Rollo,

I understand your frustration and your viewpoint. There are a lot of contributing factors to this situation. The reason for the current situatiin is years of mismanagement in every area.
However, a strong WINNING football program should be invested in to help promote the University. Basketball was put on the front burner at SFA, but as several of my friends ask me when I make posts about beating Duke, VCU, etc... "Who cares about basketball?" Truth is, I did not UNTIL we started having major success in the program. A winning Football program has the reach locally and regionally with publicity to make a substantial difference in an entire University . Just ask Sam Houston people. They now have the top football program, great finances, and unity, and have DOUBLED the enrollment because of it! It took about 10 years to double enrollment, and win all over campus. The unity has not always been there.... They have had similar problems over the years.

On another note, I do agree about building a practice facility that benefits 40 people...

Wasn't the new facility privately funded?

Recruiting is an interesting topic. There are ways to recruit without "cold calling seniors" and spending your weekend traveling the state. Research and raising the academic profile of the university is one way...

As for the overemphasis on athletics. Again, an interesting topic for sure. News alert, not everyone likes sports. But man, those that do are typically competitive and willing to contribute in any way possible ($$$) to help their teams win. Whether it is buying season tickets, merchandise, or straight up donations. Athletics and athletes are typically the most visible people on campus. Right, wrong, or indifferent. Use it to the schools advantage I say...


Now the pay is something that definitely hits closer to home. I left a well paying school district this last year for a significantly smaller district with a MUCH lower pay scale so I could coach. The district is dropping in enrollment in a bad way, and is looking at rifting teachers. That definitely makes a huge difference in the attitudes and demeanors among the staff. Knowing there aren't raises coming hurts a lot of the staff. The district has gotten creative though to help out until the raises can return.

That is what SFA needs to look into if they cannot raise the pay scale (Enrollment doesn't increase, the pay cannot increase). What that incentive is? I have no clue, but I'm sure there is something out there that can be done. Heck, we are beyond happy we are getting a four-day week. Maybe that will ring your bell, or maybe some free tickets to athletics summer camp (KIDDING)...

Honestly the biggest thing is just getting dialog going in the right direction. Getting faculty, administration, AND athletics at the table together to work things out. Maybe getting faculty on board with the athletic fee to free up money in the budget for these raises or other necessities? Getting athletics to work with the faculty instead of as their own entity on the edge of campus? Someone will have to make the first move to get this situation heading in the right direction...Who is willing to take that step and/or answer when that call is made...

I just don't buy it. If a booming athletic program generated enrollment, then SFA's numbers should have skyrocketed after SFA beat Duke a few years back, but it didn't happen. Why not? It's hard not to conclude that SFA has built its athletic program at the expense of academics and pretty much everything else. Again, we spent thirty million dollars on that practice basketball facility boondoggle, but one of my colleagues told me that he can't get ten thousand dollars to send interested students to Austin for a legislative intern program.

Rollo,
As I stated above, SFA beating Duke provided two days of coverage on ESPN on a National scale. Not the sustained local and regional coverage a winning football team can provide. Basketball in Texas will not ever get the publicity Football does. The previous administration never understood this even when told by Sam Houston officials directly in meetings.

If you have a way to provide meaningful local and regional publicity consistently, everything works out for everyone.

If you dont believe it, A trip to Sam Houston is a must!!

Rollo Thomassie said:

---

I just don't buy it. If a booming athletic program generated enrollment, then SFA's numbers should have skyrocketed after SFA beat Duke a few years back, but it didn't happen. Why not? It's hard not to conclude that SFA has built its athletic program at the expense of academics and pretty much everything else. Again, we spent thirty million dollars on that practice basketball facility boondoggle, but one of my colleagues told me that he can't get ten thousand dollars to send interested students to Austin for a legislative intern program.

---

Sam's growth is from Houston's growth, not their athletic program.

