UNC Charlotte Football

[Niner National]

2007-2008 Institutional Profiles

http://intranet.northcarolina.edu/do...file_07-08.pdf

*The enrollment data is for 2006-2007. There's no way you can use enrollment data for 2007-2008 to calculate the per student funding, since the budget is due July 1st and the semester starts in August.

UNC Charlotte

17032 undergraduates 21519 total

Operating budget: 161,588,211 Per student: 7509

NC State

23730 undergraduates 31330 total

Operating budget: 349,253,626 Per student: 11147

UNC Chapel Hill

17124 undergraduates 27717 total

Operating budget: 269,229,699 Per student: 9713*

*They also get substantial funding for the medical school ($188M) however it's probably not fair to include it as a lot is used to pay medical school faculty, who treat patients as well as training students (both medical and PhDs)

UNC Asheville

3613 undergraduates 3639 total

Operating budget: 33,648,196 Per student: 9246

App State

13447 undergraduates 15117 total

Operating budget: 121,866,775 Per student: 8061

East Carolina

18587 undergraduates 24351 total

Operating budget: 200,929,741 Per student: 8251*

*like UNC-CH, receives medical school funding ($48 million)

Elizabeth City State University

2620 undergraduates 2681 total

Operating budget: 31,770,080 Per student: 11850

Fayetteville State University

5399 undergraduates 6301 total

Operating budget: 53,131,616 Per student: 8432

NC&AT University

9687 undergraduates 11098 total

Operating budget: 91,017,204 Per student: 8201

North Carolina Central University

6614 undergraduates 8675 total

Operating budget: 76,599,430 Per student: 8829

NC School of Arts

727 undergraduates 845 total

Operating budget: 24,650,862 Per student: 29172

um, wtf?

UNC Greensboro

13024 undergraduates 16872 total

Operating budget: 145,859,443 Per student: 8645

UNC Pembroke

5158 undergraduates 5827 total

Operating budget: 53,241,514 Per student: 9137

UNC Wilmington

10955 undergraduates 12098 total

Operating budget: 94,683,871 Per student: 7826

Western Carolina University

7146 undergraduates 8861 total

Operating budget: 84,117,070 Per student: 9492

Winston Salem State University

5329 undergraduates 5650 total

Operating budget: 66,379,070 Per student: 11748

Dead last.

The reason the fees at Charlotte are so high is because of the disparity in the appropriation of state funds. Football only adds to the already high fees (although I am in favor of adding it), but these fees could be much lower if Charlotte got its fair share.

Apparently when Spangler and Friday visited and were questioned about the funding discrepancy, one of them said something along the lines of "look around, this place is lucky to get the funding it does"

Chapel Hill got 198 million dollars for a science building, yet we can't get funding for buildings that that cost 1/3 of that. When funds were appropriated for 07, Charlotte was awarded no money for new buildings and was told "you got money last year", yet State and Chapel Hill get tens of millions (or more) per year.

[monsoon]

^And the funding disparity has what to do with football......?

[Niner National]

nothing, just saying that Charlotte would not have the highest fees in the system with the addition of football if it weren't forced to raise fees to cover expenses that should be covered by the state (and are at other institutions).

[AuLukey]

WOW!

I can't believe Charlotte is actually last of all the schools in per student. I knew we were low in funding per student but I didn't realize we were actually last in the entire system by a huge margin. Only ASU and Wilmington are even close to the level of neglect as Charlotte. Those numbers should be appalling to each and every member of this forum.

This does tie into football in that these men came to talk about Charlotte's priorities in securing funding while at the same time the system they helped develop screws over the very same school they are preaching to. Seems a bit hypocritical on their parts.

Edited March 6, 2008 by aussie luke

[monsoon]

.....

This does tie into football in that these men came to talk about Charlotte's priorities in securing funding while at the same time the system they helped develop screws over the very same school they are preaching to. Seems a bit hypocritical on their parts.

Huh!!!? Under their leadership UNCC was given the resources to grow into a school that is closing in on 25,000 students. This from a school that practically didn't exist 40 years ago. It is rivaling all of the oldest institutions in this state. Be thankful that both were there to make that possibility happen. There are those in this state that would say, this wasn't fair because these students could have been sent to the other state institutions that already existed and they could have grown more.

So I am not buying this story that UNCC deserves a football team because it doesn't get as much funding/student as the other large schools in this state. It's a completely illogical argument and one that only highlights how insane this plan is in the first place. It's a completely unnecessary drain on resources that could better be spent elsewhere on this quickly growing school.

