USM sales tax

Date: May 9, 2004

USM sales tax

Date: May 9, 2004

I'm not a specialist on sports income, so I welcome comments on the following from those who know more:

I fear that sports-generated money may be largely a mirage. My own university, Southern California, has a powerful football team, but the campus still relies heavily on fundraising and endowments. Plus, it's private and charges high tuition--$500 per unit ten years ago, and surely more now. (Fortunately, they also have fellowships and TAships, or I wouldn't have been able to get my Ph.D. there.) But USC and its local football rival, UCLA, are far larger schools in a sprawling urban area with a population in the millions. Aren't most of the big football schools in or near urban areas, and don't they have far higher enrollments than ours, enrollments which then generate paying alumni fans? Where are we going to get the same kind of crowds that they can count on?

We're not alone in being a small university but putting lots of eggs into the athletics basket. Note that Rice University in lost ten million dollars last year trying to keep up with the athletic Joneses, and they're bound to lose more if they try to stay in that game. And they're in Houston. See at <http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2004/05/06/sports/4e13fe70d29e687187256e8b0007eae1.txt>. It would appear that Rice is failing to see the handwriting on the wall.

Date: May 9, 2004

Along the same lines that Jameela suggested:

I don't think "revenue sports" are a significant net source of income at any university. Athletic income never goes to support academics, in more than trivial amounts. At best, winning football and men's basketball teams may stimulate more alumni giving overall, including some that goes to academics.

The revenue sports carry high costs (college football teams are huge and expensive to sustain, even though the athletes are not paid); income from them has to cross-subsidize the non-revenue sports; and any income left over is most often invested in expanding athletic administration. (At Clemson, there are more than a few individuals who spend their entire work week behind a desk but have been given the job title of "Coach.")

The best you can expect from a well-run academic program (at least in a Division I school) is that it won't go into the red and require a bailout from the academic side of the university. At Clemson, the academic programs have been self-sufficient for the most part, but we have still seen student fees used to pay off a bond issue for improvements to Death Valley (the football stadium).

Barring a major reorganization of big-time college athletics, the best that can be hoped for is a "Chinese wall" between athletic and academic operations.

Robert Campbell

Date: May 9, 2004

Since I never get a room in H'burg & only seldom eat in a restaurant there, I'm not sure I'm in a position to say 'yea' or 'nay' on the tax referendum.

But I do have a couple of questions: Would the flat 10% tax apply to McDonald's or Burger King? I assume it applies only to the city of Hattiesburg; am I correct?

I think the entire USM athletic program is remarkable in what it routinely achieves with the size of its budget. In fact, one reason I, as an alum, like to see the Eagles play on TV is that the announcers never fail to praise this particular attribute. I think it's a metaphor for just about any department in the whole University. "Against all (budgetary) odds."

But whether this metaphor merits a tax levy, well, like I said, I don't live in Forrest or Lamar Co.

Date: May 9, 2004

Ah, the facilities arms race and the university. While there are passionate arguments on both sides of the equation I have a suggestion in regards to USM's version of the arms race:

FYI: Mr. G and his band of used car dealers worked diligently to place the troll in his current position. They pulled out all of the stops. But to put it in perspective, so did Gunther and the CBA Advisory Board. Of course, the Dean of the CBA paid for his loyalty with his job. To bad Richard did not also suffer this same fate. But I digress...

I do not like the athletic department, but I recognize it is important as part of the 'total university experience' that a large number of students consider when selecting a university. And we do exist for the students...where would we be without them! (Heck, faculty enjoy D 1-A sports too!)

SO! I would suggest to the athletic department that if they come out against SFT (or at least stay neutral - considering their history in this matter), the faculty will support the 1% sales tax (After all, if it passes, the enrollment may increase and we may get more of the dwindling proceeds from the state). AND I think that the athletic department must agree to not have any input into the selection of the next university president. They stay hands off the academic side of the equation and the academic side will support them in their quest for improved facilities.

This could be a win-win for both sides. And a side benefit is the potential increase in support of the university from the community. The good citizens of Hattiesburg may finally make a connection between the presence of a university and the fact that they are here making a living.

Of course, the Athletic Department has sold thier soul to Shelby, so the other side of the equation is to openly campaign against the tax. The down side is it may jeopardize our D 1-A potential, costing us all in the long term.

As an aside...the AD does supply the university with about 300 or so students on schlarships, plus walkons You may have various opinions of the quality of academic preformance by some athletes, but take a look at the women's and the spring sport athlete's academic record. Over 50% are on the Dean's list. For the most part, our athletes are good students.

Date: May 9, 2004

I think the Athletic Dept., much like some of those who can't be really vocal about current USM events, has to tread lightly right now too. SFT and his sons have been heavy contributers to the Program, and that puts many key people over in that department in a tenuous situation. They are probably pretty happy that there is a clear division between athletics and academics, but they also most likely realize that SFT will let the hammer fall on anyone who he perceives is stepping out of line.

I will say this, I do know - for a fact - that many key people in that department would love to see SFT step down. I do not think anyone over there believes that they have any guaranteed job security as long as Thames stays in power.

Date: May 9, 2004

Athletics further exposes SFT's "economic development"/"financial efficiency" lie. Otherwise, Athletics would be scrapped entirely because it always loses money and must be bailed out by the academic side of campus or by private donations, a la the Thames family and others. However, it does attract "certain" big spenders who get to hobnob with SFT at the games while planning their next attempt to use public funds to support their private money-grubbing. See stadium upgrade and corporate skyboxes for further confirmation.

