UNC Charlotte Football

[dgreco]

You just said that and I can tell you that UNCC has no problem with recognition. When the day comes when they are not turning down students because there is no room on the campus you might have something there. But you are incorrectly applying your theory to a specific school that proves your assertions wrong. If you decide to go to school for these reasons, I feel that you are going to end up being disappointed by the results, as are the 50% of freshmen that end up dropping out or changing schools, but it's that has nothing to do with whether football should be placed at UNCC or not. (which is the purpose of this topic)

I can agree with that, but my point is certain students make those decisions. And more applicants means more selectivity, its not about if they are meeting the numbers, but lets say 10,000 apply and they accept 7,500 and 4,000 attend. Well if they want to keep the 4,000 attend number and they get 20,000 applicants they automatically become more selective. MY point is selectivity matters and that is one way to get there. I do not like you saying IF YOU decide on that because clearly I didn't since I went to a small DII college that I liked... That is not the point of the argument.

Your argument is sports is a waste of money go academics.... my argument more sports more recognition more selective students. More selective students brings better core, better alumni, better professors and better leaders. Sure you can get there without sports, but sports is the fast track and many schools take this route.

[dxartist]

not saying sports matter on the job, but school recognition is based on sports.

I disagree, not all school recognition is based on sports. Look at schools such as Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, and Stanford. This first thing that click in people's minds is education, not sports.

As for me, I selected my college of choice based on academic reputation.

Edited March 10, 2008 by dxartist

[Justadude]

But they do that is the catch. Look at applications that go up in a year when a team like George Mason goes far in the tourney. More applicants means more selective it is a cycle that starts with athletics.

After reading several articles in the past few minutes, the unanimous decision is that GM got a lot of free press and a lot of extra admissions applications, yet there is no measurable change on campus as a result. The average GMU freshman's academic profile is only marginally better than in 2003 (and that follows a national trend). In other words, they were barraged with a lot more work on the admissions end and got basically the same results as before.

Why? Because GMU struggles to compete nationally, just like UNC-C. It doesn't matter if some kid in Oregon suddenly knows about the university and wants to go there. If the kid can get a better program closer to home and pay in-state tuition, that's what he's going to do... because the people writing the tuition checks care about the degree they're paying for, not the success of the sports teams. This effect would be even MORE pronounced at UNC-C, which fails to compete with even its in-state rivals in both athletics AND academics. You aren't going to draw sports fans away from Carolina and Duke by losing a minor bowl game... and you certainly aren't going to draw good students away from those schools unless you increase the quality of UNC-C's academic programs.

I am sorry but most 17 or 18 years pick schools because of athletics and exposure not because of the possible law program.

That is simply not true. During college I worked in the admissions office for 3 years and spent a lot of time around kids who were making college decisions. Furthermore I had access to best-practices manuals and whatnot, and believe me when I say that except for the actual football players, almost no competitive students make their final decisions based on sports teams. Students who are looking strictly at sports tend to be at the very low end of the admissions ladder, and frankly you can get those kids without spending a hundred million dollars because they aren't going to be accepted into competitive programs anyway.

Go to a company and say I graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill or UNC-Charlotte they will nto care about the difference if they are outside the carolinas or maybe the southeast. Nationally that stuff doesnt matter, the only thing they will know is UNC CH is more known then UNCC and not because of academics but because they played Duke on sportscenter.

Again, this is simply not true. When applying for positions in a competitive environment, it quickly becomes clear that managers are well familiar with which programs are the best -- if they were as ignorant as you're saying, they wouldn't be making hiring decisions in the first place. So yes, having a degree from Chapel Hill makes a load of difference... and it's got nothing to do with sports. The fact of the matter is that UNC-CH is one of the best public universities in the country, and having a degree from there says a lot about a graduate's level of education. If UNC-C is serious about competing for students outside Mecklenburg County, it NEEDS to generate that kind of academic recognition.

A good start would be to hire a Nobel winner onto the staff... like George Mason did.