[AuLukey]

So I am not buying this story that UNCC deserves a football team because it doesn't get as much funding/student as the other large schools in this state. It's a completely illogical argument and one that only highlights how insane this plan is in the first place. It's a completely unnecessary drain on resources that could better be spent elsewhere on this quickly growing school.

That's the point, these resources aren't coming from anything that has to do with the school growing. These resources are purely coming out of something that does not exist. This $300 would not be able to be used for anything else because, as I mentioned before, the school can only raise tuition for education, transportation, and safety by 7% annually as according to the UNC system. The school is probably going to do that regardless of this $300 hike. The $300 will not be included in the tuition cap. Therefore, let's say they increased tuition by $250 for reasons stated above. Let's say that's 7% exactly (it's not, but just for numbers sake let's say it is.) If you increase tuition by that much and add $300 to it, how does that change the fact that that same $250 is going to what it was before? Football won't take anything from the school's resources. A building fund for a stadium would come out of the pocket of students and donations from alumni and businesses just like the new student union currently under construction. The student body had the option of what they'd be willing to pay for football. The choices ranged from no football period to $500. The general consensus was that $300 was on key and the advisory board also found that this number seemed to fit pretty well. This is money that is not coming from taxpayers. It's not coming out of the school's resources. It is coming from the pockets of a student body which voted to have it implemented. I'm sure if you put the same poll out there four years from now, it wouldn't change by much.

We all know that the UNC system, despite what they've held back from Charlotte, has helped it grow into what it is now. But, the numbers don't lie. In allocating funds per student, per school, Charlotte is undeniably the lowest despite being the fourth largest, and a close third if only considering undergrads. Charlotte's numbers are low in the graduate level probably because they aren't receiving the funding necessary to build these programs up.

And as for the argument that the UNC system hypothetically shouldn't have helped UNC Charlotte grow in order to have more students attend the older institutions is like saying the state isn't funding any other system in Charlotte in order to make the Triangle more appealing. Oh wait...

And has everybody forgotten how much football games (though few) stimulate local economies? Remember the CIAA and ACC tourneys? NASCAR events, Panthers games, Bobcats games, Checkers games, future Knights games... they bring people in and get them out on the streets to spend money. If Panthers games make an impact six or seven times a year, so too will 49er games, just on a slightly smaller scale; but in an area that desperately needs focus on pedestrian retail and safety.

Edited March 6, 2008 by aussie luke

[NLP]

It's a completely unnecessary drain on resources that could better be spent elsewhere on this quickly growing school.

.aussie, unless somehow you can convince this person of the fallacy that football is a 'drain on resources that could be better spent elsewhere' you're wasting your time. There's some strange belief that football raids the coffers of money that would otherwise be going to academics. The reality is there is a ton of money on the sideline by prospective alumni and donors like myself that will remain on the sidelines until we have a football program. It's not as if my donations to the English Department are being deviously re-directed towards football. Give us a break here.

If anyone wants to argue the burden on the students for the $300 fee, fine, do it. But don't create strawmen arguments that football is a drain on the school's resources. The drain on the resources is the shoddy allocation Charlotte gets from the state as the post by rworkman points out. If Charlotte got equitable funding (at the UNC SYSTEM average -I couldn't care less that UNC-CH and NCSU get so much) the positive impact on the students would be greater than the negative impact of the football fee from a purely economic perspective.

So for anyone who wants to boo hoo about money, I will gladly drop my support of Charlotte football when you step up your letter writing campaigns to the entire NC GA to get Charlotte the funding it deserves.

Edited March 6, 2008 by NLP

[monsoon]

.aussie, unless somehow you can convince this person of the fallacy that football is a 'drain on resources that could be better spent elsewhere' you're wasting your time. There's some strange belief that football raids the coffers of money that would otherwise be going to academics.

This is what Spangler and Friday told UNCC. One was a former head of the UNC system. Please tell us your qualifications in this matter. BTW in the future, please feel free to refer to my posts by name. You don't need to refer to me in the 3rd person.

[Justadude]

That's the point, these resources aren't coming from anything that has to do with the school growing. ...This is money that is not coming from taxpayers. It's not coming out of the school's resources. It is coming from the pockets of a student body which voted to have it implemented.

Setting aside the question of the $300 fee increase, we need to take notice of the fact that alumni will be the largest source of funding for the football team in the long run.

