Students: Athletics carries no weight in the US News ranking methodology* (Renu’s stated goal). We would like to reduce the amount going to athletics to fund other areas of student need that do/may impact ranking criteria.
Renu: Now is not the time to reduce the allocation due to the AAC exit fee, outstanding CapEx debt service, and reduced B12 payout until the new media starts in 25/26.
I side with the students. Donors and sponsors should step up a bit more, although easier said than done. If the athletic funding is that critical, maybe take some funding from other areas that was previously covered by institutional support that can be swapped with new incoming money from the University Fund to bridge the 1-2 year gap.
*More than half of a school’s rank is now comprised of varying outcome measures related to schools’ success at enrolling, retaining and graduating students from different backgrounds with manageable debt and post-graduate success
Reasonable people can disagree… But as someone who is old enough to remember some really good years of UH athletics in 1980s SWC and some really terrible days in CUSA - and how it was crystal clear public perception, reputation and status of UH went up and down directly proportional to that …
And after 30 years – finally getting back to a conference position we wanted [sitting on a successful bball program and the administration having the guts to take the painful, expensive actions associated with trying to fix football] - I simply disagree that now is the time to take any money off the table. I am not saying students contribute more - but why take existing money off the table?
In my opinion - that is the old way of thinking associated with CUSA early 1990s UH athletics. No thanks.
The article shares good points on both sides of the discussion.
I think it is important to point out what is actually the issue. The students are only asking for 1.5 Million out of 8.3 Million that goes to athletics to be redirected. Not all of it. They are asking that it go to mental health services for students. Not an unreasonable ask.
Also important to point out that those fees have not increased in a while, and are still below many (most) other schools in the Big 12.
That’s a reasonable take and if Renu had made that point in the initial presentation and the AD was transparent on where the fees not allocated to debt service were going we are probably not here at this point
Doesn’t matter. They’re still paying for it. If I helped pay for a student workout facility and I didn’t use it, I might want them to scale back on funding that even if it’s a part of daily student life.
Taking student fees to use as a slush fund for athletics isn’t related to students attending games. The students are already providing funding to athletics and have dedicated some of their money to paying for the stadium.
This is about an arrogant administration refusing to provide agreed-upon information regarding funding in exchange for the privilege of taking student funds for athletic expenses. Instead of taking the approach of a fiduciary handling money provided by others, they’ve basically told the students to F-off and that they’ll take whatever they want.
Fertitta and the BOR told the administration that they’re not going along with that. Where are the people criticizing the BOR for not giving the administration what they want?
Like it or not athletics cost money.
They also said that reducing the amount allocated toward athletics would put the university below the average amount of student fees provided to athletic departments at peer institutions within the Big 12 Athletic Conference. Administrators pointed to the University of Central Florida and the University of Cincinnati, which allocate about $23 million and $9 million, respectively, in student fees toward athletics.
I am all in favor of programs helpings students with mental health, drug addiction and alcohol addiction. Don’t these programs already exist?
Are you going to tell us how the money is spent in these programs? Do these programs need to be audited to find out how the money is spent?
Let us know. Thank you.
then we will continue to talk out of both sides of our mouths and get limited results, for our efforts.
Improvements/Metrics to ABSOLUTELY start to support a Traditional Campus yet we continue to accept LOW ROI NON-Traditional Students that sabotage our efforts.
A solution is to to target traditional student candidate in other cities. States that WANT to go away to Texas for College…thus, embracing College Life…not fleeing the second their classes end.
WE need to start advertiing ourselves as the younger version of the University of Texas -Austin (We have WAY MORE SIMILARITIES with UT-A than many want to admit)
Then it looks like the university administration and board does not agree with what you feel is the solution. It is going a different way to meet the university’s vision.
Much more important, in my opinion, than any attempt to force students on campus would have been to keep engineering on the main campus. That would do wonders to improve the academic standing that would then compel students that can enhance the university’s profile.
That would be a waste of resources because what does youth have to do with anything to get someone a job?
Academically UH doesn’t match up. Neither does it financially since it costs the same to go there as here. UH will simply have to convince those kids who didn’t make it into UT that they still have prospects of good job opportunities.