[Miesian Corners]

I don't know anyone who chose a college based on sports, but I know for certain that many colleges keep their names in the papers and on television because of sports. And when your name is out there time and time again, people remember.

Dgreco, as for Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, let's keep this real. Those are private Ivy League schools that have very little in common with those of us sequestered to the realm of public education. Instead, use names such as Alabama, Auburn, OSU, Old Miss, Texas A & M, Florida, and UGA--those are big public schools with name recognition. Where do we usually hear about them? In Science Digest? No, ESPN and Sports Illustrated. And therein lies the gist for me. It's all about marketing.

[atlrvr]

I will say that when people in Boston ask where I went to school, I always say "The University of North Carolina at Charlotte"....90% of the replies is "Chapel Hill huh? Tar Heels are looking great so far this season." Typically, I smile and nod and let it go......In fact, people would swing by my office to talk about the Tar Heels.....

People don't seem to understand that UNC-CH isn't located in Charlotte, but they certainly are aware of the team's name.....again, this conversation is the rule, not the exception.

At the end of the day, I don't see why anyone is getting worked up over the proposal. If the student's overwhelming elect to "tax" themselves because the feel adding football would increase their collegiate exeperience, why should they be denied that right? It's not like athletics have been the downfall of other fine institutions.

I actually started college at Georgia Tech, which is ranked high on these oft-mentioned lists. I went there on partial academic scholarship, from a Charlotte booster club that's primary objective when no handing out scholarships was to get together each Saturday to watch Tech play. At the presentation of scholarships, we were all taught the school fight song. When I lived in Charlotte, I would still sometimes see the president of the local chapter drive around in his Cadillac with his GT flags flying on Saturdays. I'm not saying that without football there wouldn't be a Charlotte alumni association, but I can say positively that the group was largely preoccupied with Tech sports, and the larger the membership the more scholarships they are able to award.

[dgreco]

I don't know anyone who chose a college based on sports, but I know for certain that many colleges keep their names in the papers and on television because of sports. And when your name is out there time and time again, people remember.

Dgreco, as for Yale, Harvard, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins, let's keep this real. Those are private Ivy League schools that have very little in common with those of us sequestered to the realm of public education. Instead, use names such as Alabama, Auburn, OSU, Old Miss, Texas A & M, Florida, and UGA--those are big public schools with name recognition. Where do we usually hear about them? In Science Digest? No, ESPN and Sports Illustrated. And therein lies the gist for me. It's all about marketing.

I will say that when people in Boston ask where I went to school, I always say "The University of North Carolina at Charlotte"....90% of the replies is "Chapel Hill huh? Tar Heels are looking great so far this season." Typically, I smile and nod and let it go......In fact, people would swing by my office to talk about the Tar Heels.....

People don't seem to understand that UNC-CH isn't located in Charlotte, but they certainly are aware of the team's name.....again, this conversation is the rule, not the exception.

At the end of the day, I don't see why anyone is getting worked up over the proposal. If the student's overwhelming elect to "tax" themselves because the feel adding football would increase their collegiate exeperience, why should they be denied that right? It's not like athletics have been the downfall of other fine institutions.

I actually started college at Georgia Tech, which is ranked high on these oft-mentioned lists. I went there on partial academic scholarship, from a Charlotte booster club that's primary objective when no handing out scholarships was to get together each Saturday to watch Tech play. At the presentation of scholarships, we were all taught the school fight song. When I lived in Charlotte, I would still sometimes see the president of the local chapter drive around in his Cadillac with his GT flags flying on Saturdays. I'm not saying that without football there wouldn't be a Charlotte alumni association, but I can say positively that the group was largely preoccupied with Tech sports, and the larger the membership the more scholarships they are able to award.

These are both my exact arguments, I may not get the point across as clear, but athletics matter to a school and if Charlotte can go from a fairly regional school to a national school they will take that.