Off the top of my head, I'd guesstimate that when you put together the cost of a stadium, coaches and training staff, playing equipment, medical services, workout equipment, media, travel, scholarships, housing, and the huge administrative costs associated with a program of this size, we're looking at upwards of $500 million to get the program started (please correct this if it is wrong), with an additional $9 million or so per year (according to UNCC admin) to take care of budgetary issues. And of course that doesn't account for future stadium renovations, unbudgeted expansion of the program, etc.

Needless to say, that is an ENORMOUS amount of money that cannot possibly be covered by revenues from the program. So alumni will be approached to cover the balance... meaning they will NOT be donating toward the general wellbeing of the University.

I work in this field, and I will tell you with 100% certainty that this WILL impact the revenue stream for the University development office. If you don't believe it, just ask a UNCC development officer whether they look forward to competing directly with the football program's fundraising efforts. The $300 fee is trivial compared to the cost of losing the facilities and programs that will not exist at UNCC because donors were approached to fund this program instead of building a new academic building, funding need-based scholarships, starting an internship program, etc. And while it might possibly be the case that these donors would not have given as generously without a football program, I very strongly question whether a home game against Akron is really more beneficial to the student body than alumni support for their academic and personal wellbeing.

[fortyniner]

I NEVER heard a half billion dollar figure used. We're not trying to host the Olympics!

First of all, the program would, by NCAA rules, have to be (to use the old terminology) Div. 1-AA for

a MINIMUM of five years, before going to Division 1-A. The figures I've heard for annual operation of

Div. 1-AA (FCS) is more like $1.5 million. No one has said so, but Chancellor Dubois may try to

somewhat placate Spangler and Friday by staying at the FCS level for more like 7-8 years (just my

personal opinion, or fear).

The FCS years would likely have the team play at Memorial Stadium, or some other existing venue.

A team can lose it's 1-A status if the average attendence falls below a certain number. So, playing

Akron would not be much benefit financially. Remember, the BIGGEST reason for getting football

is to get the school into a good conference, with most hoping for admission to a re-alligned Big East.

Of course, the nightmare of nightmares for the Triangle schools would be Charlotte's entry into the

ACC. Not likely they would ever vote to allow that to happen, but if the SEC expanded to USC, is it

out of the question they may SOMEDAY want to have a presence in our media market? This need to

get in a "name" conference (be it existing or something to develop) may be the best reason for the

Chancellor to stick with the 5 year plan, so Charlotte will not be left in the cold come the next shake-up.

This is not a zero sum game of athletic financial support vs. academic financial support. Athletics raise the profile, increase the community support, and ultimately the desirability of the school.

Has Chapel Hill's academic giving gone into a tailspin? After all, they have numerous sports programs.

I want a law school, a med school, more research, etc., but the argument that the roughly 40 year old school is fledgling, and football just can't be funded now doesn't cut it with me. The school has more than 10 times the student body size it did when I attended. What number would be sufficient?

40,000 students? 65,000 students. Face it; NOW is the time.

Failing to act now, I would again call for the end of football at ALL of the UNC system schools.

That is unrealistic, and so is the view that Charlotte is treated fairly by what was once called "the Rip Van Winkle State". Wake up and reform this Triangle-centric funding system!!!

[monsoon]

.... Athletics raise the profile, increase the community support, and ultimately the desirability of the school....

Maybe in a school that is located elsewhere, but Charlotte has the NBA, NFL and is the home of Nascar. Just like all the other claims make for football, there is no proof it will or is even likely to happen. In fact, I can see where a "me too" team might drive some away.

[1979Heel]

I NEVER heard a half billion dollar figure used. We're not trying to host the Olympics!

First of all, the program would, by NCAA rules, have to be (to use the old terminology) Div. 1-AA for

a MINIMUM of five years, before going to Division 1-A. The figures I've heard for annual operation of

Div. 1-AA (FCS) is more like $1.5 million. No one has said so, but Chancellor Dubois may try to

somewhat placate Spangler and Friday by staying at the FCS level for more like 7-8 years (just my

personal opinion, or fear).

The FCS years would likely have the team play at Memorial Stadium, or some other existing venue.

A team can lose it's 1-A status if the average attendence falls below a certain number. So, playing

Akron would not be much benefit financially. Remember, the BIGGEST reason for getting football

is to get the school into a good conference, with most hoping for admission to a re-alligned Big East.

