MSU looking into COA

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

Well, what Sheila did with this formula basically screwed her college and sent U of M into a death spiral that I doubt there are any professors in Missoula who can fix this. Northern understands this formula, Eastern does not and they're losing millions because of it. U of M, Tech and Western are screwed. But they have plenty of lawyers who can call somebody...

 

[CatGrad-UMGradStu]

And within this article you can get the gist of what she did:

https://missoulian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/missoulian.com/news/local/montana-regents-review-tuition-increases-stress-program-prioritization/article_d68a661c-9e95-52e7-a75e-a0ec9829a01d.amp.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D#aoh=15797549518933&csi=1&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fmissoulian.com%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fmontana-regents-review-tuition-increases-stress-program-prioritization%2Farticle_d68a661c-9e95-52e7-a75e-a0ec9829a01d.html

 

[Jaredkuehn]

“According to Montana State’s athletics website, the Bobcat Club, which solicits scholarship funds, raised $1.21 million in 2017. That was fourth in the Big Sky not including Weber State. Montana raised $2.3 million.”

Anyone else find it odd that Weber State was excluded from the BSC fund raising rankings? Are they first in funds raised? Wouldn’t that make MSU the fifth in the BSC in funds raised?

This seems more like a well placed publicity stunt than realistic goal to me. I can’t imagine them going from Choate bitching to the media in December, to having funds and the program in place to disburse funds by the following August.

Good on them for having the discussion. UM has set the pace in the BSC has in the athletic arms race. This would be a game changer for both Montana programs, and for the conference. I’m sure the topic has discussed at UM, but if MSU can pull this off, it would definitely accelerate the discussion at UM.

 

[PlayerRep]

I see now that the regents make the decision not the presidents, but it still says this:

"The allocation calculation will utilize individual campus percent share of the MUS three year average of resident student FTE in the three most recent years as the primary driver in the distribution of funds."

Note "individual campus percent share".

Looks like Performance funding is only 8%, and the big campuses haven't been getting any of that.

Is funding for buildings part of the allocated per student calculation, or outside of that? I would assume it would be outside of it, but don't know.

Does MSU still subsidize its athletic dept more than UM does its dept?

 

[wbtfg]

I see now that the regents make the decision not the presidents, but it still says this:

"The allocation calculation will utilize individual campus percent share of the MUS three year average of resident student FTE in the three most recent years as the primary driver in the distribution of funds."

Note "individual campus percent share".

Looks like Performance funding is only 8%, and the big campuses haven't been getting any of that.

Is funding for buildings part of the allocated per student calculation, or outside of that? I would assume it would be outside of it, but don't know.

Does MSU still subsidize its athletic dept more than UM does its dept?

Yes, I assume MSU still subsidizes the AD more than UM. Funding for buildings doesn’t figure in.

So knowing what you now know, how would you theorize that UM receives ~$2000 more state support per resident FTE than MSU?

 

[PlayerRep]

I see now that the regents make the decision not the presidents, but it still says this:

"The allocation calculation will utilize individual campus percent share of the MUS three year average of resident student FTE in the three most recent years as the primary driver in the distribution of funds."

Note "individual campus percent share".

Looks like Performance funding is only 8%, and the big campuses haven't been getting any of that.

Is funding for buildings part of the allocated per student calculation, or outside of that? I would assume it would be outside of it, but don't know.

Does MSU still subsidize its athletic dept more than UM does its dept?

Yes, I assume MSU still subsidizes the AD more than UM. Funding for buildings doesn’t figure in.

So knowing what you now know, how would you theorize that UM receives ~$2000 more state support per resident FTE than MSU?

No clue. Everytime I come up with an idea, you shoot it down. Perhaps the person who did those stats used an incorrect or goofy methodology. Perhaps there is an instate/out of state thing that skews. Perhaps a piece is to help UM out of its jam.

 

[ilovethecats]

This seems more like a well placed publicity stunt than realistic goal to me. I can’t imagine them going from Choate bitching to the media in December, to having funds and the program in place to disburse funds by the following August.

This has been in the works LONG before Choate's comments a few weeks ago. It started gaining traction after our first beatdown in North Dakota in 2018. Most likely before then but I heard the talk not long after.

The way that Waded, Leon and Choate work together has been something to see. I fully expect funds to be available to be disbursed this fall if all goes as planned.