South Carolina went from the Metro to the ACC to the SEC because of national recognition and their programs have all improved. Look at 1992 when they moved to the SEC every major academic program increased. When you have 85,000 seat stadium with season ticket holders thats money. 1. Because alumni season ticket holders have to match 50% of the price of tickets to go towards alumni donations so they are essentially take in 150 when they could make 100 from just selling the seats. When SC moved to the SEC they experience an 0-11 season because they STUNK but still sold out every single game.... THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY. Oh guess what else they take in a percent of the BCS 10 million that was won that year also. The Big East would be smartt and a great move. Why do schools like St. Johns, PC, Depaul, Marquette all play in these conferences because of the money and exposure. If Charlotte could get in a Big East without football they would, but they can't so that is their stepping stone into the big time.

[BobbyDav]

Somebody brought up George Mason, but there recognition came from making it to the final four in Basketball. BC's recognition came from being in the ACC. So there are two methods mentioned here for increasing applicants through athletics. One is be in a good confrence and the other is play a game in the national spotlight. Why do either of these things require football? Why would a bad football team really help out?

I'm not saying Charlotte doesn't deserve football team(though they may not need one). I'm just trying to find out what dynamic football brings out thats so special. Why is this the one sport that is really going to increase quality of life, get the school recognized, or help the school make money(the above post kinda answers this one)?

Interesting tidbit though the Big East has 7 teams without in conference football. DePaul, Georgetown, Marquette, Notre Dame, Providence College, Seton Hall, and Villanova don't have football in the Big East. Each of these teams are in a major conference-obviously. Georgetown, Notre Dame, and Villanova each have football teams in other conferences. These are arguably the most recognizable teams on that list and certaintly they have the best academics.

Still, Does recognition follow football or does football follow recognition? Are these teams capable of supporting football because of their academics or does football just not affect academics?

Edited March 11, 2008 by BobbyDav

[rockhilljames]

Just a point of fact; South Carolina went from the Southland conference, to ACC, to independent, loose affiliation with the Metro Conference (basketball and soccer), and then as a full member of the SEC.

We also went 5-6 in our first year of SEC play, and I'd like to mention that a year after the 0-11 season (thanks for pointing that out) we were 8-4 and Outback Bowl champions over Ohio State.

Forbes magazine ranked USC's football team the 12th most valuable team in the country last year, with a total worth of $69 million dollars and a profit of $28.9 million last year. A great deal of that money went back into the University for academic purposes. It's not coincidence that USC's admission into the SEC also came at the same time that USC began it's building boom and push for AAU membership. The new Innovista campus being built now will house new labs for USC's flagship hydrogen cell and nanotechnology research center. I know it's going to kill some of you guys to hear this...but the success of the football program (in monetary terms anyway) is directly responsible for much of the current academic success at USC, as over $10 million a year from the Athletics Dept goes to fund chairs and endowments.

That says nothing of the millions poured into the local economy each year by visiting fans and traveling USC fans on game day.

Although, since UNCC is in the same recruiting territory as USC, I wouldn't mind it at all if they decided against a team, now that I think about it.

[monsoon]

These are both my exact arguments, I may not get the point across as clear, but athletics matter to a school and if Charlotte can go from a fairly regional school to a national school they will take that.....

You don't get your point across clear because you are unfamiliar with UNCC and when someone points out your mistakes, you change your message. I think you have offered up your opinion that you feel that 18 years olds pick schools based on football and UNCC as a result should put in a football team at significant cost to the individuals going there. Most of us here disagree about that assessment since UNCC already has more applicants than it can take in. I am sure there are 18 year olds that do go this route, and I will also tell you there are a lot of freshmen in college for the wrong reasons too.

The UNC system is first of all a state school for state residents, and this concept that it must become a national school is not supported by its charter, purpose nor funding. Maybe its done that way in other states, namely places like SC whose university system was originally designed to keep out most of the population, but NC in comparison has had a long history of trying to make quality education available to all residents of the state. The original campus in CH is the oldest public university in the USA. The Charlotte campus is here because it provides a local UNC education to residents of this 2.2M metro. In UNCC's case football is not needed nor required for this purpose as the school is getting along quite nicely.

