National Media -- ESPN's Gene Woj

[ExTartanPlayer]

I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Even if you are not paying for the stadium, you have to pay to maintain it. Much more expensive to maintain that facility than a DIII facility. As for the "less expensive", yes and no. If they spent 7M and earned 5M, then they were 2M in the red as opposed to LC's 1.6M in the red. So, 400K is the big difference, correct? How much of that is "fixed" costs? Coaches under contract? Facilities maintenance, etc? You can't just drop those costs. They either have to be weeded out over time, or they have to be paid for upfront. Very expensive. Further, what is the effect on alumni donations going to DIII? How about concessions, or school paraphenalia?

Regardless of whether they switch to a lower division or not, you can't have moldy pads and unclean facilities, so the cost to clean up the program exists whether you move or not. That is also fixed. If you are going to demolish and rebuild DIII appropriate facilties, that is another expense. How about your other sports? Many students are on partial athletic scholarships. That means they pay part of the way. If you drop the partial, what is the effect on your student population? Can you make it up simply by not offering scholarships at all? If so, what about financial aid to all those new students, no longer part of the athletic department but part of the general fund.

You are dramatically oversimplifying the costs simply by pointing to a single budget. That's not how schools work and it doesn't even come close to encompassing how much it would cost Grambling to "drop down". In the long run, you are correct. DIII schools pay less. But a decision like this could spell the end of a university by its spillover effect, especially a university in as precarious a position as Grambling right now.

University of New Orleans did a reasonable case study on this in the years following Hurricane Katrina and, as precarious as their position was, the school decided in the end it was better to remain Division I. How many D1 schools have we seen make a division change down? We've seen lots go up, but not many go down (a few DII schools, St. Michael's and Mississippi College come to mind). There is a very good reason for this. See the following story for some good examples of colleges desperate to stay in DI and why.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

Grambling has a laughable $5 Million endowment.  Alumni donations couldn't get lower.  I have no doubt that Grambling could recruit kids willing to come pay full tuition with the chance to play football.  If I was the AD or President of Grambling, I'd want to stay D1, but if I was a Louisiana taxpayer I'd send them to D3.

Gregg Easterbrook (who has his flaws, no doubt) runs an item every so often in TMQ entitled "Rich People, Stop Giving To Harvard!" where he bemoans the super-rich giving big, big donations to schools with endowments in the billions solely for the prestige and invitation to the yearly golf tournament, not considering that the same donation to Grambling or another school with a similarly small endowment would make a much, much bigger impact at the school with a smaller endowment.  A $1 million donation to Harvard is a drop in the bucket in their endowment. while a $1 million donation to Grambling could make a world of difference.

[jknezek]

Gregg Easterbrook (who has his flaws, no doubt) runs an item every so often in TMQ entitled "Rich People, Stop Giving To Harvard!" where he bemoans the super-rich giving big, big donations to schools with endowments in the billions solely for the prestige and invitation to the yearly golf tournament, not considering that the same donation to Grambling or another school with a similarly small endowment would make a much, much bigger impact at the school with a smaller endowment.  A $1 million donation to Harvard is a drop in the bucket in their endowment. while a $1 million donation to Grambling could make a world of difference.

I'm not an Easterbrook fan, though his long columns can eat up some time, but I am completely onboard with this feature of his column. W&L's endowment is nowhere near the size of Harvard's, but I think it is ridiculous, especially when combined with the cost of the school. My wife and I have dropped the percentage of our donations that go to W&L versus other charities quite considerably. It's a personal choice, and I still give to my alma mater, but the money being talked about in higher education these days is an absolute joke.

[mattvsmith]

I give a nominal amount to Hobart for the Football training room to buy tape and supplies. Other than that, I assiduously avoid giving Hobart a dime for two reasons: a) my old man already paid cash for my tuition with no financial aid, so they got their money. If they didn't use it well then, they won't use it well now. b) everything the school teaches is completely antithetical to everything I believe. Why donate to support a gaggle of Marxist professors who make more than I do to tell the students that the world is a bad place because of people like me? Those schmendricks can go schtupp their own rumproasts.

But I do love me some Hobart Football, so the Statesmen Athletic Association gets a check every now and then.

