Moulton on Football at USA

Frankly, there is no way that I could have recommended a football program in 2001. It would have been administrative malpractice.

As to what has changed to make football more economically viable:

• Our students have expressed their desire to have a football program and their willingness to pay the lion's share of the cost. This is the single most important difference.

Not all the students want a football program at USA, but they will still be forced to help pay for the lion's share of the cost. This 'addition' will have a particularly harsh impact on those students who are paying their own way through college.

Moulton: Our best estimate is that when the program is fully implemented in four years, the annual budget will be approximately $5 million, about two-thirds of which will be paid for by the student fee.

Students shouldn't be expected to pick up two-thirds of the fee.

Moulton: The key to keeping football, or any other academic or athletic program, from being a financial drain on the University is to make a solid financial plan, be conservative with your revenue estimates and liberal with your cost estimates and budget carefully. In our case, I will tell you unequivocally that if our students had not agreed to fund the majority of the cost, we would have NOT gone forward and the idea would again have died.

Then the idea should be dead in the water. It is unconscionable that all students, even those who loath football and will never attend a game are expected to pay for it. The increased athletic fee will have the greatest impact on those students who are paying for their own education out of pocket, the 'poor fools' who have student loans and will not notice the 'increased fee' until later will realize the high cost of a vanity football team down the road. The only students who will think they got a good deal are those with full scholarships who will never feel the bite of the "increased fees" and those with rich parents willing to foot the bill.