[dgreco]

I did a little history lesson on UNC-C and they say one of the main goals for the university is enrichment of the Charlotte metro. That could mean educating the local student or it could mean giving back to the community. Either way I see your point, but as stated above by rockhilljames athletics does help the enrichment of an area and the school. I know you are against it, but it is part of the universities vision and the students. UNC Charlotte Vision which clearly states among many things increased alumni donations, alumni involvment and student bonding through its athletics. As much as it is good that they sponsor some 17+ sports everyone knows homecoming and school spirit comes from 2 sports, Basketball and Football. As I said earlier the current student body at 80% approve adding the sport of football and another 60% approve a "tax" increase for the sport. The more showing sign is that about 65% said they will show up to these events. If you take the 65% you are looking at 11,000 student. If you average even less at about 7,500 students that is an atmosphere and a bonding that many will appreciate. I do not see how getting 7,500+ students at a football is a bad thing? Plus students parents, booster, alumni and other local fans to come out and see a football game.

Clearly as an alum of UNC Charlotte you do not see it fit, because why you went there was for your education. I am not sure how old you were and you say many kids do not pick schools because of football, but many kids enjoy school because of the spirit and student bonding. Traditionally 18-24 undergrads who live on campus want to get a lot of college, thats why athletics, greek life and student orgs run and support the school so much. Should UNC Charlotte take away the 21 greek organizations because they do not add anything to academics?

[1979Heel]

You don't get your point across clear because you are unfamiliar with UNCC and when someone points out your mistakes, you change your message. I think you have offered up your opinion that you feel that 18 years olds pick schools based on football and UNCC as a result should put in a football team at significant cost to the individuals going there. Most of us here disagree about that assessment since UNCC already has more applicants than it can take in. I am sure there are 18 year olds that do go this route, and I will also tell you there are a lot of freshmen in college for the wrong reasons too.

The UNC system is first of all a state school for state residents, and this concept that it must become a national school is not supported by its charter, purpose nor funding. Maybe its done that way in other states, namely places like SC whose university system was originally designed to keep out most of the population, but NC in comparison has had a long history of trying to make quality education available to all residents of the state. The original campus in CH is the oldest public university in the USA. The Charlotte campus is here because it provides a local UNC education to residents of this 2.2M metro. In UNCC's case football is not needed nor required for this purpose as the school is getting along quite nicely.

When you say national school, do you mean UNC Chapel Hill? The stated goal by Chancellor Moeser and supported by just about every student and alum is to make the Chapel Hill campus the best public university in America. That was one of the drivers of the recently completed Carolina First campaign that added over $2 billion to Carolina's endowment. Since it's generally regarded to be in the top 5, it's already a national school, though not to the extent of say a Duke, let alone a Harvard or Yale.

I agree with you completely that North Carolina has long supported a quality education for its residents, something that has always made me proud to be a North Carolinian. But I also think that the understanding of how we provide this has come a long way since 1789. The provision in the state constitution was written long before there were 16 UNC campuses. And Carolina's tax-payer supported funding represents less than 25% of its budget.

Edited March 11, 2008 by 1979Heel

[rockhilljames]

...namely places like SC whose university system was originally designed to keep out most of the population, but NC in comparison has had a long history of trying to make quality education available to all residents of the state...

This has no basis in fact and undermines any argument you're trying to make. Please point out to me where the University system in SC was designed to keep out most of the population. If you're going to point to Jim Crow laws and things of that nature, I'd point out that the entire South, and indeed the entire country, practiced those rules at one time.

[dgreco]

This has no basis in fact and undermines any argument you're trying to make. Please point out to me where the University system in SC was designed to keep out most of the population. If you're going to point to Jim Crow laws and things of that nature, I'd point out that the entire South, and indeed the entire country, practiced those rules at one time.