[ExTartanPlayer]

I give a nominal amount to Hobart for the Football training room to buy tape and supplies. Other than that, I assiduously avoid giving Hobart a dime for two reasons: a) my old man already paid cash for my tuition with no financial aid, so they got their money. If they didn't use it well then, they won't use it well now. b) everything the school teaches is completely antithetical to everything I believe. Why donate to support a gaggle of Marxist professors who make more than I do to tell the students that the world is a bad place because of people like me? Those schmendricks can go schtupp their own rumproasts.

LOL.

Like you, I also was the beneficiary of parents that "paid the freight" for my tuition and thus would prefer to save money for my future children's tuition as opposed to subsidizing CMU for the moment (basically, making sure I can take care of my own first).  With that said, as you describe yourself, I have dutifully sent $20 to the CMU football program each year, reasoning that I was provided a couple of new CMU Football T-shirts and shorts every year and that at least pays for a kid's clothing for the season.  I may increase that donation as my disposable income increases, but plan to make sure that I can help my children pay for college first (assuming that the world still exists by the time I have children of college age; it could be a photo finish). 

[HSCTiger74]

I give a nominal amount to Hobart for the Football training room to buy tape and supplies. Other than that, I assiduously avoid giving Hobart a dime for two reasons: a) my old man already paid cash for my tuition with no financial aid, so they got their money. If they didn't use it well then, they won't use it well now. b) everything the school teaches is completely antithetical to everything I believe. Why donate to support a gaggle of Marxist professors who make more than I do to tell the students that the world is a bad place because of people like me? Those schmendricks can go schtupp their own rumproasts.

But I do love me some Hobart Football, so the Statesmen Athletic Association gets a check every now and then.

  +k 

[smedindy]

Of course, tuition in no way covers the entire cost of an education, and I believe that it's important to give back philanthropically to what shaped you, but I digress. (Though in CMU's case, they're almost of the RICH PEOPLE, STOP GIVING TO HARVARD size - but they do a lot of research that eats a lot of $$$). Your philanthropic priorities are your own business, but working at a state school with a small endowment (thanks to some lack of planning a while ago - we're changing that mindset now that the new Advancement team is here), I can assure you that every gift helps here. Every. Gift.

In fact, I would gather that those who paid the full freight are also large donors to their institutions as well. That's conjecture, but the large donors are definitely not just those who got tons of aid or scholarships.

The issue with moving the SWAC back to D-3 is that for almost all (ok, let's just say ALL) of the schools they NEED the D-1 revenue for their entire athletics program. That's why their hoops teams are the designated tomato cans on many high major home schedules. That's why they hope against hope that one of their schools pulls an upset in the NCAA men's hoop tourney. There's no way they can move to D-3 and really survive without even more cutbacks to sports, which would decrease enrollment and tuition not just from athletes, but from other students who want a well-rounded college experience with athletics and other items.

This is what is sad about the draconian budget cuts to education (not just higher ed, but all throughout the system) - what makes a well-rounded person is not just a strict focus on classroom learning, but in the rich tapestry of the learning experience. What you learn in music, art and theater programs are just as vital as math or history. Same with athletics.

[ExTartanPlayer]

Of course, tuition in no way covers the entire cost of an education, and I believe that it's important to give back philanthropically to what shaped you, but I digress. (Though in CMU's case, they're almost of the RICH PEOPLE, STOP GIVING TO HARVARD size - but they do a lot of research that eats a lot of $$$). Your philanthropic priorities are your own business, but working at a state school with a small endowment (thanks to some lack of planning a while ago - we're changing that mindset now that the new Advancement team is here), I can assure you that every gift helps here. Every. Gift.

This is true - and I do hope to one day give something back to what shaped me - but I think that (for the time being) my priority has to be getting my financial house in order to provide for my future children.  If not, then they will be applying for need-based aid...while my gifts to CMU have already been spent on someone else's children, so to speak.  I do acknowledge that every gift helps, and that's why I'm at least trying to chuck a few bucks to the CMU football program every year, at least hoping to pay for a kid's new clothing each season.  Or something.  I don't pretend to know exactly how that money is disbursed nor how the University general fund is allocated.

The issue with moving the SWAC back to D-3 is that for almost all (ok, let's just say ALL) of the schools they NEED the D-1 revenue for their entire athletics program. That's why their hoops teams are the designated tomato cans on many high major home schedules. That's why they hope against hope that one of their schools pulls an upset in the NCAA men's hoop tourney. There's no way they can move to D-3 and really survive without even more cutbacks to sports, which would decrease enrollment and tuition not just from athletes, but from other students who want a well-rounded college experience with athletics and other items.