Of course, the nightmare of nightmares for the Triangle schools would be Charlotte's entry into the

ACC. Not likely they would ever vote to allow that to happen, but if the SEC expanded to USC, is it

out of the question they may SOMEDAY want to have a presence in our media market? This need to

get in a "name" conference (be it existing or something to develop) may be the best reason for the

Chancellor to stick with the 5 year plan, so Charlotte will not be left in the cold come the next shake-up.

This is not a zero sum game of athletic financial support vs. academic financial support. Athletics raise the profile, increase the community support, and ultimately the desirability of the school.

Has Chapel Hill's academic giving gone into a tailspin? After all, they have numerous sports programs.

I want a law school, a med school, more research, etc., but the argument that the roughly 40 year old school is fledgling, and football just can't be funded now doesn't cut it with me. The school has more than 10 times the student body size it did when I attended. What number would be sufficient?

40,000 students? 65,000 students. Face it; NOW is the time.

Failing to act now, I would again call for the end of football at ALL of the UNC system schools.

That is unrealistic, and so is the view that Charlotte is treated fairly by what was once called "the Rip Van Winkle State". Wake up and reform this Triangle-centric funding system!!!

That applies to a lot of things, not just UNCC, although it certainly applies there. It's (almost) enough to make one vote Republican, just to see Charlotte get a fair share of state dollars.

Edited March 7, 2008 by 1979Heel

[fortyniner]

Maybe in a school that is located elsewhere, but Charlotte has the NBA, NFL and is the home of Nascar. Just like all the other claims make for football, there is no proof it will or is even likely to happen. In fact, I can see where a "me too" team might drive some away.

Just one example: USF in Tampa. Tampa Bay has major league baseball, NFL, pro soccer, dog racing, Busch Gardens, and numerous nearby attractions. USF should be our model.

BTW, even though the NASCAR HOF and many of it's operations will be here, it is not officially the home to NASCAR.

As I posted earlier, your mind is made up, Monsoon. Mine, too. Neither of us will be swayed, but perhaps some of the other posters who may be neutral on the issue would be interested in the reasons we feel the way we do. I have never seen so much talk of Charlotte's university, so to me, this increased awareness of the school is a good start towards boosting potential attendence in the event a football program is started.

I hope to see more posters post facts, not opinions or subjective "feelings" about the matter.

[NLP]

This is what Spangler and Friday told UNCC. One was a former head of the UNC system. Please tell us your qualifications in this matter. BTW in the future, please feel free to refer to my posts by name. You don't need to refer to me in the 3rd person.

Concerning Spangler's remarks, I don't require qualifications. Dubois himself refuted them on "The Mac Attack" show on WFNZ. Not so pleased he went on that particular program, but his words are his words. The segment is probably still archived on wfnz.com if you want to listen for yourself.

I highly question the motives for CD Spangler's presence and statements. However I do not at all question the sincerity of Bill Friday's position. He has long crusaded against sports and their increasing costs since his days with the Knight Commission. While I don't agree with him, I respect his position, much like with Mary Schulken at the Observer.

I have one question to anyone (including you monsoon but not limited ) who thinks football would drain from academics: How? Legally how would that be accomplished?

Edited March 7, 2008 by NLP

[monsoon]

..... who thinks football would drain from academics: How? Legally how would that be accomplished?

That one is easy. As soon as you hit people with a $300 Football Tax to go to UNCC, you are going to exclude people from going to the school because it will push them over the edge in affordability. I know this first hand because I put myself through school at UNCC which was a very tough thing to do. Second for those who can still afford to go there, then the $300 is going to take away from the school's ability to raise funds for other more academic related items. You can't dump a $300 football tax on people's heads and then expect them to also be willing to also pay fees for other items. As been noted, the school does not get it's far share of funding from the State so other sources have to make it up. Football will drain away significant amounts for nothing.

Finally my guess is if it is approved, it will end up being more than $300.

[Justadude]

I NEVER heard a half billion dollar figure used. We're not trying to host the Olympics!

You've never heard it used because, as I said in the original post, it was a number I threw out off the top of my head. I'm sure it was a little high, so let's break it down and try to figure it all out.

I assumed that, in the long run, we'll be talking about:

- Eventually, a D-I quality stadium, which will almost certainly cost upwards of $100 million. U of Minnesota's new stadium cost over $300 million, but on further review I think UNC-Charlotte's would fall into the $100 million range because attendance will be relatively limited and it's not likely to be a facility for citywide use. In this day and age, there is no way they could settle for a second-rate facility, so I would consider $100 million to be an absolute minimum.