To add to this I thought USC was put in columbia to unite South Carolina, the central location brought the entire state together. To me that seems like inclusion.

Reading the feasibility report and one of the main things they want to address is APPLICANTS adding more recognition brings more applicants and the school can become more selective. The schools goal is to no longer be a regional school or be known as a "safety school". I know you say national attention isn't the goal, but through the 100's of pages in the report each section cites that recognition is the most important aspect. Interesting fact is that each of the following schools South Alabama, UAB, and South Florida all had the same problem and this helped change it.

[Justadude]

Forbes magazine ranked USC's football team the 12th most valuable team in the country last year, with a total worth of $69 million dollars and a profit of $28.9 million last year. A great deal of that money went back into the University for academic purposes. It's not coincidence that USC's admission into the SEC also came at the same time that USC began it's building boom and push for AAU membership. The new Innovista campus being built now will house new labs for USC's flagship hydrogen cell and nanotechnology research center. I know it's going to kill some of you guys to hear this...but the success of the football program (in monetary terms anyway) is directly responsible for much of the current academic success at USC, as over $10 million a year from the Athletics Dept goes to fund chairs and endowments.

For about the dozenth time in this conversation, there is no point in comparing UNC-C to a state flagship university. 49ers football is not going to come on the scene and start winning major bowls... heck, we'd be lucky if they even qualified for a significant bowl in the next 20 years, only to get hammered by a powerhouse program. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that this program will make a profit for the university in the near future.

From an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, somewhat outdated as it was published in 1996, but still accurate in general terms (I don't know of a similar comprehensive study that's been done since):

[Richard Sheehan, Notre Dame professor of Economics]'s calculations indicate that only 41 of the 106 Division I-A institutions he surveyed make money from their football programs. Only 31 earn more than $1-million a year, his definition of financial health. The remainder lose money.

...

Perhaps 30 to 35 athletic departments record consistent and comfortable surpluses in the combined revenues from their football and men's basketball programs. The most successful include Auburn, Brigham Young, Clemson, Michigan State, Ohio State, and Pennsylvania State Universities, and the Universities of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, Georgia, California at Los Angeles, Nebraska at Lincoln, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Washington. Each of these institutions, according to Mr. Sheehan's calculations, had net revenues of more than $9.5-million from football and men's basketball in fiscal 1994. The universities in the second half of his collegiate top 30 had net revenues ranging from $8.2-million (Syracuse University) to $5.9-million (Texas A&M University) from football and men's basketball. Several programs below this level may make money from postseason play, Mr. Sheehan says, but the great majority do not break even.

But let's give UNC-C the benefit of the doubt and assume that the football program does an OUTSTANDING job, bringing in an annual net profit of $3 million straight-up cash money.

Is $3 million a year what you would expect on an investment in the $100-$200 million range, plus annual costs of over $12 million? Come on, this makes no economic sense whatsoever. And that's a best-case scenario. More than likely this program will be deep in the red until it reaches bowl status, at which point it will be a moderate money-loser. These resources are FAR better invested in other programs which will raise the university's profile for positive reasons and eventually attract the kind of academic profile that always goes before athletic success.

I would also like to take a second and clear up one of my earlier points: I didn't mean to imply that UNC-C is academically weak across the board. There are a few very strong departments there which are competitive enough to draw students from other universities -- in particular on the architecture and social-sciences side, of which at least a few of our forumers are alumni, and in teaching. They can speak personally to the reasons why they chose UNC-C, which clearly had nothing to do with football. If the university can bring that kind of profile to the great majority of its departments, it will be in business as a regional competitor and have realistic national aspirations. That is the mission of the university and the appropriate approach to its growth over the next decade.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Justadude

[monsoon]

This has no basis in fact and undermines any argument you're trying to make. Please point out to me where the University system in SC was designed to keep out most of the population. If you're going to point to Jim Crow laws and things of that nature, I'd point out that the entire South, and indeed the entire country, practiced those rules at one time.