Correct, this is the same argument jknezek is making (and you guys are right) of why "just drop to D3" is not the program-saving panacea that naive reporters think it is.

This is what is sad about the draconian budget cuts to education (not just higher ed, but all throughout the system) - what makes a well-rounded person is not just a strict focus on classroom learning, but in the rich tapestry of the learning experience. What you learn in music, art and theater programs are just as vital as math or history. Same with athletics.

Agreed.  I am quick to credit my athletics experience with developing me into a better and more productive person.  As a brief digression, I work in the field of public health; I am a biostatistician that works on large research studies in medicine.  What makes me "good" at my job, relative to my peers, is my ability to function within a large research team and communicate well with others; those skills were at least partially developed by my athletic experience.  I had several colleagues in graduate school who definitely had superior quantitative skills and can run circles around me when it comes to computer programming, but they're nearly useless in the setting where I thrive because they just don't grasp the bigger research picture and how they fit into it.  They're really good at developing statistical models in a vacuum, but without the personal skills and desire to learn (which can be developed through some of the other things you've mentioned - music, art, theater programs all can serve this same purpose), those skills aren't fully realized.

Despite my childhood obsession with sports, I have often said to family/friends/girlfriends that I really don't care whether my future kids play sports or not, but I would require that they do something stimulating.  Play tennis.  Or join the cross-country team.  Or the marching band.  Lead the school spirit squad.  Or be in the school play.  I don't care.  Just do something that requires some degree of intellectual stimulation and personal interaction.

[sigma one]

Donating to a particular program, football, say does not always mean that the program's budget is enhanced.  Schools have to be careful not to let one sport receive all the money.  And because you give "to football" does not mean the football budget increases by that amount.  In some instances (all this is institutionally determined) your money goes to offset, not enhance, a sport's budget--the school simply reduces its own funding to the sport and uses your funds to keep the budget where the institution decides it should be. 
     If I believe that the football team needs new uniforms and I give money for this, it might be that, yes, they get new uniforms--it's time for new uniforms according to the Athleltic Department's rotation of uniforms schedule.  If we want the football team to have new uniforms every year, unless we have real clout, that's probably not going to happen.  And the Department has to be careful about one team getting what other coaches and teams think too much, and think that the school is being unfair or playing favorites.  Morale matters a lot.
     "Booster Clubs"and individuals who give money to enhance a program have to be carefully managed..  That's a topic for a long discussion.
     A large issue internally at many schools is how policies and politics affect athletic funding.  Presidents, Boards, and others usually don't want to give faculty the impression (even if it's not the reality as objectively perceived) that athletics is getting too large a piece of the budgetary pie.   Suffice to say that I have been involved in discussions with faculty about athletic facilities and team budgets.  It was not pretty--ever.  They think that every dollar spent on athletics is a dollar lost on the faculty and academic programs--and not without evidence when a school has finite resources, as most do.  They don't think about the potential benefits to the institution in recruiting students/student-athletes.  I think it's fair to say that some of the most vocal faculty (not all by any means) believe that the less spent/attention on athletics the better because they don't think athletics is "good for" academics.  Again, a topic for another time.  By the way, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush; many small colleges recognize that athletics recruiting is essential to their future--and the faculty are increasingly, slowly being won over to this reality even if they continue to feel that athletics takes too much time and too much of the institution's budget.
     What I've written here is a bare outline with many holes.  The nuances are many and complex.
   
   

[ExTartanPlayer]

Donating to a particular program, football, say does not always mean that the program's budget is enhanced.  Schools have to be careful not to let one sport receive all the money.  And because you give "to football" does not mean the football budget increases by that amount.  In some instances (all this is institutionally determined) your money goes to offset, not enhance, a sport's budget--the school simply reduces its own funding to the sport and uses your funds to keep the budget where the institution decides it should be. 

Was afraid that this was the case, and figured you'd have some insight here.  I guess, then, I figure it as my token show of support and hope that similar gifts help the administration view football as a sport that "needs less" from them because it gets some alumni gifts.  I did have a hunch that my gift didn't "increase" the football budget, but just meant that the football program would need less from the University general fund.