And no, SFA has not built its athletic program at the expense of academics and everything else. The athletics budget has hardly changed since I started keeping up with it years ago. That's the first real new athletic facility in what, maybe 30 years?

SFA has financial problems to be sure, but blaming athletics is shortsighted and wrongly placed judgement.SFA's problem, for years, has been lack of enrollment growth. It's the same size now that it was when my Dad graduated in the 80s. I don't know what underlies it or how to fix it. If I did, I'd work in the Presiden't office in Nac.

I can tell you what SFA has done for our name recognition though. I started my career in Austin in 2013, people would ask, oh, SFA, that must be a small college here in town right? Is it any good?

After our first win, I've worked in Cali, Virginia, and for companies out of NY and England. And you know what the conversation always is when someone sees me resume? "Oh wow, you went to SFA, those guys are incredible, I love watching them play".

National name recognition. That's what they delivered.

Something happened the year we beat Duke. Some kind of pandemic? Wonder if that impacted enrollment?

"Sam's growth is from Houston's growth, not their athletic program"

Being from Huntsville, and personally watching it over the years, it's incorrect to say that Sam's growth is because of Houston's growth! It helped, but was NOT the main reason!!! Dana Gibson Hoyt was a true visionary for a President. She put the wheels in motion for the athletic program and invested heavily in football. Football was the catalyst. She complimented the football success and daily free press coverage on every Houston TV station with more advertising and market saturation. SH started marketing heavily and has not let up!! Sam Houston shows up at events in the Conroe area unrelated to recruiting. They lead sponsor EVERY football game in Conroe ISD. They have billboards all over.
Population helps, but it IS NOT why Sam has doubled enrollment in 10 years!!

Pilotgirl said:

---

Wasn't the new facility privately funded?

---

I was recently told that was the original plan but it didn't raise all of it plus went over budget and the university had to foot the bill for that part. This was from a SFA employee that I've known for years.

SFA also just cut a bunch of adjuncts for the spring.

AxeEm99 said:

---

"Sam's growth is from Houston's growth, not their athletic program"

Being from Huntsville, and personally watching it over the years, it's incorrect to say that Sam's growth is because of Houston's growth! It helped, but was NOT the main reason!!! Dana Gibson Hoyt was a true visionary for a President. She put the wheels in motion for the athletic program and invested heavily in football. Football was the catalyst. She complimented the football success and daily free press coverage on every Houston TV station with more advertising and market saturation. SH started marketing heavily and has not let up!! Sam Houston shows up at events in the Conroe area unrelated to recruiting. They lead sponsor EVERY football game in Conroe ISD. They have billboards all over.
Population helps, but it IS NOT why Sam has doubled enrollment in 10 years!!

---

This is an example of correlation not being causation.

Otherwise we'd be forced to believe that prospective Sam Houston students care so strongly about football that it is a factor in them choosing the school, but that also do not care quiet enough to actually show up for the games.

After all, they've added 10k new students in a decade and they managed what, 6500 total attendance at yesterday's game in about the best football weather you could ask for.

I do believe Sam's constant advertising in Conroe helps. But the single biggest factor in Sam's growth is the Houston area adding 3 million new people in the past two decades.

Plunk 3 million new people within an hour a drive of SFA over the next two decades and Angelina College will become Angelina U and SFA will have 25k students.

I wish a top flight football program was our key to having 20k students, because we're headed there quick. Sadly it wouldn't move the numbers all that much.

sfajack05 said:

---

Pilotgirl said:

---

Wasn't the new facility privately funded?

---

I was recently told that was the original plan but it didn't raise all of it plus went over budget and the university had to foot the bill for that part. This was from a SFA employee that I've known for years.

SFA also just cut a bunch of adjuncts for the spring.

---

Even then, that's likely on a 30 year note or bond of some sort. so the day to day difference in budget from it isn't huge.

Plus, the main funder of the project just got called by the university to be the main face of the rest of their fundraising project. Athletics can serve as the front porch of the university and has in this case. Naymola said it himself.

