National Media -- ESPN's Gene Woj

[smedindy]

AO,

That's not the case at all. Check your trite Title IX bashing at the door. I can tell you from experience at Wabash and other institutions it doesn't matter the gender, or even the size of the institution - direct donations to a certain program are usually budget offsetting.

And the case at Grambling is support of the institution as a whole. The whole place needs money, and academics does come before athletics.

[AO]

AO,

That's not the case at all. Check your trite Title IX bashing at the door. I can tell you from experience at Wabash and other institutions it doesn't matter the gender, or even the size of the institution - direct donations to a certain program are usually budget offsetting.

And the case at Grambling is support of the institution as a whole. The whole place needs money, and academics does come before athletics.

In what way could you call it a direct donation to a team if it's just "budget offsetting".  If the team's budget didn't go up, your donation clearly went elsewhere.

[smedindy]

No. Your money went to the program. Other monies set aside from the program are allocated elsewhere. We in the fundraising world follow donor intent for accepted donations. But the institution's policy is to either offset or enhance the budget. It's still a win for everyone involved.

In the case of Grambling, they don't want gifts to go to specific athletics teams since there are greater needs elsewhere. That's their right.

[jknezek]

So we're basically saying the money is fungible. By donating to the football team you decreased the football team's reliance on university funding, but all that did was allow the university to divert the previous football funding elsewhere. Essentially any donation to the football team is the same as a donation to the general fund.

I always hate when charitable institutions behave this way. My wife worked at the Red Cross for years and it was the absolute worst at this. They finally got in trouble for it and now if you specify money for a disaster, on the check, it has to be spent on that disaster. Sadly this causes other problems in that specific "hot button" disasters are over-funded and the Red Cross's general fund has less for day to day smaller disasters. Definition of a no win situation.

[smedindy]

Also, you must remember that funds given in this academic year probably won't be spent until next academic year.

[wabndy]

Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way. 

[sigma one]

Many years ago, in a smiilar discussion about donations, allocations, and budgeting my boss said, son, you've gotta' realize that all money is fungible.  I nodded, and had to look up the meaning of fungible (Division II type:  Wabash guys will understand.  And also not too bright.).  Good to see that phrase again.

[mattvsmith]

Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

[D3MAFAN]

Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way.

You also have purpose-restricted donations. A donor may restrict its donation, only to be used for athletics facilities, etc...Therefore, the school can only use the funds for that specific purpose, if they choose not to use the funds, it lays dormat in Temporary Restricted and can only be released as funds are spent on that specific purpose. All other donations (unrestricted) can be used for the school purpose, be it athletics or something education related.

[Scots13]

Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way.

You also have purpose-restricted donations. A donor may restrict its donation, only to be used for athletics facilities, etc...Therefore, the school can only use the funds for that specific purpose, if they choose not to use the funds, it lays dormat in Temporary Restricted and can only be released as funds are spent on that specific purpose. All other donations (unrestricted) can be used for the school purpose, be it athletics or something education related.

I thought I heard that (using funds meant for athletics, although not expressly restricted to athletics) was a problem at Maryville a few years back.  I would assume that's why a few upset alumni, parents, family, fans, etc. of the football program got together to found the Fighting Scots Gridiron Club. I'm fuzzy on the details of the enter workings between the parties, but something must have been done to PO some donors. At any rate, the Gridiron Club is a fantastic organization with the sole purpose to help elevate the MC football program, but they have inadvertently help other sports programs on campus as well, just by being a bridge between the MC and Maryville/Alcoa/Blount County communities.  If your school doesn't have a gridiron club or some sort of alumni football chapter, I'd encourage you look into starting one up.  Our GC has helped the program tremendously, as evident by this:
http://mcscots.com/sports/fball/2013-14/releases/20131007go9av4
mind you, the club has done all this in a matter of 18 or so months and without a large membership. 

[Mr. Ypsi]

Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

Nice rant.  Of course, totally off-topic for smed's point.

Grambling as an institution is in severe danger of going belly-up very soon.  Title IX is the least of their worries.  One thing I think they are grossly underutilizing is their name recognition among older folks.  Their fb team could make millions in guarantees from big-time schools to serve as cannon-fodder; and who knows, they might pull an Appalachian State!

[smedindy]

Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

It's trite because it was:

A. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is not the venue for Title IX issues.
B. We've heard it all before. There was no new information.

Sounds like someone is prickly...adjust your tin foil, sir. And remember, you can stereotype groups all you want, just be prepared to face the music when people call you out for ill-founded half-baked generalizations.

[smedindy]

Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way.

You also have purpose-restricted donations. A donor may restrict its donation, only to be used for athletics facilities, etc...Therefore, the school can only use the funds for that specific purpose, if they choose not to use the funds, it lays dormat in Temporary Restricted and can only be released as funds are spent on that specific purpose. All other donations (unrestricted) can be used for the school purpose, be it athletics or something education related.

Yeah, that's the way it should be. Good stewards of money make darn sure the restricted funds are just that (either temporarily or permanently restricted). My gosh, non-profit accounting and FASB / GASB rules are exciting!

[smedindy]

Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

Nice rant.  Of course, totally off-topic for smed's point.

Grambling as an institution is in severe danger of going belly-up very soon.  Title IX is the least of their worries.  One thing I think they are grossly underutilizing is their name recognition among older folks.  Their fb team could make millions in guarantees from big-time schools to serve as cannon-fodder; and who knows, they might pull an Appalachian State!

I looked at their recent history in playing D-1A schools.

2013 - Louisiana Monroe
2012 - TCU
2011 - Louisiana Monroe
2010 - Louisiana Tech
2009 - Oklahoma State
2008 - Nevada

The rest of their schedule is filled with SWAC teams and / or mainly other HBCU's. This year they did play Lamar (relatively new program), and Lincoln (MO).

It looks like money games aren't foreign to them, but also they tend to keep it close at hand as well if they don't get a money game.

[mattvsmith]

Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

It's trite because it was:

A. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is not the venue for Title IX issues.
B. We've heard it all before. There was no new information.

Sounds like someone is prickly...adjust your tin foil, sir. And remember, you can stereotype groups all you want, just be prepared to face the music when people call you out for ill-founded half-baked generalizations.

I think you are the prickly one, gelding. A normal man would have let teehee title IX comment slide without worrying about it--especially if irrelevant. You're the one who made it an issue. Now go to living with the red hat ladies and make sure you divide the bill to the penny. Be prepared to get called out when you're a bitch.