[smedindy]

This is why giving to an endowment helps more - the greater the endowment - the more funds are spun off (based on the rate the institution sets and other parameters).

Alas, most, if not all, D-3 schools don't have athletics endowments I would bet since they don't give athletics scholarships.

Where I work, most current use funds are for scholarships for next season. For whatever reason, they never really established many endowed athletics scholarships or funds here - they needed to spend the money as soon as they got it in. Of course, that leads to a hand-to-mouth existence.

According to a quick google search, an endowment gift of $1 million is needed to fund one full athletics scholarship at USC. (Tuition + room and board, not for the Lane Kiffin 'Go Away Ye Scurvy Dog' Fund). UVa said it needed an endowment of $295 million to fully fund its scholarships - this I found in the Athletics Endowment Campaign literature. Just some food for thought. They give out 316.6 scholarships a year. They also have endowment funds for operations of each sport. Smart.

In the best of all worlds for the HBC's - they'd each have some sugar daddies and mommies get together and start (or add to) the athletics endowment and start endowment funds for scholarships, program upkeep, etc. so that money is there in perpetuity.

The questions, of course:

A. Do they exist? (Probably, yes)
B. Are they inclined to do so? (Another story, major gift philanthropy doesn't just happen overnight - it's at least 12-24 months of work just to get a gift agreement. It's a slow dance.)

And that's where some of the media, but especially fans, don't quite get it. "Just ask your rich alumni" - Well, were it to be so easy. These wealthy folks not only have philanthropic priorities, they are asked by all kinds of organizations for money, time and talent, AND even if you're their alma mater you don't just waltz in and expect the money to flow into your coffers. You need to build relationships and see if their philanthropic intent matches your need.

I'd say that even the most ardent booster can't give 100% of his charitable dollars to his alma mater - and that most ardent booster will not keep increasing their donations year over year after they fulfill a major gift.

Ok, a little too much shop talk for me...

[D3MAFAN]

This is why giving to an endowment helps more - the greater the endowment - the more funds are spun off (based on the rate the institution sets and other parameters).

Alas, most, if not all, D-3 schools don't have athletics endowments I would bet since they don't give athletics scholarships.

Where I work, most current use funds are for scholarships for next season. For whatever reason, they never really established many endowed athletics scholarships or funds here - they needed to spend the money as soon as they got it in. Of course, that leads to a hand-to-mouth existence.

According to a quick google search, an endowment gift of $1 million is needed to fund one full athletics scholarship at USC. (Tuition + room and board, not for the Lane Kiffin 'Go Away Ye Scurvy Dog' Fund). UVa said it needed an endowment of $295 million to fully fund its scholarships - this I found in the Athletics Endowment Campaign literature. Just some food for thought. They give out 316.6 scholarships a year. They also have endowment funds for operations of each sport. Smart.

In the best of all worlds for the HBC's - they'd each have some sugar daddies and mommies get together and start (or add to) the athletics endowment and start endowment funds for scholarships, program upkeep, etc. so that money is there in perpetuity.

The questions, of course:

A. Do they exist? (Probably, yes)
B. Are they inclined to do so? (Another story, major gift philanthropy doesn't just happen overnight - it's at least 12-24 months of work just to get a gift agreement. It's a slow dance.)

And that's where some of the media, but especially fans, don't quite get it. "Just ask your rich alumni" - Well, were it to be so easy. These wealthy folks not only have philanthropic priorities, they are asked by all kinds of organizations for money, time and talent, AND even if you're their alma mater you don't just waltz in and expect the money to flow into your coffers. You need to build relationships and see if their philanthropic intent matches your need.

I'd say that even the most ardent booster can't give 100% of his charitable dollars to his alma mater - and that most ardent booster will not keep increasing their donations year over year after they fulfill a major gift.

Ok, a little too much shop talk for me...

[smedindy]

I meant their well-heeled supporters - their versions of T. Boone Pickens.