- Endowed scholarships and financial aid for 85 players (per D-IAA rules), about $4-5 million per year (this number is severely underestimated in their projections)

- Salaries for coaches, assistant coaches/coordinators, trainers, and other medical staff... who knows? According to projections, in the neighborhood of $2.5 million or more per year. If the coaches' positions are to be endowed, which is the standard now in D-IA, you're looking at $1-5 million up front for EACH position.

- Equipment costs are unpredictable, but I would note that there are only projections for the annual cost. The up-front cost of purchasing 100 new sets of pads, helmets, jerseys, miscellaneous gear, computer and audiovisual equipment (which will undoubtedly be state-of-the-art even if the classrooms are in disrepair), vehicles, and a zillion other "necessary" items is certainly going to creep into the seven-figure range before the first game is played. I'd be very surprised if, including the high-tech stuff, it clocked in under $3 million up front.

- The above does not include the cost of training equipment. Cha-ching.

- Travel? No idea what it costs to fly 100 players and coaches across the region/nation 5 or 6 times a year. It isn't cheap, though. And when they get to their destination there's the matter of hotels, food, "entertainment"....

- There's also the matter of where these students will live. Most D-I programs have dedicated housing for football players and other high-profile athletes. Are there plans afoot to build a new dorm for them? If the University is already bursting at the seams, I would imagine there is a shortage of housing on campus already... so you can either deny housing to "ordinary" students, or build a new facility for the athletes. Either way, there's a cost involved.

- I can't even estimate what it costs to provide media materials for an upstart program like this. Commercials, billboards, programs, staff, etc... plus a full-scale initial branding campaign and copyright fees.

- Nobody has mentioned that a marching band is included in the plan -- that means you can start counting up costs for uniforms, equipment, travel, staff salaries, etc. for an entirely new program that otherwise would not exist.

- The administrative costs associated with this kind of program are astronomical. They typically have a full-time staff for their fundraising alone. Then there's the full-time salary and benefits of your new director of football operations, a dedicated communications director and staff, a flashy new website, box-office personnel, facilities personnel (how many people does it take to fully maintain a football stadium?), a dedicated financial officer, marketing contractors, and of course support services for all of the above. (I wonder how easy it is for a UNCC professor to get an assistant added to the budget?)

So maybe $500 million was an overshot, but I don't think it would be remotely possible to do all of this for under $200 million as a startup cost... and that would be playing it somewhat cheap. But the REAL question is how much these expenses will balloon in the long run as the program gains status and suddenly becomes a higher priority than, say, a new science building. The issue is not just "What will this program cost?". This issue is "What else could we do with this money?".

The Chancellor's own report (which I must say seems like a very low-ball estimate) tags annual expenses at $12 million per year by 2016 -- that's only 8 years from now.

This is not a zero sum game of athletic financial support vs. academic financial support.

Actually, yes it IS a zero sum game. There is not an unlimited pot of money out there to draw from, especially not at a school like UNC-Charlotte which does not have a well-established culture of philanthropy with support from third-generation alumni. Every time the school asks for a million-dollar donation toward the football stadium, it is failing to ask for a million-dollar donation toward something else. Every corporation that supports the stadium or football team is therefore not putting their money into other vital porgrams.

Has Chapel Hill's academic giving gone into a tailspin? After all, they have numerous sports programs.

Again the comparison to programs that will forever be out of Charlotte's league. Chapel Hill is different from UNC-Charlotte in almost every way that two institutions can be different.

If SFU is to be the model for UNC-Charlotte's future, it's worth noting that their fundraising revenues dropped by $17 million from 2006 to 2007.

[NLP]

I actually think the number will be less as Mac's study lowballed donations in particular and possibly game revenue. And it's not a tax, you can choose where you send your child to school. It's a fee as it's described. If the education at Charlotte is so expensive, I want to see the uproar over the funding inequities. I'm so tired of the hypocrisy. The funding gap between Charlotte and the system average is a multiple of the proposed fee. Where is the uproar if Charlotte is so expensive? (It's still cheap compared to other schools in the system and remains a fantastic value regardless of the proposed fee)

Edited March 7, 2008 by NLP

[Justadude]

If the education at Charlotte is so expensive, I want to see the uproar over the funding inequities. I'm so tired of the hypocrisy.

Would it not be hypocritical to ask for more equitable funding when the school's most expensive and highest-profile initiative is a football team?

