I was very surprised to see that UL is the only Sunbelt school with ZERO! (Student fees) $0.00 dollars dedicated to the athletic budget!.. Just one question. WHY/WHY NOT?!.... We need MONEY!....
I was very surprised to see that UL is the only Sunbelt school with ZERO! (Student fees) $0.00 dollars dedicated to the athletic budget!.. Just one question. WHY/WHY NOT?!.... We need MONEY!....
It's my opinion. You might agree. You might not. It might hurt your feelings or offend your sensibilities. Too bad. You don't have to like me. I don't have to like you. We don't need to be drinking buddies. That's the greatness of America. At least it used to be.
its because Louisiana would not allow it...i believe
I think we could be the only 1-A university in the nation with no student fees.
What about ULM? I thought State of Louisiana did not allow any of its universities to charge fees for athletics?
Then again, I do seem to remember in college voting on a student ballot regarding a proposal to have an extra fee and dedicate it towards an indoor athletic complex. I've slept since then, so I could be wrong.
Hustle Up and HUDdle Up!
Student fees for athletics could be collected, but the maximum allowed General Fund transfer was reduced dollar-for-dollar under the previous rules. McNeese, Northwestern, Nicholls, ULM, and Southeastern all reported student fee revenue for athletics in 2010-2011 since none of those schools transferred the maximum General Fund amount.
The Board of Regents rule change means that the maximum General Fund transfer amount will no longer be reduced by student fee money voted for athletics. The trick is to not follow ULM's example and make sure that any student fee referendum actually passes.
Bookmarks