 

[Silenoz]

Seemed inevitable. Seems inevitable that now we have to do it too. Just another arms race.

 

[firmgriz]

Seemed inevitable. Seems inevitable that now we have to do it too. Just another arms race.

absolutely

 

[ilovethecats]

Seemed inevitable. Seems inevitable that now we have to do it too. Just another arms race.

Exactly. Good for the rivalry. Good for the state. Good for our programs in general nationally.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

How did I miss the $10 million to $15 million subsidy from MSU? Please post a link to the action that created this arrangement.
I think waded should probably start with the other campuses under her leadership that are cratering.

UM receives more tax payer dollars per in state student. If MSU received the same per student support from taxpayers that would be a $10-15 million net increase.

Where's your support for that statement? I thought state funds were allocated to schools on a per student basis.

It was in a Missoulian article somewhere. I’ll try to track it down. And you’re right. That was pretty much always the case until UMs enrollment struggles.

I think you're actually remembering the article wrong. People on here were pissed because it came out that MSU is receiving more subsidies per student than UM was.

 

[BadlandsGrizFan]

This seems more like a well placed publicity stunt than realistic goal to me. I can’t imagine them going from Choate bitching to the media in December, to having funds and the program in place to disburse funds by the following August.

This has been in the works LONG before Choate's comments a few weeks ago. It started gaining traction after our first beatdown in North Dakota in 2018. Most likely before then but I heard the talk not long after.

The way that Waded, Leon and Choate work together has been something to see. I fully expect funds to be available to be disbursed this fall if all goes as planned.

My understanding is that the COA can be funded by a few different avenues of revenue from the schools, NONE of those include funds that are received from the state. If that were the case, it would need to go through the Board of Regents in Montana for approval. No way the BOR allows MSU those funds and not Montana, so thats off the table.

Raising student fees is one way, thats how JMU funds their I believe. I dont think that would go over well in Montana personally. JMU has a ton of rich old Virginia money kids attending the school, a huge portion of MSU and UM students are rural Montanans. I cant see MSU getting the OK to jack up student fees to subsidize their athletic programs.

The final way is through private funding, which is what NDSU does. In this scenario you would assume UM would be able to offer everything and more than MSU seeing that our Athletic Dept makes more than MSUs and we have been more successful in fund raising for quite some time.

 

[blackfootipa]

Does the Board of Regents approve the stipend amount or set a cap anyways? I remember hearing in conversation that the BOR has already determined what the COA stipend amount for the 2 schools can be and it is significantly lower than the $3400/year stipend that NDSU, UND, SDSU..etc offer.

 

[PlayerRep]

I see now that the regents make the decision not the presidents, but it still says this:

"The allocation calculation will utilize individual campus percent share of the MUS three year average of resident student FTE in the three most recent years as the primary driver in the distribution of funds."

Note "individual campus percent share".

Looks like Performance funding is only 8%, and the big campuses haven't been getting any of that.

Is funding for buildings part of the allocated per student calculation, or outside of that? I would assume it would be outside of it, but don't know.

Does MSU still subsidize its athletic dept more than UM does its dept?

Yes, I assume MSU still subsidizes the AD more than UM. Funding for buildings doesn’t figure in.

So knowing what you now know, how would you theorize that UM receives ~$2000 more state support per resident FTE than MSU?

No clue. Everytime I come up with an idea, you shoot it down. Perhaps the person who did those stats used an incorrect or goofy methodology. Perhaps there is an instate/out of state thing that skews. Perhaps a piece is to help UM out of its jam.

Much of what you said is basically correct, and most of what I said is old news. Things did change several years ago. The BOR now pretty much makes the decisions, with input. Some of the old rules are still applicable, but it's not primarily a per capita thing anymore. The funds now go to where the regents believe they are most needed. MSU's budget has been favorably impacted by the amount of new out of state student tuition, just like UM's athletic budget is favorably impacted by more football revenue. Buildings must continue to have at least some maintenance even if not fully occupied. From some more reading I did, it looks like the higher ed system is working to have funding less unequal, like bringing the outliers, high and low, closer together.

 

[wbtfg]

UM receives more tax payer dollars per in state student. If MSU received the same per student support from taxpayers that would be a $10-15 million net increase.