Indeed the historical basis behind USC was to create a two tiered system of education in SC. The other tier was the state supported TEC system. When the state was operated and controlled by mill bosses the last thing they wanted was for people to become educated so they could move on to higher paying jobs. So there was one system for the "elite" of SC and another for everyone else. In any case it is about as relevant to this discussion as the highly noteworthy football team at USC. It's too bad the school is not as well regarded for it's academics which is often the case with these things. Though I am a native of SC and attended college there for a short while, I found that I could get a better education at UNCC in the NC system.

[monsoon]

... As I said earlier the current student body at 80% approve adding the sport of football and another 60% approve a "tax" increase for the sport. ....

LOL, you should read back through this topic. It was 80% of the people who bothered to vote, not 80% of the student body. Most people did not think it was important enough to vote on the issue even though the vote was by web polling over 3 weeks.

The reality only about 4500 people of the 25,000 campus voted for a team and at the time they were being told that fees would be $25-$50, not the $300 they are saying now. That means a small of minority of students at that school are pushing for a team and support for it is not widespread.

[dgreco]

Indeed the historical basis behind USC was to create a two tiered system of education in SC. The other tier was the state supported TEC system. When the state was operated and controlled by mill bosses the last thing they wanted was for people to become educated so they could move on to higher paying jobs. So there was one system for the "elite" of SC and another for everyone else. In any case it is about as relevant to this discussion as the highly noteworthy football team at USC. It's too bad the school is not as well regarded for it's academics which is often the case with these things. Though I am a native of SC and attended college there for a short while, I found that I could get a better education at UNCC in the NC system.

SC is highly regarded for its academic programs, there are many programs that are rated to 25 in the country in about every college they offer. Their business program alone shows how good the academics are.

LOL, you should read back through this topic. It was 80% of the people who bothered to vote, not 80% of the student body. Most people did not think it was important enough to vote on the issue even though the vote was by web polling over 3 weeks.

The reality only about 4500 people of the 25,000 campus voted for a team and at the time they were being told that fees would be $25-$50, not the $300 they are saying now. That means a small of minority of students at that school are pushing for a team and support for it is not widespread.

The study that I read asked if they would be okay with a fee of AT LEAST 200 per year, not a 25-50 dollar tax, and still 60% said that they would approve it. If you read the entire SGA report it was not 4,500 students it was 38.6% out of the 22,388 which is not a bad amount of people who voted. With 80 percent saying yes that is 8,642. IF that many students were interested enough to go out and vote that shows there is interest. There are many more who probably had no desire to vote but would still support the idea and the increases.

Edited March 11, 2008 by dgreco

[monsoon]

^Dgreco, Again you have changed your story...... and again you are wrong.......

This was posted about the vote when it happened....

When results are reported as just statistics then that is a clear sign that a spin of a failed referendum is taking place. Assuming that UNCC's population is 21,000 then we have the following.

• 8170 voted (rounded)
  
• 1800 voted for no fees to pay for it
  
• 2120 voted for less than $200
  
• 4250 voted to pay more than $200 for it.
  
• 4820 voted to attend more than 5 games
  
• 4820 more interested because of football
  

So basically there are about 4500 people at UNCC that are interested enough in football to pay for it and would routinely attend games. This is 21% of the school population/. I would bet that when push came to shove and you make them actually start paying these fees, then support would drop even more.

Based on these real numbers, that is at best only 4500 people have said they would support football, .....

You really are not going to win any arguments here by reading websites and reporting up incorrect facts based on incorrect assumptions that you have about UNCC given that you don't live in the Carolinas.

[dgreco]

^Dgreco, Again you have changed your story...... and again you are wrong.......

This was posted about the vote when it happened....