[dgreco]

They will have to go independent in FCS for a couple of years but I don't think it's crazy at all for Charlotte to think they have a shot at the big east. That conference will realign at some point and no conference has captured the Charlotte TV market. The current footprint stretches from Morgantown to Tampa with nothing in between, Charlotte could be a first step in bridging that gap. Being in the big east is a huge money making conference. If you add that market, which is how USF got in they will succeed. Do not forget that 300 charge will disappear when the big east gets FBS teams in the BCS. When a team gets a BCS game that is around the number of 6million+ with a portion being spread throughout the conference. Adding Cahrlotte also brings there TV market upfront. The BigEast currently works with Cox and they will get a share of that as well as additional exposure. Think of schools like Providence, they have a less than 100 million endowment are a small private school with 3,000 students and survive and get national recognition for being in the Big East.

I think it would be a good move and a viable one. I also think this allows Charlotte to possibly drop the UNC and Become the Charlotte 49ers for real instead of how it is now.

[upstate49er]

Would it not be hypocritical to ask for more equitable funding when the school's most expensive and highest-profile initiative is a football team?

Charlotte has been underfunded for 30 years! Football has nothing to do with UNC system funding.

[Justadude]

Charlotte has been underfunded for 30 years! Football has nothing to do with UNC system funding.

I'm not disputing that; I'm simply pointing out that funding complaints don't have much force when existing funding is being redirected toward frivolous athletic projects instead of legitimate academic functions.

[monsoon]

And it's not a tax, you can choose where you send your child to school.

Not if you are low income as I described when I first answered the question that you asked. I went to UNCC because it was the only school in the state system that I could afford to go to aside from CPCC. (and CPCC does not offer 4 year degrees) There was no way I could have packed my bags and managed to establish a household elsewhere in the state since I already had so much invested in Charlotte (my home). I think the people who are pushing for this "tax" to pay for football have never experienced such matters.

I do agree that many people can choose to go to whatever school they choose and I recommend that if someone that wants to go to a school in this state with a football team, then enroll in one that has one already. There are plenty to choose from.

Many people have said that education is the way for people to lift themselves out of dire economic situations and I am an example of that. The last thing we need to do is to make that more difficult by imposing excessive fees on them to pay for football which nobody needs more of and which will do nothing to help many people who choose to go to UNCC to better themselves. It's a selfish and frivolous addition that serves nobody but a few people with priorities that have nothing to do with education. That is not why so many worked so hard to make sure the Charlotte area has a UNCC.

[dgreco]

Not if you are low income as I described when I first answered the question that you asked. I went to UNCC because it was the only school in the state system that I could afford to go to aside from CPCC. (and CPCC does not offer 4 year degrees) There was no way I could have packed my bags and managed to establish a household elsewhere in the state since I already had so much invested in Charlotte (my home). I think the people who are pushing for this "tax" to pay for football have never experience such matters.

If this is the norm: people choosing UNCC because of price then I can see your arguement. But I wonder how many students apply to the school for other reasons and will not care about the 300 dollar increase. I thought I saw a poll, but could be wrong and something along the line of 80% of students approved this increase. If that is the case then I think that arguement isn't valid.

[Windsurfer]

If this is the norm: people choosing UNCC because of price then I can see your arguement. But I wonder how many students apply to the school for other reasons and will not care about the 300 dollar increase. I thought I saw a poll, but could be wrong and something along the line of 80% of students approved this increase. If that is the case then I think that arguement isn't valid.

They should poll the parents who foot the bill.

[monsoon]

If this is the norm: people choosing UNCC because of price then I can see your arguement. But I wonder how many students apply to the school for other reasons and will not care about the 300 dollar increase. I thought I saw a poll, but could be wrong and something along the line of 80% of students approved this increase. If that is the case then I think that arguement isn't valid.

UNCC's primary and most important purpose is to be the branch of the UNC system for the Charlotte metro area, the largest metro in the state. The people here, including the many low income ones, deserve to have access to a UNC school nearby where they can have the opportunity of a quality education at low costs. Because this is the primary focus of the school, it has shared in the region's remarkable growth over the last 40+ years and I feel the costs of adding a football team is going to detract greatly from this purpose. The people of Charlotte don't need to leech university resources to have football given the area already supports a full fledged NFL team.

As noted above several times, if there are people who feel that it is necessary to have a football team at the place they decide to get an advanced education, then there are several places in this state where they can go. It's a luxury, not a necessity. For the rest of us, a $300 Football tax is unwelcomed, not needed, and will detract from the primary purpose of UNCC.