Rollo Thomassie said:

---

Well, I'm a former, not current, Faculty Senate member. I'm a bit puzzled about my expected role in recruiting and retention. Do people expect me to travel around the state every weekend for SFA and drum up students? Or, maybe after I teach my classes I can make cold calls to high school seniors. Perhaps it's horse-and-buggy thinking, but it seems to me that the best thing I can do to recruit and retain students is to teach my classes to the best of my ability - do my job.

This might be crazy talk, but perhaps one of SFA's problems has been an overemphasis on athletics. Last time I checked, SFA's athletic budget was as big or bigger than its sister schools. Yet SFA's enrollment has stayed stagnant regardless of the performance of its football and basketball teams. And I can't help but point out that even in this time of fiscal constraints, SFA still managed to spend close to thirty million dollars on a practice basketball facility that will help, what, forty people.

On the other hand, most professors haven't had raises in at least two years, and SFA's faculty are already the second lowest paid professors among public universities in the state. This says something about SFA's priorities, which would be fine if SFA was a summer athletic camp, but it's not - it's an institution of learning that supposed to serve all its students.

---

Rollo. Why don't you come out from behind the keyboard. Would love to engage you directly. Just like most people, it easy to criticize when it's anonymous.

No direct comment about the fool saying the president of the university should be arrested?

BigJack85 said:

---

Rollo Thomassie said:

---

Well, I'm a former, not current, Faculty Senate member. I'm a bit puzzled about my expected role in recruiting and retention. Do people expect me to travel around the state every weekend for SFA and drum up students? Or, maybe after I teach my classes I can make cold calls to high school seniors. Perhaps it's horse-and-buggy thinking, but it seems to me that the best thing I can do to recruit and retain students is to teach my classes to the best of my ability - do my job.

This might be crazy talk, but perhaps one of SFA's problems has been an overemphasis on athletics. Last time I checked, SFA's athletic budget was as big or bigger than its sister schools. Yet SFA's enrollment has stayed stagnant regardless of the performance of its football and basketball teams. And I can't help but point out that even in this time of fiscal constraints, SFA still managed to spend close to thirty million dollars on a practice basketball facility that will help, what, forty people.

On the other hand, most professors haven't had raises in at least two years, and SFA's faculty are already the second lowest paid professors among public universities in the state. This says something about SFA's priorities, which would be fine if SFA was a summer athletic camp, but it's not - it's an institution of learning that supposed to serve all its students.

---

Rollo. Why don't you come out from behind the keyboard. Would love to engage you directly. Just like most people, it easy to criticize when it's anonymous.

No direct comment about the fool saying the president of the university should be arrested?

---

Oh, regarding athletic budgets. Go into the USA Today athletics budget section. It provides more detail. SFA raises as much or more privately than most of the sister schools. I was a senior manager for a F-500 firm that had offices across the planet. I was based in Salt Lake City. I was the lowest paid manager because my counterparts had a cost of living adjustment for San Francisco, Seattle, Denver etc. I lived better than any of my counterparts because my housing costs were significantly lower. I suspect housing in Nacogdoches is significantly lower than Austin San Antonio Houston Tyler San Marcos Stephenville and even Beaumont.

I don't know the exact amount of private funds donated to build the STEM building. I know of boondoggles regarding that project. I have never heard a "peep" about that project. Not a peep.

Oh, nobody is suggesting that profs get "on the road" every weekend to recruit. What we are talking about is faculty responding to questions about programs. Possibly constructing an email that welcomes the "potential" student. Not much. Just a little effort.

SFAJack_76 said:

---

sfajack05 said:

---

Pilotgirl said:

---

Wasn't the new facility privately funded?

---

I was recently told that was the original plan but it didn't raise all of it plus went over budget and the university had to foot the bill for that part. This was from a SFA employee that I've known for years.

