Oh, Buford! I'll be kind and just blame your error on your, ahem, Chromosome issues.... UMaine has Alfond. Similar to UND's relationship to the Engelstads and Penn State's relationship to Pegula, the love and loyalty of a billionaire or two changes EVERYTHING. A poor man with a dream has nothing in common with a poor man that has a dream and a billionaire benefactor to fund his dream. Alas, to compare the fortunes of UNH hockey to UMaine hockey is to reveal one's ignorance.
Talk about ignorance, jeezus ... there are levels of largesse and loyalty, potty ... when you mentioned Alfond in comparison to Pegula and Engelstad, I almost fell out of my chair, snorking at your utter cluelessness. The Ralph seats, what, 10,000-12,000 fans? State of the art everything?? Pegula, right around the capacity of The Whitt, slightly less, but more modern and nicer ... and then the dump that is Alfond Arena?!? Listen, I love the place, it's a charming dump, if I'm going to pick HEA favorites, it's neck-and-neck with the current Mathews/Boston Arena ... but both are dumps. And it's a smaller-than-UNH dump, too.
If the Alfond Family was SO dedicated to the future of the UMaine hockey program, and following your devotion to all things facility-wise ... one would think you would be demanding the Alfonds pony up some real dough, and just nuke the current place to build a new palace on campus nearby? Renovations for the current Alfond are sorely needed, for sure, but in the end, if you think the renovation of The Whitt is putting lipstick on pig, the renovation of Alfond is more like putting lipstick on a giant wildebeest. A funky cool wildebeest with history, mind you.
FWIW ... what do you make of it when you realize the revamped Alfond in Orono is still only going to be the second nicest Alfond Arena in the State of Maine? Answers on a card or in a letter. Moving on ...
UNH currently has an admissions rate of 87%. Essentially, it rejects only convicted criminals, people that didn't attend high school and severely developmentally disabled people. I'm quite serious. 87% means the only people that get rejected are those that have no academic potential at all. It didn't used to be that way at all. For you to say "it's time to tighten the belts" clearly shows that you have absolutely no interest in the integrity or mission of UNH or the value of higher education in general.
There's two ways an admissions rate goes up ... and one of them is if you have fewer applications to fill the same number of seats, numb-nuts. You might have tapped into the sentiment of the current generation of high schoolers who actually question whether getting a marginal specialty degree that comes with six-figure debt is worth the wait, when they can apprentice in a trade, start making money right away (often helped by supporting HS programs), and work towards owning their own business by the time Billy & Sally Prep-School amass $200,000 in college loans to hit the streets to find out how much their Gender Studies Master's Degrees or PhD's can earn them on the real-life street. So, application numbers go down, and acceptance rates go up. Simples.
The GI Bill was an excess? I literally pray that your are not an UNH alum. If so, you singlehandedly devalue the entire insitution. You clearly don't understand the purpose of education. Do have any clue how much the US economy has be powered by the US Government funded research done at Universities since WW2? The US Government discovered in WW2 that US Universities were the perfect place to park research dollars to power innovation.
In the world of Reading Is Fundamental, I trust everyone on here without an agenda (basically, everyone except you) can read that I attributed the excesses to academia, NOT the GI Bill. But you're being intentionally obtuse to try to confuse the issue, and avoid the very basic question as to why the cost of higher ed has consistently outpaced the cost of living ever since the days post-WW2 when well-meaning legislators were trying to help out returning servicemen.
The answer, of course, is that every time government adds a subsidy to the cost of higher education, most of academia has learned to simply add the subsidy to the bottom line cost of the education, NOT to allow it to work as an offset of the existing cost structure. Hence, the word "subsidy". It's supposed to work to benefit the student, NOT the institutions. But the institutions largely have never gotten that memo. You can try to justify it any way you like, but excuses are still excuses, and subsidies were intended for students, not schools or endowments. So 2% becomes 4% or 5%, annualized with interest, and on top of billion-dollar endowments that largely aren't taxable, it's increasingly evident who the bad actors have been. HINT: it's not the students nor their teachers.