UW increases tuition and fees, but it doesn't look like any

[Cowboy Junky]

of the money is earmarked for athletics. It does look like any coach making less than 100,000 will get a raise. It looks like it might be possible for coaches to qualify for merit based raises. Still, this is disappointing. After the consultants report and all the debate about Wyoming's piddly ass budget, you would think someone would try to get athletics involved in the new money. When are they going to vote for a student fee to increase the athletics budget?

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2014/03/29/news/doc533638e75e05d736242386.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WYCowboy]

of the money is earmarked for athletics. It does look like any coach making less than 100,000 will get a raise. It looks like it might be possible for coaches to qualify for merit based raises. Still, this is disappointing. After the consultants report and all the debate about Wyoming's piddly ass budget, you would think someone would try to get athletics involved in the new money. When are they going to vote for a student fee to increase the athletics budget?

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2014/03/29/news/doc533638e75e05d736242386.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am very disappointed in our Legislature/BOT and their lack of support for UW Athletics. I know of a couple that won't get mine or my wife's vote in the next election. I think I can enlighten quite a few others also.

 

[Cowboy Junky]

This just shows how far down the priority list athletics actually is at UW. The state told UW to do something about their money issues themselves. In other words, they told UW to raise their own money instead of always looking for state hand-outs. UW decided to do that. They could direct that money wherever they want, and it doesn't look like they addressed athletics at all.

I don't know how much of this to blame on our incompetent trustees and how much to blame on Burman. Someone in the athletics department needs to grow a set of balls and start being aggressive to pursue budget increases. If that means a public campaign in the papers, so be it. At least get the athletics department budget mentioned in the debate.

 

[J-Rod]

If you do not invest, a consistently winning program is unattainable. You're hoping for a miracle-making head coach without the $$$$ needed to succeed in today's college game.

 

[spindoctor02]

UW increases tuition and fees, but it doesn't look like any of the money is earmarked for athletics. It does look like any coach making less than 100,000 will get a raise. It looks like it might be possible for coaches to qualify for merit based raises. Still, this is disappointing. After the consultants report and all the debate about Wyoming's piddly ass budget, you would think someone would try to get athletics involved in the new money. When are they going to vote for a student fee to increase the athletics budget?

http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2014/03/29/news/doc533638e75e05d736242386.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You do realize that a University's primary mission is to educate, right? The University has been fighting for a while a reputation that they can't pay their professors at the level of their competition, and as such, they are losing out on the best researchers and educators.

While all of us post to an athletics-focused message board, not everything related to UW is focused on athletics, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

[Cowboy Junky]

The problem is, none of it focuses on athletics. If you're going to improve the university, improve the athletics programs at the same rate that you improve the rest of the university. Either that, or just drop sports all together. If UW isn't willing to support athletics, they should just state that in public, so us donors know that we're going to be the only ones carrying the load if we want to see successful programs.

When was the last time UW raised money on their own to increase athletics support? It's always the donors or the state that poney up for facilities and increases to budget. I agree that they need to support academics, but they could at least pretend to care about athletics by supporting athletics on occasion. They never do.

 

[Cowboy Junky]

I was wrong about the athletics support. 25 dollars per student is coming from the increase in fees. If we roughly have 12,000 students that equates to 300,000. In addition, any coach making less than 100,000 should get a raise. I guess there's potential for a coach that's excelling to get a merit based raise. The article says our student fees in support of athletics are amongst the lowest in the nation. That needs to change.

It's not a lot, but at least it's a start.

Read the second to last paragraph.

http://www.uwyo.edu/uw/news/2014/03/uw-trustees-raise-student-tuition-and-employee-salaries.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[McPeachy]

Athletics are the front porch to the University.

Ask Utah how that 2004 / 2005 Fiesta Bowl (and 12 - 0 season) worked out for them academically (and of course athletically we all know the answer).

 

[Wyokie]

Athletics are the front porch to the University.

Ask Utah how that 2004 / 2005 Fiesta Bowl worked out for them academically (and of course athletically we all know the answer).

Having the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City helped.

 

[McPeachy]

Athletics are the front porch to the University.

Ask Utah how that 2004 / 2005 Fiesta Bowl worked out for them academically (and of course athletically we all know the answer).

Having the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City helped.

Helped the venue...sure...but it had hardly a thing to do with them going undefeated and winning a BCS game. Oh, and if you were wondering, since 2003 - Utah's enrollment is up well over 40%.

Hell, the last 3 years they have grown student enrollment by 4,000 (PAC12 thanks you - but they had to win to get to the PAC12 in the first place, which they did).

 

[spindoctor02]

Athletics are the front porch to the University.

Ask Utah how that 2004 / 2005 Fiesta Bowl worked out for them academically (and of course athletically we all know the answer).

Having the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City helped.

