threatened.

Reason #1,074 why state legislatures are completely ill-suited to deal with collegiate athletics issues.
After seeing how UMass has handled their move up, I don't think pieces of this are terrible. I and to the point I understand the side of not using student fees, or at least a lesser amount of student fees. It keeps cost of attendance under control.

[FCS_pwns_FBS]

At the risk of this turning political, is this a serious bill that Virginia's democrat governor would sign, or is this one of those bills loaded up with a hodgepodge of of other unrelated provisions so the writers of the bill can claim the other side's opposition to it comes from them not caring about what the primary issue is supposed to be?

Either way, college sports are a convenient scapegoat for runaway college costs so it doesn't surprise me at all to see governments try and crack down on it so they can pat themselves on the back and look like they're doing something to address the problem.

IMO, the percentage of your budget that comes from fees is less important than the percentage of a full-time student's fees that goes to athletics. If you have 20k or 30k students of course you are going to make a lot of money from athletic fees.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

At the risk of this turning political, is this a serious bill that Virginia's democrat governor would sign, or is this one of those bills loaded up with a hodgepodge of of other unrelated provisions so the writers of the bill can claim the other side doesn't care about whatever the primary issue of the bill is supposed to be?

Either way, college sports are a convenient scapegoat for runaway college costs so it doesn't surprise me at all to see governments try and crack down on it so they can pat themselves on the back and look like they're doing something to address the problem.

IMO, the percentage of your budget that comes from fees is less important than the percentage of a full-time student's fees that goes to athletics. If you have 20k or 30k students of course you are going to make a lot of money from athletic fees.

This is a bill that is attempting to micromanage how schools do business, not one that attempts to rein in costs. Such a cost-limiting bill as you're describing might have things in it like, say, capping the pay of the highest-paid state employees, or a "waterfall tax" on school athletics facilities. A chance of a real bill that might rein on costs like that in Virginia or anywhere, though, has about the same odds of passage as my becoming the next POTUS.

If they really were trying to cut costs they would pass a very different bill.

[BEAR]

Geez if we lose student athletic fees we'll have to go back to D2. xbawlingx

[clenz]

I've always been blown away by how much many schools pull from fees...



Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Looking closer at the bill you don't only see the micromanagement aspect of the bill, you also see the inherent favoritism given certain school situations.

For example, why is the threshold of fees for "schools that don't offer D-I football" 78%, and not 58%, 48%, 38%, 28%, 18%, or 8%? Unsurprisingly, because VCU's student subsidy sits at 68%.

Less-favored George Mason? 84%. Surprise, surprise.

[JMU2004]

This has been discussed a ton by JMU and ODU fans. It is political grandstanding that sounds good to voters, but honestly won't affect much. JMU has until 7/1/16 to reclassify before being subject to the new approval process.

Ironically, Kurt Cox introduced this legislation. He is a JMU grad.

[MR. CHICKEN]

This is a bill that is attempting to micromanage how schools do business, not one that attempts to rein in costs. Such a cost-limiting bill as you're describing might have things in it like, say, capping the pay of the highest-paid state employees, or a "waterfall tax" on school athletics facilities. A chance of a real bill that might rein on costs like that in Virginia or anywhere, though, has about the same odds of passage as my becoming the next POTUS.

If they really were trying to cut costs they would pass a very different bill.


20651.....IN MOS' STATES....IFIN' NOT ALL.....HIGHEST PAID STATE EMPLOYEE....IS DUH COLLEGE HEAD COACH....xnodx....AWK!


SENT FROM MAH COMPUTER.....HAL

[Libertine]

More broadly, it seems to be an effort by VA lawmakers to purposefully harm and hamper state schools not named Virginia or Tech so that their hegemony will not be threatened.

Reason #1,074 why state legislatures are completely ill-suited to deal with collegiate athletics issues.

Nailed it.

