KoolMoeDee said:
How is it a myth?? It's a fact proven by university budgets.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Fact: Nobody knows what it would take to move up!
- Thread starter Silvertip
- Start date
How is it a myth?? It's a fact proven by university budgets.
KoolMoeDee
Well-known member
What percentage of the general fund is tuition and state funds(tax dollars) ?
KoolMoeDee said:
Well, it all is. It's all appropriated from the BoR from state taxes and tuitions. I guess I don't understand your question. If you are thinking about research or grant dollars, they are generally not included in the general funds of the universities.
KoolMoeDee
Well-known member
My understanding is that the general fund is basically made up of 60% tuition and 40% state funds. Where the money from each percentage is allocated would be near impossible to find. So, saying that the money MSU athletics gets from MSU is all from state funds is hard to prove. I could just as easily say that the 5.5 million UM athletics gets from the university is all state fund money and the 6.5 million that MSU athletics gets from the university all comes from tuition. So, I could go around all the different message boards saying that UM athletics uses more state funds than MSU. But I won't because we can't prove it one way or the other.
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
Your only seeing what you want to see. Most people I talked to over the last year or so since being back are pretty evenly split on the issue. If $$ to move up etc was taken care of most people I talked to seemed more interested about moving up. The fact this move up issue was became such a big issue in 2010 shows that there IS SUPPORT for it even if people like you resist it.
Will UM move up? Not sure but sure as hell hope so. But dont try to falsely paint the fans, alumns and supporters of UM as being all or mostly against this. Thats just a lie.
KoolMoeDee said:
Well, tuition received is state funds, however. Whether or not it's direct taxes or received as tuition, the money belongs to the state (and ultimately the taxpayer). The BoR apportions each university an operating budget based on state funding (direct tax dollars) and expected tuition based on Full Time Equivalent (FTE) student count. Ignoring for the small differneces in FTEs from year to year, the money alloted to UM and MSU is the same.
Consider a state department like Fish, Wildlife and Parks. FWP receives state money (direct tax dollars) and also receives income for things such as hunting licenses, both of which they use to fund operations . But whether the money comes directly from taxes or from user fees, it's all state money.
It may be easier to think of it from an opporunity cost standpoint. Since UM spends less of their allotment on sports, they can spend that money elsewhere on campus (salaries, library, additional academic programs, etc).
Tokyogriz
Well-known member
The way the funds are allocated are set up by the school presidents so I did mistate the general fund allocated by the regents. Misunderstanding on my part my bad.
UM does have a considerable amount of money that gets siphoned off by our own school president with the payments of RENT on the facilities by the football program etc. If UM stopped siphoning money off the football program a move up would be a hell of alot easier to pull of financially.
I still stand by the statement (fact) that the BOR is determined to punish UM by making us supposedly attached at the hip to a mediocre MSU, in terms of athletic support. There is no rational reason to hold UM back if the $$ issues on moving up and getting revenue from the move on a yearly revenue basis can be coordinated by revenues from a actual money making conference. The big suck conference is a money losing machine so the thought of UM actually RECIEVING large sums of money from a conference seems pretty alien Im sure.
But as MSUs inside man on the BOR has said in the past he would veto any UM proposal to move up based on it hurting MSUs pride and his. .
UM does have a considerable amount of money that gets siphoned off by our own school president with the payments of RENT on the facilities by the football program etc. If UM stopped siphoning money off the football program a move up would be a hell of alot easier to pull of financially.
I still stand by the statement (fact) that the BOR is determined to punish UM by making us supposedly attached at the hip to a mediocre MSU, in terms of athletic support. There is no rational reason to hold UM back if the $$ issues on moving up and getting revenue from the move on a yearly revenue basis can be coordinated by revenues from a actual money making conference. The big suck conference is a money losing machine so the thought of UM actually RECIEVING large sums of money from a conference seems pretty alien Im sure.
But as MSUs inside man on the BOR has said in the past he would veto any UM proposal to move up based on it hurting MSUs pride and his. .
PlayerRep said:
It's not tax REVENUE. But tuition money belongs to the taxpayers, as does any asset owned by a state agency. The Regents -- acting on behalf of the State -- give a pot of money to the Universities. Some of it comes directly from taxpayers; some of it comes from student tuiton. ALL of it belongs to the State (e.g. the taxpayers, however).
Please don't argue with me on this. While I don't know much (as most of you are likely aware....
), I'm actually rather knowledgable on the University's budget.KoolMoeDee
Well-known member
I guess I'm just confused on how tuition payments to the university from students can be considered tax dollars ?
EverettGriz said:PlayerRep said:
It's not tax REVENUE. But tuition money belongs to the taxpayers, as does any asset owned by a state agency. The Regents -- acting on behalf of the State -- give a pot of money to the Universities. Some of it comes directly from taxpayers; some of it comes from student tuiton. ALL of it belongs to the State (e.g. the taxpayers, however).
Please don't argue with me on this. While I don't know much (as most of you are likely aware....