Helped the venue...sure...but it had hardly a thing to do with them going undefeated and winning a BCS game. Oh, and if you were wondering, since 2003 - Utah's enrollment is up well over 40%.

Hell, the last 3 years they have grown student enrollment by 4,000 (PAC12 thanks you - but they had to win to get to the PAC12 in the first place, which they did).

40% you say? I'd like to see the source of that number.

Here is a study from the Utah Legislature: http://bit.ly/1i9kMV9
2012-2013 enrollment = 30,290
2002-2002 enrollment = 26,924
That's a 12.5% increase in enrollment.

Over the same time period, enrollment increased by 25.4% at Weber State, 30.3% at Southern Utah, and 24.9% at Utah Valley. How were their football programs during this period?

From the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census, the population of Utah increased by 23.8% (Source: US Census Bureau), so if anything, the University of Utah is lagging behind in gains in attendance, compared to the other state run universities in the state, and with the population growth of the state.

Saying the enrollment increased because their football team was good is laughable at best, and verging on idiotic at worst.

 

[McPeachy]

40% you say? I'd like to see the source of that number.

Here is a study from the Utah Legislature: http://bit.ly/1i9kMV9
2012-2013 enrollment = 30,290
2002-2002 enrollment = 26,924
That's a 12.5% increase in enrollment.

Over the same time period, enrollment increased by 25.4% at Weber State, 30.3% at Southern Utah, and 24.9% at Utah Valley. How were their football programs during this period?

From the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census, the population of Utah increased by 23.8% (Source: US Census Bureau), so if anything, the University of Utah is lagging behind in gains in attendance, compared to the other state run universities in the state, and with the population growth of the state.

Saying the enrollment increased because their football team was good is laughable at best, and verging on idiotic at worst.

Well...not going to spend a bunch of time disputing everything you said, but I wholeheartedly disagree with you that athletics does not play a huge roll in enrollment & similar academic growth (through increased finances).

Oh, and the number you posted for enrollment is inaccurate for starters (not sure about your source) - 32,388 was the enrollment for fall of 2013...so you are off 6.5% (2098) right there. :thumb:

 

[Cowboy Junky]

Athletics are the front porch to the University.

Ask Utah how that 2004 / 2005 Fiesta Bowl worked out for them academically (and of course athletically we all know the answer).

Having the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City helped.

Helped the venue...sure...but it had hardly a thing to do with them going undefeated and winning a BCS game. Oh, and if you were wondering, since 2003 - Utah's enrollment is up well over 40%.

Hell, the last 3 years they have grown student enrollment by 4,000 (PAC12 thanks you - but they had to win to get to the PAC12 in the first place, which they did).

40% you say? I'd like to see the source of that number.

Here is a study from the Utah Legislature: http://bit.ly/1i9kMV9
2012-2013 enrollment = 30,290
2002-2002 enrollment = 26,924
That's a 12.5% increase in enrollment.

Over the same time period, enrollment increased by 25.4% at Weber State, 30.3% at Southern Utah, and 24.9% at Utah Valley. How were their football programs during this period?

From the 2000 Census to the 2010 Census, the population of Utah increased by 23.8% (Source: US Census Bureau), so if anything, the University of Utah is lagging behind in gains in attendance, compared to the other state run universities in the state, and with the population growth of the state.

Saying the enrollment increased because their football team was good is laughable at best, and verging on idiotic at worst.

You really are a spin doctor. Your numbers are flat out lies. I don't know what Utah enrollment was in 2002. It's irrelevant. What's relevant is 2009, the year they announced the Pac 12 invite and 2013, the last year with full enrollment numbers.

Here's a graph from the University of Utah that shows real numbers, not spin doctor made up numbers. Enrollment in 2009 was 29,284. Enrollment in 2013 32,097. The increase in enrollment in 4 years is right at 10 percent.

That came from Utah getting invited to the Pac 12. Remember, the Pac 12 didn't expand because they wanted Utah's medical school. They expanded because they wanted Utah's football team. The heads of the Pac 12 medical schools didn't get in a room and decide to expand the Pac 12. Larry Scott, the new commissioner of the Pac 12 met with Jim Delaney, the B1G commissioner and decided to expand. Academics we're of secondary importance to football.

If you're number from 2002 was accurate, because your number from 2013 was a flat out lie, then you can attribute the enrollment growth from 2002 to 2009 to Utah's undefeated football team in 2004 and their undefeated football team in 2008.

Here are the real numbers, not the numbers made up by some academic book nerd trying to discredit the importance of college athletics to enrollment growth.

10 percent enrollment growth in four short years directly related to Utah's football team.

http://www.obia.utah.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[SnowyRange]

10 percent enrollment growth in four short years directly related to Utah's football team.

I don't much have a dog in this hunt, but I will note that the population of Utah from the end of 2008 through the end of 2013 also increased by 10%.