SFA also just cut a bunch of adjuncts for the spring.

---

The project was approved at a cost of $26,500,000, by the BOR in July 2019, to be paid for through Revenue Financing Bonds. A cost increase was approved by the BOR on two occasions to a current of $29,323,845. The names of those making private donations that have offset a meaningful portion of the total cost can be seen on and in the facility. Those people have been great, and generous, supporters of all things SFA for a long time.

This is the same funding mechanism used for the $50,000,000 College of Fine Arts expansion. That project was originally approved at a cost of $37,000,000. No doubt there are some questioning why we would spend that kind of money on things like dance, film making, music, and theater. Not me, but some.

---

Also happens that between 2019 and now we've seen huge coat increases in construction. General rule is it's always cheaper to build today than tomorrow.

Here in Palestine, the Westwood school district has a bond for 40 million fail in 2019 as "too expensive". It passed last month for 38 million but they're probably getting 2/3rds of what they'd have gotten in 2019 for that price.

The BPC cost increase is not due to the rumored hair salon. And no, the athletic department has not hired a hair dresser for an annual salary of $85,000. There is a barber's chair in a small, 8'x8' or less, area. The players asked for it. Who knew, they like to cut each other's hair. I suppose it does help them to manage their money.

SFAJack_76 said:

---

The BPC cost increase is not due to the rumored hair salon. And no, the athletic department has not hired a hair dresser for an annual salary of $85,000. There is a barber's chair in a small, 8'x8' or less, area. The players asked for it. Who knew, they like to cut each other's hair. I suppose it does help them to manage their money.

---

This is the stuff that makes me furious. 1. Staff saying that Gordon "stole" the money. Like it was some scheme to give him a raise. 2. Bull $5!7 stories about a barber shop. That is nothing but malicious LYING. Outright lying. That is a real and significant challenge.

PurpleOut said:

---

I could be wrong, but I don't remember when I graduated in 2006 having brand new dorms, a movie theatre, a UC full of restaurants, brand new rec center, and countless other things that we have today.

I'm probably wrong.

---

Good points……

Bunch of narrow minded people like Rollo... misinformed and the school can do whatever they want with private monies, they dont need the Faculty Senate to approve spending of donated monies... Thank God for Loddie ,Joe Max, the late Mr Cole and many others...This Faculty Senate Committee chair is a joke of a joke.. that dude isnt a Lumberjack.. he is more like an Antifa leader..

Yep, I helped pay for the new Student Center and didn't get to utilize it at all but I'm not bitter about it! I am glad the students after me had better facilities to use!

The Fine Arts Dept. needed a new building for sure! And, that it right by the main entrance, so it needs to be visually appealing. Fine Arts, Athletics, STEM building...these are things that will get new students in the doors! Maybe SFA should look at the TYPE of degree programs offered, too in order to increase enrollment. Businesses have changed due to COVID practices (WFH) and academia is going to have to change and roll with these punches, too! Hybrid and on-line programs are not the programs of the future....they are already here!

Jacks4460 said:

---

Bunch of narrow minded people like Rollo... misinformed and the school can do whatever they want with private monies, they dont need the Faculty Senate to approve spending of donated monies... Thank God for Loddie ,Joe Max, the late Mr Cole and many others...This Faculty Senate Committee chair is a joke of a joke.. that dude isnt a Lumberjack.. he is more like an Antifa leader..

---

I agree, largely. I'm not sure how this goes, in the end. As much as I think Gordon is doing the right things, it may be time for a different face. It seems like university president has became in reality "faculty senate wrangler". If you can't wrangle the senate , forget about it. It's all a travesty. Especially, given the success of the Elevate SFA campaign.

One other thing. The response (idea) that I was inferring that professors "hit the road" every weekend to recruit is a joke. It shows the lack of depth and intellect amongst the actors.