- - - Updated - - -


This is a bill that is attempting to micromanage how schools do business, not one that attempts to rein in costs. Such a cost-limiting bill as you're describing might have things in it like, say, capping the pay of the highest-paid state employees, or a "waterfall tax" on school athletics facilities. A chance of a real bill that might rein on costs like that in Virginia or anywhere, though, has about the same odds of passage as my becoming the next POTUS.

If they really were trying to cut costs they would pass a very different bill.

Nailed it twice.

Just to put a finer point on it, this has no bearing whatsoever on private schools.

[Nova09]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's stopping schools from just taking tuition money into the general fund, and than allocating it to athletics without ever assigning it to the line item "student athletic fee"?

[JMU2004]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's stopping schools from just taking tuition money into the general fund, and than allocating it to athletics without ever assigning it to the line item "student athletic fee"?

There will be new accounting rules put in place to prevent that kind of thing.

JMU has always included line items in it's AD that most other schools don't. For example, our marching band is counted in the athletic budget. Simply by reclassifying that expense, we're under the 70% threshold.

[Cocky]

We wouldnt have to worry as JSU has no fees in our athletic budget. JSU has very few fees if any.

[DFW HOYA]

Maybe I'm missing something, but what's stopping schools from just taking tuition money into the general fund, and than allocating it to athletics without ever assigning it to the line item "student athletic fee"?

Private schools do this, since few have a student athletic fee.

[tribe_pride]

At the risk of this turning political, is this a serious bill that Virginia's democrat governor would sign, or is this one of those bills loaded up with a hodgepodge of of other unrelated provisions so the writers of the bill can claim the other side's opposition to it comes from them not caring about what the primary issue is supposed to be?

Either way, college sports are a convenient scapegoat for runaway college costs so it doesn't surprise me at all to see governments try and crack down on it so they can pat themselves on the back and look like they're doing something to address the problem.

IMO, the percentage of your budget that comes from fees is less important than the percentage of a full-time student's fees that goes to athletics. If you have 20k or 30k students of course you are going to make a lot of money from athletic fees.

He signed it. The bill has been discussed on various Virginia college's boards for many months. It was just signed this week into law.

[Bisonoline]

http://hamptonroads.com/2015/03/mcauliffe-signs-bill-limits-athletic-student-fees

[/FONT][/COLOR][/FONT][/COLOR]

This is a complete game-changer in regards to any sort of conference realignment. IMO.

How is this going to alter FBS? Or FCS as a whole?

[walliver]

How is this going to alter FBS? Or FCS as a whole?

This is just the first salvo in a long process. Virginia will not be the only state to do something like this.

It won't have a great effect on FCS, since we are allowed to downsize without losing eligibilty - i.e.; pay coaches a reasonable salary, minimize travel expenses, and possibly drop a few scholarships. The big time members of the P5 will have no problems. Lesser P5 members will have issues, but the millions poring in from their TV contracts will help. The G5 will have issues. The AAC is the only G5 conference with private schools. Some of the larger AAC schools may be able to keep up, but most G5 schools will find themselves in a sticky situation. Drop too many scholarships and they no longer meet FBS criteria. Many will find themselves playing FBS with FCS budgets.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I wrote about this today - a bit late, but better late than never.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/04/virginia-bill-to-micromanage-athletics.html

[Libertine]

I wrote about this today - a bit late, but better late than never.

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2015/04/virginia-bill-to-micromanage-athletics.html


Great article. Spot on everything.

[clenz]

Can someone put together a "database" if you will of student subsidies of athletics for FCS universities??

Normally the type of thing I'm into, I just don't have time right now

[Green26]

Can someone put together a "database" if you will of student subsidies of athletics for FCS universities??

Normally the type of thing I'm into, I just don't have time right now

The athletic budgets, subsidies and student fees are all in the link. Click on the school to get student fees.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

[walliver]

Athletic programs generally lose money, but the losses listed by some of these schools are excessive. Why should ALL students have to pay a fee to support softball, track, volleyball, and golf teams which benefit only a small number of students and provide no real promotion for the school. If a program requires an 80% subsidy, that school probably should compete in D-2, D-3, or re-evaluate it's sports program altogether. D3 competition can be every bit as exciting for fans and participants as big time competition.