It is of course possible they all moved there because of the football team, too. I don't know.

 

[WYCowboy]

Those that think a successful athletic program at a university don't have an effect on it's enrollment have their head stuck in the sand. College athletics get a huge amount of media attention - academics get very little. I'm not saying the academics side is not important, but they work together to make a university strong. It seems our state government and BOT don't have a vision of excellence and pride or the commitment to get our university to that higher level.

 

[spindoctor02]

I got all my numbers from the link I posted, which comes from the Utah Legislature, which oversees the entire system of higher education in the state. I didn't make up a single number. If you have an issue with them, take that up with the people running the fine state of Utah, if you think you have better numbers.

I don't dispute that athletics plays a role in giving an institution a boost in enrollment. However, it's not a direct link like the people in this thread are stating. It definitely can't hurt to have a good football or basketball team, but the correlation between enrollment and athletics success is highly unlikely to be as great as is implied in this thread.

I'll stop here, as I'd hate to bore people with "numbers made up by some academic book nerd", so I'll let you find them yourself. I also know anytime I try to suggest "people in colleges sometimes don't care about sports", I get shot down for being a bad fan, or something.

 

[Cowboy Junky]

We have enough people arguing that we don't need to spend anymore money on athletics. As far as I'm concerned, those people can cheer for CSU.

One of the problems with the University is it's lack of personal accountability and it's indifference towards athletics. They won't try anything because they're afraid to fail. Try this, dominate the MWC for a couple of years, and watch the enrollment jump. It works at every other school in the country.

 

[hithere]

I got all my numbers from the link I posted, which comes from the Utah Legislature, which oversees the entire system of higher education in the state. I didn't make up a single number. If you have an issue with them, take that up with the people running the fine state of Utah, if you think you have better numbers.

I don't dispute that athletics plays a role in giving an institution a boost in enrollment. However, it's not a direct link like the people in this thread are stating. It definitely can't hurt to have a good football or basketball team, but the correlation between enrollment and athletics success is highly unlikely to be as great as is implied in this thread.

I'll stop here, as I'd hate to bore people with "numbers made up by some academic book nerd", so I'll let you find them yourself. I also know anytime I try to suggest "people in colleges sometimes don't care about sports", I get shot down for being a bad fan, or something.

For the sake of argument, please count me in the "athletics as a front porch to the institution" camp of people who think that if the correlation between enrollment and athletics success is ignored, it is at the administration's mistake. I believe that those who don't care about sports at an institution, absolutely should.

The link for the Utah system data (http://le.utah.gov/interim/2014/pdf/00000229.pdf) is somewhat misleading, in my opinion. Besides the numerous grammatical errors, the report linked specifically excludes medical students, those students who are self‐supported, such as those in continuing education or those in remedial education and mixes, very liberally, the use of FTE and headcount numbers.

So based on the findings from the Utah system, the FTE headcounts increased by 1,645 in 2008, 3,099 in 2009, 10,475 in 2010 (Whoa!), 6,910 in 2011 and then somewhat leveled off starting in 2012 at 1,778 and then 2,454 in 2013.

University of Utah Office of Budget & Institutional Analysis numbers are here: http://www.obia.utah.edu/ia/stat/index.php?cat=Student Enrollment Information. They show, (unless I'm a highly functioning ignoramus, which I very well might be or I got bored going through Institutional Analysis data after about five minutes into this half-assed study) a little bit different numbers.

Conclusion: I shudder to compare Wyoming to Utah anywhere past geographic location. The thought of comparing UW to anything Utah related makes me cringe a lot bit. If there was ever a state with more per capita weiners, I haven't found it in my short life on this planet.

 

[spindoctor02]

We have enough people arguing that we don't need to spend anymore money on athletics. As far as I'm concerned, those people can cheer for CSU.

One of the problems with the University is it's lack of personal accountability and it's indifference towards athletics. They won't try anything because they're afraid to fail. Try this, dominate the MWC for a couple of years, and watch the enrollment jump. It works at every other school in the country.

No where did I argue that we shouldn't spend more money on Athletics. In this day and age, it appears you buy your success or have to get really lucky. Combine that with trying to recruit out-of-state talent to Laramie, and you have a bigger issue on your hands. I'd be all for the state helping to increase the athletics department funding.

However, I am staunchly against increasing athletic department funding at the cost of finding the rest of the university. The University of Wyoming's goal as a land-grant institute is to teach the people of Wyoming. It's not to provide the people of Wyoming with a winning football team. Maybe if they raised in-state tuition a bit, they'd be able to better fund the faculty and staff at the university, bringing them up closer to the level of their peer institutions, and then they wouldn't have to spend the state money to do so.

 

[BackHarlowRoad]

I think I'd agree with spindoctor here. Pleeeeease fund athletics more!

Don't take away from the rest of the university to do it. Find a way!