You really are not going to win any arguments here by reading websites and reporting up incorrect facts based on incorrect assumptions that you have about UNCC given that you don't live in the Carolinas.

tI am not reporting incorrect facts, I am reporting what the SGA reported from their report. Second why does it matter if I live in the Carolina's? I can not have an opinion about a school adding a football program? You are against the idea because you want the college to be for the city of Charlotte and a regional school. The school clearly stats that they want more than that through the Chancellor, the Director of Athletics, and the Students.... The next step is the Board of Trustees and that is what matters in the end.

The SGA report where I have been getting my numbers is at this link... SGA Report

And I know you want to argue about only the 8,000+ going of take the survey, but surveys are not supposed to be sample results. If they wanted to have every student fill this out I am sure they could. As I said if at least 8,000 showed up to voice opinion that shows they are interested. Second, if 78% (the exact number) support a few increase that means those are basically guaranteed to be supports of the program. Once the fee is added, students will attend the games even if they are opposed to paying the fee. I just can't see how you can be so opposed to something that is being supported by the entire university. As an alumnus if you are so against this go and voice your opinion instead of arguing with me over the forum about how I am wrong. GO TELL THE UNIVERSITY THEY ARE WRONG. All I am doing is showing you many examples of how it could work, how it has worked, and how it is being supported. I have not changed my opinion I think that football as Charlotte would be a good addition. All I have done is show different ways for this to be achieved.

I do not understand why you continue to attack me also, this is an argument about Charlotte and Football not about us and you keep attacking me in every post. I figure since you are a "big shot" on this forum you would have a little more respect for members instead of insulting them. The point of this topic is for discussion and disagreement, not about me not being from the Carolina's and every other argument you have made.

The reason I have even been involved in this discussion is because I have applied to UNC-Charlotte for a masters program and thought I would learn more about Charlotte and I came across this topic. Regardless, I respect your opinion for being against the program, but all I was doing was giving the other side.

[fortyniner]

The football voting numbers WAY surpassed the number of students voting for their student government.

Still, be it a proportionately large vote, it was indeed a minority of the total student body voting. This in itself shows how important it is to get 49er students involved and rallying around something which will inevitably raise school spirit.

I could forgive some out of stater for hyphinating the C in UNC Charlotte, but find it interesting that

local posters would do this. I know you're educated and informed, or you wouldn't be posting on Urban Planet. Is it just contempt for our local university that causes you to perpetuate this use of the hyphen? It seems only the "anti" voices use the hypen or the out-dated reference of UNCC.

[Miesian Corners]

...There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that this program will make a profit for the university in the near future.

Better tell that to the good people at the University of Alabama-Birmingham. With only 11,000 undergraduates, UAB has done a pretty good job of starting a football program (as a point of reference, UNC Charlotte's current undergrad population is just over 23K). The NCAA says that last year's average attendance was over 23K per game. Not bad for a Divison I team that's only 15 years old. The program is also doing a pretty good job of keeping a balanced budget.

...I found that I could get a better education at UNCC in the NC system.

Let's please not go down the road of whose school is better/worse. Every institution has something to offer that another does not. It's a no-win argument that just ends up making people angry. I know how irritated I get when I hear from UNC CH grads about how sub par UNC Charlotte is. Of course, to get back at them I cheer for Duke.

[monsoon]

.....

Let's please not go down the road of whose school is better/worse. Every institution has something to offer that another does not. ....

Indeed. It was not me who started the comparisons to other schools, but once the comparison was made then I think it is fair game to discuss all of the aspects of a comparison between the two. I am convinced that some schools have harmed their academics because of the focus on football and other money making sports programs.

In regards to every institution offering something unique, I completely agree. UNCC offers a very good education at bargain prices and that is what it needs to focus on. Diverting a large amount of resource to create a football team so that it is like other schools will of course eliminate the uniqueness and also drive up the cost of going there.

[Justadude]

I could forgive some out of stater for hyphinating the C in UNC Charlotte, but find it interesting that

local posters would do this. I know you're educated and informed, or you wouldn't be posting on Urban Planet. Is it just contempt for our local university that causes you to perpetuate this use of the hyphen? It seems only the "anti" voices use the hypen or the out-dated reference of UNCC.