Gordon is the right man for the job... He is thick skinned and can take all the bs from the faculty senate committe... He is a great business mind and i can promise you if he leaves or gets fired then some real heavy hitters(donation wise) will leave also... They need to leave him alone and let him do his job.. I support him 110% and know a whole whole whole lot of other Lumberjacks that support him..

AxeEm99 said:

---

"Sam's growth is from Houston's growth, not their athletic program"

Being from Huntsville, and personally watching it over the years, it's incorrect to say that Sam's growth is because of Houston's growth! It helped, but was NOT the main reason!!! Dana Gibson Hoyt was a true visionary for a President. She put the wheels in motion for the athletic program and invested heavily in football. Football was the catalyst. She complimented the football success and daily free press coverage on every Houston TV station with more advertising and market saturation. SH started marketing heavily and has not let up!! Sam Houston shows up at events in the Conroe area unrelated to recruiting. They lead sponsor EVERY football game in Conroe ISD. They have billboards all over.
Population helps, but it IS NOT why Sam has doubled enrollment in 10 years!!

---

Just a couple notes. Yes Sam has grown in years when SFA was either flat or saw decreases. That is one reason I believe SFA sunk a lot of resources in the "Lumberjacks make great__________" campaign that I saw all over the place from Houston to Dallas on multiple billboards and even IAH terminals. Sam has 2 bill boards. That's it. There were some cable TV ads a few years back.

Most of the growth is coming from hitting the schools, and reaching seniors. The idea now is not to be "plan b" for students. SHSU has an extremely diverse student population, I'm not sure how it compares to SFA, but it helps feed the growth. I've been told that the first 2 national championship appearances resulted in an increase in applications and interest. My guess is the success in basketball has helped SFA, too.

Jacks4460 said:

---

Gordon is the right man for the job... He is thick skinned and can take all the bs from the faculty senate committe... He is a great business mind and i can promise you if he leaves or gets fired then some real heavy hitters(donation wise) will leave also... They need to leave him alone and let him do his job.. I support him 110% and know a whole whole whole lot of other Lumberjacks that support him..

---

I trust that your information is solid. I hope "and pray" that we have some uptick in enrollment this fall. That is the key. My take on all of this is that the faculty want us to be part of a system. Period end of story. They'll do anything to push that agenda. Anything. I've read the bs talk about finances. It's what happens when enrollment goes down. Fight on. Fight on.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Gordon is the right man for the job... He is thick skinned and can take all the bs from the faculty senate committe... He is a great business mind and i can promise you if he leaves or gets fired then some real heavy hitters(donation wise) will leave also... They need to leave him alone and let him do his job.. I support him 110% and know a whole whole whole lot of other Lumberjacks that support him..

---

I trust that your information is solid. I hope "and pray" that we have some uptick in enrollment this fall. That is the key. My take on all of this is that the faculty want us to be part of a system. Period end of story. They'll do anything to push that agenda. Anything. I've read the bs talk about finances. It's what happens when enrollment goes down. Fight on. Fight on.

---

---

In my view, SFA should have been part of a System years ago. It has immense benefits. Trying to go it alone for all this time is a huge part of the issues we face. I also strongly agree that Gordon is the right man for the job!! Gordon, Ivey, Carthel.

In regards to the uptick in applications and interest in Sam Houston after the playoff appearances, that is exactly what I have been saying. SH administration officials I personally know have told me that football has been the catalyst the last 10 years along with strong media publicity!!

Agreed. Understandably it does increase cost sometimes to offer new degree paths, but you have to offer what is being sought in the workplace. SFA should have started and engineering program many years ago. I was in the physics and engineering program when SFA and Texas A&M had a dual agreement. I ended up just finishing the Physics degree and then went to UT Tyler for the EE. I would have much rather stayed at SFA. UT Tyler was for years on the verge of bankruptcy. Once they added Engineering that program grew quickly to the point they went from a two school to four year school. UT Tyler engineering open up a very marketable degree in the East Texas area for students that needed to commute due to work or financing. SFA could have been that program years ago. Additionally SFA has a real college experience which UT Tyler does not have. If you look at the posted time line on UT Tyler Website you can see the registration growth. They also added athletics along the way to help with the growth and try to have more of a college experience.