Nope, you're wrong on this. Tuition is not owned by the taxpayers. See the below provision from the Montana Constitution. I think you are the one who shouldn't argue with me on this point. My law firm represents the state and sometimes the university system and universities on matters like this.
Constitution of Montana -- Article X -- EDUCATION AND PUBLIC LANDS
Section 10. State university funds. The funds of the Montana university system and of all other state institutions of learning, from whatever source accruing, shall forever remain inviolate and sacred to the purpose for which they were dedicated. The various funds shall be respectively invested under such regulations as may be provided by law, and shall be guaranteed by the state against loss or diversion. The interest from such invested funds, together with the rent from leased lands or properties, shall be devoted to the maintenance and perpetuation of the respective institutions.
KoolMoeDee said:
See my post above. As you suggest, it's not tax revenue, but it's an asset owned by the state of Montana. Consequently, it's owned by the taxpayers. This really isn't a difficult concept.
Think of it this way: If you start a small company. Hopefully, that company will eventually have revenue beyond your initial capital investment. If you then spend money on operating costs, do you really care if it's money you invested, or it's money you took in as revenue? Either way, it's YOUR money. Insert "taxpayer" into that sentence and you can see how universities operate.
PR: I'm not suggesting the tuition can be diverted away from its purpose of educating college kids. But how does that change anything?? There are a number of state owned assets dedicated by law to a specific purpose; that doesn't suggest that they aren't still owned by the state.
WaGriz4life
Well-known member
:lol: :thumb:PlayerRep said:
EverettGriz said:
Even if owned by the state, they are not owned by taxpayers. In the case of tuition, the Montana Constitution says university system revenue can't even be taken by the state. When I talk to one of my law partners, the main lawyer for our state and university work, I'll report back on what he says.
If they can explain this sentence, then they're definitely lawyers!!! :lol: :lol:
EverettGriz said:
What's so hard about that. Your very last sentence in the post I quoted said: "There are a number of state owned assets dedicated by law to a specific purpose; that doesn't suggest that they aren't still owned by the state."
I then responded by saying, "Even if owned by the state, they [the assets} are not owned by taxpayers."
If this is confusing to you, then I can understand how you and I are not communicating on this.
flowtowngriz
Well-known member
i believe a few things have brought the basketball attendance down. 1. Football team. The football team has been the focus of the U and the fans. 2. Fun factor. The games are not as exciting as they use to be, maybe we have been spoiled by the pregame of the football season and that goes into the football games. Skydivers, tailgating, and the introduction of the game. In basketball the students have been moved from the old Zoo to a tiny student section and the end of the court. Teams feared about playing basketball here in Missoula, specially the big boys of the Pac and other conferences. Sounds like the football stadium now days. Now the homecourt isn't what it ise to be. 3. The 90's wasn't good for the team. The stadium was redone and many of the fans were disappointed. The team was bad to say the least. They lost that swag. Plus made to play in HS court made it look bad. Sadly the HS court is better then most of the BSC arenas. 4. The BSC. This is one of the biggest reasons. With Nevada, Idaho, Boise St. leaving we lost 3 major rivals. We replaced them with sad division 2 teams that no one cared about playing and we have lost respect from other major confrences. Why do you think the BSC commish made everyone go out and play harder schedules a few years back. We were a laughing stalk and still a laughing stalk as a confrence in Basketball. 5. Schedule. We need more big time programs to visit hear.
Football is on the downhill right now. We have peaked for the confrence we are in. We will start losing fans and money soon. People are getting tired of playing the same old teams that we beat every year and prey we don't lose because we should walk all over them. Fans want games that we are unsure how it will end. When you beat your opponent 95% of the time where is the thrill of victory. That is what made the App game so much fun. They were a team we knew we had to play our best to beat, not we will beat them 9 out of 10 times like what we play in the BSC now. Right now we only get a sour taste in our mouth when we lose. The fun and ecxitement of the game is loosing it shine. Thus the football team will be what the basketball team is now. Unless the U does something to put the excitement back in to the game and have all of us on the edge of our seats in most of the games.
Football is on the downhill right now. We have peaked for the confrence we are in. We will start losing fans and money soon. People are getting tired of playing the same old teams that we beat every year and prey we don't lose because we should walk all over them. Fans want games that we are unsure how it will end. When you beat your opponent 95% of the time where is the thrill of victory. That is what made the App game so much fun. They were a team we knew we had to play our best to beat, not we will beat them 9 out of 10 times like what we play in the BSC now. Right now we only get a sour taste in our mouth when we lose. The fun and ecxitement of the game is loosing it shine. Thus the football team will be what the basketball team is now. Unless the U does something to put the excitement back in to the game and have all of us on the edge of our seats in most of the games.
PlayerRep said:
Are we really arguing over the definition/difference between "taxpayer" and "citizen"?? I use the two interchangably, but I suppose at the absolute extreme, they're not technically the same. If that's the only difference, then I acquiesce (although it doesn't change the validity of my argument at all).