This is taking the inferiority complex to a whole new level. First of all, the school is still UNCC, as it has always been -- the school website is www.uncc.edu. I realize that they're trying to push the UNC Charlotte moniker, but that's really splitting hairs.

Regarding the hyphen: it's there because I grew up with it. I'm sorry, but my perception of community institutions doesn't change every time they hire a new marketing firm. I still talk about the "old coliseum" (Cricket) and the "new coliseum" (the one that doesn't exist anymore) and occasionally "Charlotte Motor Speedway". I'm willing to call the University "Charlotte" in sentences like "Charlotte plays Davidson tomorrow", but am I supposed to say "Charlotte could really use a light rail station"? "I'm going to a party at Charlotte tomorrow night"? What's next, are we going to call it the Universitye of Northe Carolina at Charlottetown so it'll sound more upscale?

This all reminds me a little of the inferiority complex that Charlotte (the city) has in general, that brand names and sports are the measuring stick of community success. If you want to be thought of as a big-time player in the world, you need an NBA team and a marketing campaign... but not an arts scene or downtown apartment buildings. I found this blog by the student body president explaining the rationale behind the football and name-change proposals; the first paragraph alone is enough to send up red flags about the narrow-minded thought process behind these "movements".

Better tell that to the good people at the University of Alabama-Birmingham. With only 11,000 undergraduates, UAB has done a pretty good job of starting a football program (as a point of reference, UNC Charlotte's current undergrad population is just over 23K). The NCAA says that last year's average attendance was over 23K per game. Not bad for a Divison I team that's only 15 years old. The program is also doing a pretty good job of keeping a balanced budget.

Football in Alabama is like hockey in Toronto. Football in Charlotte is just not at that level on a community-wide basis.

Also, UAB had the good fortune to inherit historic 71,000-seat Legion Field rent free in the heart of downtown Birmingham as their home field. The Niners would have no such luck, playing temporarily at Memorial Stadium before building an expensive new facility closer to campus. I'm sure UAB's financial situation would be different if they were on the hook for a nine-figure playing facility -- as a matter of fact, it was resolved last fall that UAB is going to have to start paying at least $50,000 per year to rent Legion field from here on out (note in the article that the city is buying $225k worth of season tickets every year to artificially drive ticket sales, in order to prevent them from dropping out of D-I).

The feasibility study also used UAB as an example of what UNC-C could do. It's worth noting that in the report, the AD at that university says that Conference USA is a "perfect fit" for the size of the program; meanwhile, the AD at USF specifically states that they underestimated the ongoing financial impact of trying to compete in the Big East. After 3 years and nearly doubling their athletic budget, they remain $10 million/year behind the competition. That $10 million isn't going to come out of nowhere, and I don't think their alumni are going to stand for having an underfunded football program forever. After their relative success this past couple of seasons, they threw a $500k contract upgrade at the head coach. This is one of my biggest concerns with the prospect of D-I football in Charlotte -- there are entirely too many saucer-eyed people who are willing to jump in feet first without calculating the actual cost of a winning Big East/ACC/SEC program.

Edited March 12, 2008 by Justadude

[monsoon]

I graduated from UNCC in the mid 1980s. I routinely get literature from them of various sorts and I have never ever seen the school refer to itself as UNC-C. It's always UNCC. I can't say that I have ever heard anyone say "UNC dash C" when speaking about the school.

In any case this is getting off topic so please drop it.

[swh1972]

I graduated from a large midwestern university with a pretty decent football and athletics program, so I understand that to be competitive these days costs a lot of money. There are very few athletic departments that operate in the black. However, having events to engage alumni and the community are a great benefit.

Getting Alumni and Corporate support to cover the start-up costs, and ticket prices to cover the operating expences year to year might be a better approach than charging a $300 per student fee. If the students want to have football, they will get their chance to support it through purchasing season tickets, and those that don't won't have to pay anything.