From a New York Times article:
…Dave Maggard, the University of Houston’s athletic director, predicted “a lot more scrutiny” for public universities that make expensive coaching changes. He said that the use of state money would come under increasing scrutiny, especially considering that many universities, even the larger and more visible ones, lose money on their athletic programs.
“A lot of places, even the big places, are running deficit budgets today,” Maggard said. “I think you’re going to see some real pulling back and I think some real effort to economize in every way possible. I just don’t think you can be flippant with the public today because it’s just not going to play well.”…
Can’t be flippant with students either. They’ve had it with athletics fees.
A reeling economy and student concerns over rising fees overwhelmingly sent the Beach Legacy Referendum that would have benefited Long Beach State athletics to defeat Friday.
By a vote of 3,912-2,615 over two days of voting on the Internet and campus, students defeated the referendum that would have added $95 a semester to student fees beginning in the fall of 2010. The proposal was designed to raise $7 million annually in new revenue for the department.
The referendum was intended to cover an expected 10 percent increase in scholarship tuition costs, a large increase in the cost of student housing, state budget cuts that could be as high as 10 percent and capital improvements for campus facilities.
The proposal included plans to build a combined soccer and track stadium, new practice field for the baseball team and a clubhouse for spring and aquatic teams…
March 15th, 2009 at 9:11AM
Unclever university administrator: "Why those rotten little ingrates! Here we are, trying to raise the profile of the U., and these wretched punks are trying to sabotage our initiative!"
Clever university administrator: "Clearly, since we are geniuses, even the dolts we call students must recognize the necessity of stimulating our athletic spending. Therefore, most of the "nay" votes actually voted against the proposal because they thought that the increase was not large enough. In order to accommodate their views, we will compromise and set the new fee at $125, not $95. No need for a new vote."