Saying VMI and W&M have rich alumni is no excuse for the failure of Longwood's programs. VMI may well have affluent alumni, but they have very few alumni in total.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Saying VMI and W&M have rich alumni is no excuse for the failure of Longwood's programs.

How are Longwood's athletics programs a failure?

[Bisonoline]

This is just the first salvo in a long process. Virginia will not be the only state to do something like this.

It won't have a great effect on FCS, since we are allowed to downsize without losing eligibilty - i.e.; pay coaches a reasonable salary, minimize travel expenses, and possibly drop a few scholarships. The big time members of the P5 will have no problems. Lesser P5 members will have issues, but the millions poring in from their TV contracts will help. The G5 will have issues. The AAC is the only G5 conference with private schools. Some of the larger AAC schools may be able to keep up, but most G5 schools will find themselves in a sticky situation. Drop too many scholarships and they no longer meet FBS criteria. Many will find themselves playing FBS with FCS budgets.

If your scenario is correct then the strong will survive. But Football is very important on many campuses and drive the sport engine. So I don't take whats happening in VA as a precursor of future problems in other states except out east of course.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Bumping this up after this interesting article from IHE.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/05/05/report-says-administrative-bloat-construction-booms-not-largely-responsible-tuition


Public university students today pay $3,000 more in annual tuition than their counterparts a decade ago.

Why that is depends on whom you ask. Some pundits like to blame administrative bloat or the construction boom. Within higher education, many cite the decline in state support.

“Although academics and media alike have tried to put the question to rest, public confusion on this issue is one reason why effective solutions remain illusory in almost every state,” asserts a report released today by Demos, a left-leaning New York public policy think tank.


The report attempts to pinpoint the factors driving up the price for students seeking a four-year degree at a public college. It asserts that while rising administrative and construction costs are a factor, they’re not as gargantuan as widely believed. A decline in state funding is the real culprit, says author Robbie Hiltonsmith, a senior policy analyst with Demos.


“That is really the real story here. The magnitude of [state funding declines] is so much larger than the magnitude of all these other things,” Hiltonsmith said.


Demos derived much of its data for the report from the Delta Cost Project, which studies how colleges spend their money. The report analyzed research institutions -- universities that conduct high-level research, award a large number of doctorates and confer about 60 percent of public undergraduate degrees -- separately from institutions that primarily award bachelor’s and master's degrees.


Per-student spending at research institutions, according to the report, rose 8 percent from 2001 to 2011 (the uptick was 1 percent at nonresearch colleges).


Demos estimated that during this period, between 78 and 79 percent of the tuition hikes at public universities -- which averaged $3,628 per student at research universities and $2,463 per student at nonresearch colleges -- was due to declining state appropriations, between 5 and 6 percent was due to increased administrative spending, and another 6 percent was due to construction costs.

IMO, this finding really makes the so-called "research" of yahoo lawmakers in making this Virginia bill even more ridiculous.

[carney2]

Athletic programs generally lose money, but the losses listed by some of these schools are excessive.

You are hovering around a fact that underlies a lot of this: there are no generally accepted accounting standards for reporting any of this information. As an example, one respondent on this thread pointed out that one of the Virginia schools could comply with the required percentages by simply moving the band out of the athletic budget. And again as only one example: School A reports the band as part of athletic expenditures; School B includes all band expenditures in the Music Department; School C reports the band as Miscellaneous Student Activities. The reported numbers are apples and oranges, dependent on self serving decisions made by the school.

[Libertine]

IMO, this finding really makes the so-called "research" of yahoo lawmakers in making this Virginia bill even more ridiculous.

Putting out fires with gasoline is what Virginia's yahoo lawmakers do best.