Date: May 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Robert Campbell
" At Clemson, the academic programs have been self-sufficient for the most part, but we have still seen student fees used to pay off a bond issue for improvements to Death Valley (the football stadium)."

Oops! That was supposed to read, "At Clemson, the athletic programs have been self-sufficient for the most part..."

Robert Campbell

Date: May 9, 2004

For my part, don't expect me to vote FOR the tax increase UNLESS Shelby is removed from the presidency. I hope faculty,students and townspeople realize that economics provides the leverage to unseat the gnome.

Date: May 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Anonymous
"For my part, don't expect me to vote FOR the tax increase UNLESS Shelby is removed from the presidency."

If enough people say this to the right people enough times, it could certainly have an impact. But as I said before, it's not going to affect me. But it will have an effect on everyone who lives in H'burg & goes out for a meal.

Date: May 9, 2004

Well, I've already decided that this year I'm not going to buy the 4 football season tickets I've had for over 20 years. And I don't think I will be able to support the tax increase for athletics if SFT is still in the dome in November when it goes on the ballot. In fact, I don't think it has any chance of passage if the current administration is still in place, because I think this whole mess will still be going on and it will still be playing out in the local media.

Date: May 9, 2004

Bigger questions concerning this tax.

(1) What happened to the absolutely-no-new-taxes guy that heads this committee in the senate (can't recall his name right now)? Everyone thought this tax was dead, and then out of nowhere he let it out of committee. The only comment I've seen that he made to justify his mystifying reversal is "why not?" Since I don't put anything past Thames, I wonder if some ugly politics took place. Money under the table? Blackmail? What happened here?

(2) Does IHL realize how improperly Thames acted when he got Fillingane to submit the bill calling for an extra $10 million? Not to mention trying to get voters out of the loop. I understand that the Hattiesburg mayor and city council were furious about this, and rightly so.

I don't think this has a prayer of passing as long as Thames is in office. This can't be lost on athletics???

Date: May 9, 2004

A month or so ago I heard a rumor that the athletic director's wife was promoting the pro Thames letters to newspapers. Can anyone confirm this? I also heard that Bower was not pleased that the athletic department was so visible in the campus conflict. Anybody heard this?

Date: May 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Flash Gordon
"A month or so ago I heard a rumor that the athletic director's wife was promoting the pro Thames letters to newspapers. Can anyone confirm this? I also heard that Bower was not pleased that the athletic department was so visible in the campus conflict. Anybody heard this?"

As far as Bower's reaction to being told to be visible in support of Thames - not pleased at all.

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"As far as Bower's reaction to being told to be visible in support of Thames - not pleased at all."

Has his contract been renewed yet?

Date: May 9, 2004

I don't know, if it's been renewed - it would have been on the news. Has anyone seen in the paper etc. where it's been renewed?

Fire Shelby · Status: Offline

quote:
Originally posted by: educator
"I don't know, if it's been renewed - it would have been on the news. Has anyone seen in the paper etc. where it's been renewed?"

Nothing in the news that I know of.

Date: May 9, 2004

Then it's not renewed yet.

Date: May 9, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Magnolia
"Well, I've already decided that this year I'm not going to buy the 4 football season tickets I've had for over 20 years."

Same here.

Unfortunately, the head guy can't make the connection, so it will wind up being blamed on Jeff Bower's coaching.

According to some of the pundits on EagleTalk, the team's winning run at the close of this past season (which happens to have been a tie for the longest win streak in about 20 years) was solely due to Thames threatening Bower after the Cal game. Even our esteeemed Thomas Cooley knows about this...

In closing, I'll offer that Jeff Bower has done far more to advance the POSITIVE public image of USM in the eyes of the average man on the street than Shelby Thames ever has. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the USM athletic program has been a worthy metaphor for all the underfunded departments on campus that excel "against all odds."

I look forward to the day when I can end my little sports boycott protest, go back to cheering the kids (band, team & cheerleaders) on the field & smugly grin when the ESPN announcer talks about how much USM achieves with so little.

Date: May 10, 2004

Invictus:

Hear! Hear! Well said.

Date: May 10, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Outward Bound
"Invictus: Hear! Hear! Well said."

I agree with that sentiment. I've always felt that Jeff has tried to run a clean program with a lot of pressure to excel despite the resources of the university.

My sense is that he is really the guy who got the program this far but that the admin is now casting around for someone with a "name" they can both raise money for and who will, in turn, help overcome the handicap of an underfinanced program by using the "name" to enhance recruting. Sortof the Eustacy strategy except I think they will really need to competetively pay a name football coach.

No one is perfect -- Jeff has his warts like all of us. But he's given a lot to the university -- including loyalty -- and I think the backstabbing from certain quarters is unfortunate . . .

Date: May 10, 2004

What was the deal with Thames' threat to Bower? I hadn't heard of that.

I was a student at the time both Jeff and his wife were at USM. And, Jeff was an assistant at the university where I now teach. USM would be very foolish to replace the most successful football coach in my memory.

As for the tax issue, I wouldn't be able to support it. Athletics (even though I'm an average fan) will gobble up all of the money they're given. Even though some large athletic programs do generate lots of income, it's my understanding that almost all spend that and more.

Out of Stater