Well, here's how I see it. Some of you folks believe that a robust and well-funded athletic program is necessary for enrollment growth. On the other hand, I believe that the status of SFA's athletic program has little impact on enrollment. Indeed, if you eliminated athletics, I don't think it would make much difference in SFA's size. SFA's athletic budget has been as big or bigger than that of its sister universities for years, and our enrollment has remained stagnant. What makes you all believe that continued largesse will make much of a difference? Where's the evidence? For most universities, athletics is an expensive luxury that they can ill afford.

As for the Sam Houston analogy, it's my understanding that the key to its enrollment growth is its willingness to sell its soul to the online education devil, a decision that will, in the long run, benefit neither athletics nor academics.

Let me get this straight: SFA bought its athletes a barber's chair? How much did that cost? Any organization that can indulge in such superfluous purchases has too much money.

Rollo Thomassie said:

---

Well, here's how I see it. Some of you folks believe that a robust and well-funded athletic program is necessary for enrollment growth. On the other hand, I believe that the status of SFA's athletic program has little impact on enrollment. Indeed, if you eliminated athletics, I don't think it would make much difference in SFA's size. SFA's athletic budget has been as big or bigger than that of its sister universities for years, and our enrollment has remained stagnant. What makes you all believe that continued largesse will make much of a difference? Where's the evidence? For most universities, athletics is an expensive luxury that they can ill afford.

As for the Sam Houston analogy, it's my understanding that the key to its enrollment growth is its willingness to sell its soul to the online education devil, a decision that will, in the long run, benefit neither athletics nor academics.

Let me get this straight: SFA bought its athletes a barber's chair? How much did that cost? Any organization that can indulge in such superfluous purchases has too much money.

---

To be clear, I DO NOT believe a well funded athletics program effects enrollment significantly. I live in The Woodlands (for years) Sam's growth is largely commuters from north Houston, period.

What I'm asking for is concrete facts. What I have seen from the faculty senate exponents seems to say that, "Dr. Gordon is a real meanie". Nothing about his choice of VP's , his ability to raise money, his vision for the university. Mostly weak ass *****ing. Something you would see in a union environment. How about some details. A barber shop chair doesn't cut it.

Rollo Thomassie said:

---

Well, here's how I see it. Some of you folks believe that a robust and well-funded athletic program is necessary for enrollment growth. On the other hand, I believe that the status of SFA's athletic program has little impact on enrollment. Indeed, if you eliminated athletics, I don't think it would make much difference in SFA's size. SFA's athletic budget has been as big or bigger than that of its sister universities for years, and our enrollment has remained stagnant. What makes you all believe that continued largesse will make much of a difference? Where's the evidence? For most universities, athletics is an expensive luxury that they can ill afford.

As for the Sam Houston analogy, it's my understanding that the key to its enrollment growth is its willingness to sell its soul to the online education devil, a decision that will, in the long run, benefit neither athletics nor academics.

Let me get this straight: SFA bought its athletes a barber's chair? How much did that cost? Any organization that can indulge in such superfluous purchases has too much money.

---

You're pinning your argument on a $500 barber chair??? That sounds like real depth.

We can agree on the one thing. "Athletics is a luxury that few universities can afford" I would agree with your statement and add to it. I think athletics in Texas high schools has outgrown what it's original intention was. To create a more well rounded graduate.

That being said, everything is relative. Division 1 athletics need a clear restructuring that allows more flexibility for athletic departments to flexibly participate in D1 athletics without requiring a full immersion. Minimum of 16 sports. Waivers are given for hockey etc. This flexibility needs to be expanded. Allowing universities some options in how to integrate competitive athletics into the overall university experience.