[sigma one]

I can't say that all places operate in the way I described earlier.  But generally giving money to the program results in offsetting the money put in the football budget.  I do know of special funding from alums, boosters, etc. for special needs of the program that a college has permitted--equipment of various kinds, for example.  This can happen when a group or individual finds out that the institution is not going to add the equipment or otherwise help the program because the institutional budget won't permit it or it is not a priority when measured v. other needs.  Or in the case of equipment or other help for one sport, it would appear that they were overly favoring that sport.  The institution can then say, well, the team (or the athleltic department) had a legitimate need that we could not accommodate, so we prermit  this as a special case.
     I know of one year when an alumnus had the idea that it would be special to fund the purchase of new uniforms for a significant Monon Bell Game.  The institution allowed that to happen.
     Many schools have special off-budget accounts, money donated or money raised by team activities. I've seen what were obviously student-athletes working a concession stand at football games, and I have asked them if they were working to help their group take a trip, etc.  Yes, Sir.  We are the track team allowed to use the profits to go south over spring break. The college says if we can come up with the money (or most of it) we have permission to travel.   We do this every year.  Or the college is funding the trip on a shoestring and the money will help make the trip better--or in more cases than we often know about the athletes have to come up with part of the money themselves, and not all of them are financially fortunate.  This is, after all, Division III.  We all should ask and after paying for our hot dog and drink tell them to keep the rest of the 10 bucks we've handed them.  Institutions often allow these accounts under strict management by the AD and/or others.
    Lastly, and here I become a mouthpiece of sorts:  even if the money you give doesn't enhance the athletic budget, give anyway according to your means and belief in your alma mater.  You are helping your college, and along the way, the teams as well.   There are many reasons not to give, philosophical  as well as financial.  But you're not going to change your college's faculty's politics or punish your alma mater for what you deem its poor decisions.  Unless you have really big money to give and hold some sway, you're just satisfying yourself without making a difference in the way the college operates.    Plus every dollar you give has some indirect or direct impact on students.     
      Schools want to be able to say that a high percentage of their alums contribute.  This helps when they approach foundations or other groups for help.
      Aren't I idealistic.     
     
     

[Bombers798891]

Although it's not D-III, here's another essay (from a law professor) advocating for HCBU's to drop out of Division I.

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/10/24/essay-calling-historically-black-colleges-move-division-ii

[AO]

I can't say that all places operate in the way I described earlier.  But generally giving money to the program results in offsetting the money put in the football budget.  I do know of special funding from alums, boosters, etc. for special needs of the program that a college has permitted--equipment of various kinds, for example.  This can happen when a group or individual finds out that the institution is not going to add the equipment or otherwise help the program because the institutional budget won't permit it or it is not a priority when measured v. other needs.  Or in the case of equipment or other help for one sport, it would appear that they were overly favoring that sport.  The institution can then say, well, the team (or the athleltic department) had a legitimate need that we could not accommodate, so we prermit  this as a special case.
     I know of one year when an alumnus had the idea that it would be special to fund the purchase of new uniforms for a significant Monon Bell Game.  The institution allowed that to happen.
     Many schools have special off-budget accounts, money donated or money raised by team activities. I've seen what were obviously student-athletes working a concession stand at football games, and I have asked them if they were working to help their group take a trip, etc.  Yes, Sir.  We are the track team allowed to use the profits to go south over spring break. The college says if we can come up with the money (or most of it) we have permission to travel.   We do this every year.  Or the college is funding the trip on a shoestring and the money will help make the trip better--or in more cases than we often know about the athletes have to come up with part of the money themselves, and not all of them are financially fortunate.  This is, after all, Division III.  We all should ask and after paying for our hot dog and drink tell them to keep the rest of the 10 bucks we've handed them.  Institutions often allow these accounts under strict management by the AD and/or others.
    Lastly, and here I become a mouthpiece of sorts:  even if the money you give doesn't enhance the athletic budget, give anyway according to your means and belief in your alma mater.  You are helping your college, and along the way, the teams as well.   There are many reasons not to give, philosophical  as well as financial.  But you're not going to change your college's faculty's politics or punish your alma mater for what you deem its poor decisions.  Unless you have really big money to give and hold some sway, you're just satisfying yourself without making a difference in the way the college operates.    Plus every dollar you give has some indirect or direct impact on students.     
      Schools want to be able to say that a high percentage of their alums contribute.  This helps when they approach foundations or other groups for help.
      Aren't I idealistic.     
     

Wabash has the advantage of not having to adhere to Title IX regulations.  If suspect if Grambling was an all-male institution, their donations would be more easily spent on the Football weight room since they don't have to worry about getting sued if their Volleyball locker room is terrible by comparison.