Where's your support for that statement? I thought state funds were allocated to schools on a per student basis.

It was in a Missoulian article somewhere. I’ll try to track it down. And you’re right. That was pretty much always the case until UMs enrollment struggles.

I think you're actually remembering the article wrong. People on here were pissed because it came out that MSU is receiving more subsidies per student than UM was.

I literally posted the article in this thread.

 

[wbtfg]

I see now that the regents make the decision not the presidents, but it still says this:

"The allocation calculation will utilize individual campus percent share of the MUS three year average of resident student FTE in the three most recent years as the primary driver in the distribution of funds."

Note "individual campus percent share".

Looks like Performance funding is only 8%, and the big campuses haven't been getting any of that.

Is funding for buildings part of the allocated per student calculation, or outside of that? I would assume it would be outside of it, but don't know.

Does MSU still subsidize its athletic dept more than UM does its dept?

Yes, I assume MSU still subsidizes the AD more than UM. Funding for buildings doesn’t figure in.

So knowing what you now know, how would you theorize that UM receives ~$2000 more state support per resident FTE than MSU?

No clue. Everytime I come up with an idea, you shoot it down. Perhaps the person who did those stats used an incorrect or goofy methodology. Perhaps there is an instate/out of state thing that skews. Perhaps a piece is to help UM out of its jam.

Much of what you said is basically correct, and most of what I said is old news. Things did change several years ago. The BOR now pretty much makes the decisions, with input. Some of the old rules are still applicable, but it's not primarily a per capita thing anymore. The funds now go to where the regents believe they are most needed. MSU's budget has been favorably impacted by the amount of new out of state student tuition, just like UM's athletic budget is favorably impacted by more football revenue. Buildings must continue to have at least some maintenance even if not fully occupied. From some more reading I did, it looks like the higher ed system is working to have funding less unequal, like bringing the outliers, high and low, closer together.

Yep, you got it!

 

[HookedonGriz]

UND did COA as soon as NDSU did. USD did as soon as SDSU got it. UM would do it the second MSU does, in fact I think I recall the Board stating blatantly it’s both or neither.

 

[UNDfan]

So Cruzado wants COA to go to FBS, the like the Dakotas did years ago?

 

[MikeyGriz]

So Cruzado wants COA to go to FBS, the like the Dakotas did years ago?

The Dakotas went FBS?

 

[ilovethecats]

This seems more like a well placed publicity stunt than realistic goal to me. I can’t imagine them going from Choate bitching to the media in December, to having funds and the program in place to disburse funds by the following August.

This has been in the works LONG before Choate's comments a few weeks ago. It started gaining traction after our first beatdown in North Dakota in 2018. Most likely before then but I heard the talk not long after.

The way that Waded, Leon and Choate work together has been something to see. I fully expect funds to be available to be disbursed this fall if all goes as planned.

My understanding is that the COA can be funded by a few different avenues of revenue from the schools, NONE of those include funds that are received from the state. If that were the case, it would need to go through the Board of Regents in Montana for approval. No way the BOR allows MSU those funds and not Montana, so thats off the table.

Raising student fees is one way, thats how JMU funds their I believe. I dont think that would go over well in Montana personally. JMU has a ton of rich old Virginia money kids attending the school, a huge portion of MSU and UM students are rural Montanans. I cant see MSU getting the OK to jack up student fees to subsidize their athletic programs.

The final way is through private funding, which is what NDSU does. In this scenario you would assume UM would be able to offer everything and more than MSU seeing that our Athletic Dept makes more than MSUs and we have been more successful in fund raising for quite some time.

I don't dispute and of this and will not for a second pretend I know how any of this works. What I do know is MSU has the best leadership probably in my lifetime. Leon is the best athletic director we've had in a LONG time. I know they've been working diligently on this for nearly two years. They've dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's". For them to finally go public, they feel very confident this will be a done deal, hopefully as soon as this fall.

My guess is UM follows suit. As they should. And if you're correct, as they HAVE to. Personally I think it's great for both schools and will put us both where we should be year in and year out; 1 and 2 in the Big Sky. If Leon didn't think he could generate the funds for this going forward, it never would have been leaked out. It would have been quietly getting worked on like it has since 2018.

Fingers crossed both schools make this happen asap. :thumb: