Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
Author Message
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,296
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #101
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 04:41 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:12 PM)mlb Wrote:  Here is something posted to the UC board earlier today... and shows why UC is generally regarded as the number 2 school in the state over everyone else:

(06-04-2013 10:53 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  I tried my best to come up with a list of how the Ohio schools measure up regarding size and endowment. (I took the figures from the school's websites/US News/ in some instances wiki)

UC - 41,970 - endow: $1.004 bill

Kent St - 27,706 - endow: $109.1 mill
Akron - 24,601 - endow: $133.3 mill
Toledo - 23,000 - endow: $197.4 mill
OU - 21,655 - endow: $336 mill
BG - 17,706 - endow: $118.7
Miami(oh) - 17,557 - endow: $387.2 mill

As an aside - I found this interesting from the UC website - Economic impact UC estimated annual impact on Ohio of $1.52 bill (“The Future Starts Here: The Role of Research Universities in Ohio’s Economy,” (Appleseed, 2006) - UC Medical Center & Affiliates based on 2002 data had a $3.59 bill impact. (Unfortunately, I did not have time to try and find the other institutions numbers.)

These enrollment numbers are only looking at the main campuses of each school.

If you're looking at total enrollment, the Kent State system enrolls 42,000

[Image: Regionalksu.png]

Ohio's system enrolls ~35,000 at all of their campuses.


What could be done is regional flagships divided by county. Toledo in the NW, Kent in the NE, Ohio in the SE, Cincy in the SW, and OSU in the central area.

Or the state could simply drop the idea of flagships and look at each state university individually and divide funding based on enrollment, and other quantifiable criteria.

Haven't they combined the various satellite campuses? Miami, Ohio St., Ohio U. and Kent all had satellite campuses, sometimes in close proximity. Those 4 were really the "flagships" of their regions. Cincinnati, Wright St., Cleveland St., Youngstown St., Akron and Toledo were the urban universities.
06-04-2013 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #102
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 12:11 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 09:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You say fair but ask yourself:

Who created that money that is being split up?

It didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was created because schools like Ohio State command huge audiences. Ohio created none of that money but wants an equal share to what Ohio State created and that is fair?

That's like saying a brand new intern should be paid the same as the Chief of Oncology because they are both doctors.

Who created the money that is being split up? ALL of the teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision, that is who.

Ohio State commands huge audiences? Good for them. Have we already discussed the advantages they have? Yes. Pay attention.

Ohio has created none of that? NONE? Ohio has been a D-1 program for ages. They didn't just show up with a hand out.

Ohio State will continue to make the bajillions of dollars they've "earned" though selling tickets and merchandise and donations, that is their reward for their success.

But money that is designated for everyone in a group should go to everyone in that group with reasonable equity. A 71.5% to 27% split is NOT reasonable.

If you really believe that the G5 creates an equal, 50% contribution of the money as the P5 then you should be all for the P5 splitting away from the G5.

That way you get back the 23% you are creating but the evil P5 is stealing away from you.
06-04-2013 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
perimeterpost Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,977
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 132
I Root For: OHIO
Location:
Post: #103
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 05:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:11 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 09:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You say fair but ask yourself:

Who created that money that is being split up?

It didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was created because schools like Ohio State command huge audiences. Ohio created none of that money but wants an equal share to what Ohio State created and that is fair?

That's like saying a brand new intern should be paid the same as the Chief of Oncology because they are both doctors.

Who created the money that is being split up? ALL of the teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision, that is who.

Ohio State commands huge audiences? Good for them. Have we already discussed the advantages they have? Yes. Pay attention.

Ohio has created none of that? NONE? Ohio has been a D-1 program for ages. They didn't just show up with a hand out.

Ohio State will continue to make the bajillions of dollars they've "earned" though selling tickets and merchandise and donations, that is their reward for their success.

But money that is designated for everyone in a group should go to everyone in that group with reasonable equity. A 71.5% to 27% split is NOT reasonable.

If you really believe that the G5 creates an equal, 50% contribution of the money as the P5 then you should be all for the P5 splitting away from the G5.

That way you get back the 23% you are creating but the evil P5 is stealing away from you.

you're that guy born into a rich family whose Dad donates a wing of a library at an ivy league school just to get you in because they don't take C students and then Daddy gets you a job on Wall Street and you spend your lunch with your other trust fund friends being loud and obnoxious to your waiter, telling him how if he gets off his butt and really, really applies himself then maybe one day he can be a self made man, just like you.

done with your elitist nonsense.
06-04-2013 06:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mufanatehc Offline
Hmm...
*

Posts: 6,530
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 169
I Root For: BSU, EHC, & MU
Location: Nashville
Post: #104
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 05:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 04:41 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:12 PM)mlb Wrote:  Here is something posted to the UC board earlier today... and shows why UC is generally regarded as the number 2 school in the state over everyone else:

(06-04-2013 10:53 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  I tried my best to come up with a list of how the Ohio schools measure up regarding size and endowment. (I took the figures from the school's websites/US News/ in some instances wiki)

UC - 41,970 - endow: $1.004 bill

Kent St - 27,706 - endow: $109.1 mill
Akron - 24,601 - endow: $133.3 mill
Toledo - 23,000 - endow: $197.4 mill
OU - 21,655 - endow: $336 mill
BG - 17,706 - endow: $118.7
Miami(oh) - 17,557 - endow: $387.2 mill

As an aside - I found this interesting from the UC website - Economic impact UC estimated annual impact on Ohio of $1.52 bill (“The Future Starts Here: The Role of Research Universities in Ohio’s Economy,” (Appleseed, 2006) - UC Medical Center & Affiliates based on 2002 data had a $3.59 bill impact. (Unfortunately, I did not have time to try and find the other institutions numbers.)

These enrollment numbers are only looking at the main campuses of each school.

If you're looking at total enrollment, the Kent State system enrolls 42,000

[Image: Regionalksu.png]

Ohio's system enrolls ~35,000 at all of their campuses.


What could be done is regional flagships divided by county. Toledo in the NW, Kent in the NE, Ohio in the SE, Cincy in the SW, and OSU in the central area.

Or the state could simply drop the idea of flagships and look at each state university individually and divide funding based on enrollment, and other quantifiable criteria.

Haven't they combined the various satellite campuses? Miami, Ohio St., Ohio U. and Kent all had satellite campuses, sometimes in close proximity. Those 4 were really the "flagships" of their regions. Cincinnati, Wright St., Cleveland St., Youngstown St., Akron and Toledo were the urban universities.

They may have re organized and reshuffled it a bit, but there are still satellite campuses about.
06-04-2013 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jml2010 Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,282
Joined: Jan 2011
I Root For: Tx Tech & UNT
Location: Oklahoma
Post: #105
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-03-2013 11:39 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  As a whole it is simple economics that should make all taxpayers of the state of Ohio upset. These games spur the local economy. Imagine how busy the hotels, restaurants and bars be when the game took place? Second, if UC were in a power conference they would not have to subsidize from their general fund to pay for the athletic department. All the surrounding states (Kentucky, Indiana, MI, PA) have 2 or more teams in a power conference. That is quite remarkable when you consider each of those states produce a fraction of the FBS talent that Ohio does.

Why should Ohio taxpayers be upset that Cincinnati establishments/hotels aren't crowded with bearcat fans on Saturdays in the fall. Regardless of the opponent, shouldn't the blame fall on bearcat fans for not supporting UC?

2. If UC can't afford to play D1 athletics, it can always drop down a division where they can compete with other cash strapped athletic departments. If that isn't an option, maybe UC needs to get alumni who will support the program financially so that the University doesn't have to subsidize athletics at such a ridiculous amount. I just don't understand the whole concept of needing a power conference because your alumni can't donate enough to offset the cost of playing D1 athletics.

Sorry, JMHO.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 08:19 PM by jml2010.)
06-04-2013 07:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jml2010 Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,282
Joined: Jan 2011
I Root For: Tx Tech & UNT
Location: Oklahoma
Post: #106
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-03-2013 12:50 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  there is no state in the union that has more FBS football programs than Ohio's 8. It is absolutely absurd to say that 1 of the 8 gets all the money and benefits and the other 7 should fight over the scraps. There are anti-trust laws for situations just like this.

When you point this out to their fans they say its because OSU represents the entire state of Ohio, not just the school. The entire state? What about the SEVEN other FBS Division 1 programs? Don't they count for something? THE BALLS.

I hate everything Ohio State stands for and am all for a leveling of the playing field.

Texas has 12 FBS schools. UT, A&M, Tech, TCU, Baylor, UTEP, North Texas, Rice, SMU, Tx State, UT-San Antonio and Houston.

5 out of the 12 Texas FBS schools get a ton of money because their alumni support their Universities academically and athletically. The other 7 don't because they have virtually little to no support.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 08:20 PM by jml2010.)
06-04-2013 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,358
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 357
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #107
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 06:34 PM)perimeterpost Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 05:59 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 12:11 AM)perimeterpost Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 09:55 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  You say fair but ask yourself:

Who created that money that is being split up?

It didn't just appear out of nowhere, it was created because schools like Ohio State command huge audiences. Ohio created none of that money but wants an equal share to what Ohio State created and that is fair?

That's like saying a brand new intern should be paid the same as the Chief of Oncology because they are both doctors.

Who created the money that is being split up? ALL of the teams in the Football Bowl Subdivision, that is who.

Ohio State commands huge audiences? Good for them. Have we already discussed the advantages they have? Yes. Pay attention.

Ohio has created none of that? NONE? Ohio has been a D-1 program for ages. They didn't just show up with a hand out.

Ohio State will continue to make the bajillions of dollars they've "earned" though selling tickets and merchandise and donations, that is their reward for their success.

But money that is designated for everyone in a group should go to everyone in that group with reasonable equity. A 71.5% to 27% split is NOT reasonable.

If you really believe that the G5 creates an equal, 50% contribution of the money as the P5 then you should be all for the P5 splitting away from the G5.

That way you get back the 23% you are creating but the evil P5 is stealing away from you.

you're that guy born into a rich family whose Dad donates a wing of a library at an ivy league school just to get you in because they don't take C students and then Daddy gets you a job on Wall Street and you spend your lunch with your other trust fund friends being loud and obnoxious to your waiter, telling him how if he gets off his butt and really, really applies himself then maybe one day he can be a self made man, just like you.

done with your elitist nonsense.

Of course you are.

Cant help notice that you completely ignored my last point...wonder why that is....
06-04-2013 07:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #108
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 03:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Probably not, because if your campaign is now completed, most of that money given for endowment funds has already been added to your reported endowment numbers.

UC's endowment has been at $1B since before the campaign began. I don't think they are reporting anything yet.

Quote:These campaigns tend to last a decade and everyone has been doing billion+ dollar campaigns these days. But likely a lot of money raised doesn't necessarily go to endowment funds. It can go to building projects or immediate use for scholarships or any other use. It all depends on the intent of the donor. Of course, all of those variables really makes direct comparisons of "wealth" or "financial power" almost impossible.

There is no doubt truth to that. UC's, from what I can tell, will go to scholarships and faculty endowments.


Quote:That said, you can run reports on endowments per full-time equivalency (FTE) students on IPEDs. At the top, you'll a ton of private, small liberal arts colleges. If you limit it to public schools, this is the following ranking that has a lot of specialty schools (medical and military) at the top. Here's the top 50 public schools per FTE students as of 2010-11. Note that UVA (#4 public below) wouldn't even rank in the top 130 overall. And just an FYI, the largest endowment per student belongs to Rockefeller University at $37,359,462 per FTE student.

39. Ohio State $34,910
40. Cincinnati $34,595

Interesting that UC and OSU are essentially tied in this statistic... with no other Ohio schools on the top 50 list.
06-05-2013 09:18 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #109
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 07:19 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Why should Ohio taxpayers be upset that Cincinnati establishments/hotels aren't crowded with bearcat fans on Saturdays in the fall. Regardless of the opponent, shouldn't the blame fall on bearcat fans for not supporting UC?

2. If UC can't afford to play D1 athletics, it can always drop down a division where they can compete with other cash strapped athletic departments. If that isn't an option, maybe UC needs to get alumni who will support the program financially so that the University doesn't have to subsidize athletics at such a ridiculous amount. I just don't understand the whole concept of needing a power conference because your alumni can't donate enough to offset the cost of playing D1 athletics.

Sorry, JMHO.

I agree with the premise of your post. UC alumni need to make UC a worthwhile investment by a power 5 conference by supporting the school in any way necessary. These past 15 years or so are the first time in the history of UC that they truly worked to engage students and alumni to support the athletic department. Why? Because UC finally got some people in the right positions to point out that a lot of the donations to the school come thanks to the athletic department. It gets people on campus to see what the school is doing and allows the education side to sell their views to the alumni.

As far as the subsidy goes, the amount of money UC gives to athletics pales in comparison to the money and "advertising" given to UC through great football and basketball teams. It is a worthwhile investment as far as I'm concerned as it sells the University to prospective students and faculty. There is a strong correllation between great football and better incoming freshmen. UC has seen that with the recent successes in football and I hope they continue to maintain this success.

All that being said, Tech has a great situation considering the largest school in the state has to go play in Lubbock every other year. If UC had that then I think you'd see a big change in the athletic revenues. If TT didn't have UT coming every other year, I think you'd also see a big change in your revenues (especially if you were not in a power conference). I have 2 cousins whom are TT grads and they fully admit that without UT carrying the weight, TT would not be in a power conference and would be relegated to a C-USA/AAC type level due to the small market and the travel issues of getting to Lubbock.
06-05-2013 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jml2010 Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,282
Joined: Jan 2011
I Root For: Tx Tech & UNT
Location: Oklahoma
Post: #110
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-05-2013 09:26 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 07:19 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  Why should Ohio taxpayers be upset that Cincinnati establishments/hotels aren't crowded with bearcat fans on Saturdays in the fall. Regardless of the opponent, shouldn't the blame fall on bearcat fans for not supporting UC?

2. If UC can't afford to play D1 athletics, it can always drop down a division where they can compete with other cash strapped athletic departments. If that isn't an option, maybe UC needs to get alumni who will support the program financially so that the University doesn't have to subsidize athletics at such a ridiculous amount. I just don't understand the whole concept of needing a power conference because your alumni can't donate enough to offset the cost of playing D1 athletics.

Sorry, JMHO.

I agree with the premise of your post. UC alumni need to make UC a worthwhile investment by a power 5 conference by supporting the school in any way necessary. These past 15 years or so are the first time in the history of UC that they truly worked to engage students and alumni to support the athletic department. Why? Because UC finally got some people in the right positions to point out that a lot of the donations to the school come thanks to the athletic department. It gets people on campus to see what the school is doing and allows the education side to sell their views to the alumni.

As far as the subsidy goes, the amount of money UC gives to athletics pales in comparison to the money and "advertising" given to UC through great football and basketball teams. It is a worthwhile investment as far as I'm concerned as it sells the University to prospective students and faculty. There is a strong correllation between great football and better incoming freshmen. UC has seen that with the recent successes in football and I hope they continue to maintain this success.

All that being said, Tech has a great situation considering the largest school in the state has to go play in Lubbock every other year. If UC had that then I think you'd see a big change in the athletic revenues. If TT didn't have UT coming every other year, I think you'd also see a big change in your revenues (especially if you were not in a power conference). I have 2 cousins whom are TT grads and they fully admit that without UT carrying the weight, TT would not be in a power conference and would be relegated to a C-USA/AAC type level due to the small market and the travel issues of getting to Lubbock.

I respectfully disagree. While having Texas on the schedule helps, we still show up for lesser known opponents and we have done that for a number of years. The Lubbock TV market is always brought up as some disadvantage for us but most of our alumni don't live in Lubbock. They live in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. TV execs could care less about Lubbock just as they care less about College Station, Tuscaloosa, Al and Fayetteville, Ar. TV execs want viewers in big cities that will watch Tech in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio.

Not sure when your cousins graduated but Tech today is completely different than Tech a few years ago. Its definitely different than when I graduated 13 1/2 years ago. We have the 29th largest fan base in the country, we have a 61K seat stadium and we deliver decent TV ratings. We appreciate our relationship with Texas and the Oklahoma schools but Tech does pretty well on its own.
06-05-2013 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mlb Offline
O' Great One
*

Posts: 20,276
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 540
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:

Donators
Post: #111
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
Both graduated in the late 90's. Both still live in Texas and are huge Tech fans (I have to see wreck 'em tech every week on facebook during football season). Both say that A&M and UT have the most fans, and they are relagated in their cities to having to search out a place to watch the games (similar to what UC deals with in terms of Ohio State if you are outside of Cincinnati).
06-05-2013 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jml2010 Offline
Banned

Posts: 3,282
Joined: Jan 2011
I Root For: Tx Tech & UNT
Location: Oklahoma
Post: #112
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-05-2013 11:09 AM)mlb Wrote:  Both graduated in the late 90's. Both still live in Texas and are huge Tech fans (I have to see wreck 'em tech every week on facebook during football season). Both say that A&M and UT have the most fans, and they are relagated in their cities to having to search out a place to watch the games (similar to what UC deals with in terms of Ohio State if you are outside of Cincinnati).

UT and A&M both have large fan bases in Houston, no doubt about that at all. So does Tech

The Texas Tech alumni association sends out notices to all members as to where game watching parties are held each week. Even if they aren't members of the Tech alumni association, RaiderPower (Scout site---- free to join and read) and Red Raider Sports( Rivals site ---- requires a paid subscription) always have threads letting Tech fans know where to watch Tech in Houston, Dallas, etc. I know I receive emails from the DFW chapter every week letting me know where I can hang out with other Red Raiders and watch Tech.

Here is just 1 example from the 2012 car bowl in Houston.

http://www.texastechalumni.org/s/1422/3c...1&pgid=726

Quote:Food and drink specials available, including a $15 “Texas Bucket” with SIX domestic beers. A portion of all sales is returned to the Houston Chapter of the Alumni Association to help fund local scholarships.

Hefley’s
138 W. Gray
Houston, TX 77019

Not that hard to find at all.
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 11:25 AM by jml2010.)
06-05-2013 11:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 13,103
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 760
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #113
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 06:50 PM)mufanatehc Wrote:  They may have re organized and reshuffled it a bit, but there are still satellite campuses about.
As far as I recall, old 'Jobs & Rhodes' pushed to extend the satellite system so that between OSU and the Ohio Boards of Regents universities, there was a public university campus or branch campus within a certain mile distance of every Ohio resident. Back then, the state government provided quite substantial support for all of those institutions, so it wasn't like they could say no.

If in the push to comply with a campaign speech one liner, there was a bit of overlapping of branch campus service areas, that wouldn't be at all surprising.
06-05-2013 11:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #114
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-03-2013 10:54 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Technically, SUNY is more like Cal State in that there is no designated flagship. However, the Cal system...it's Berkeley AND UCLA.

Not true with regard to the Dal State comparison. The SUNY schools are all major research centers; the Cal State schools are not.

Yes, it is true that NY chose not to designate a flagship and initially divided the research among the 4 campuses, electing to emphasize different types of research at each campus.
06-05-2013 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,111
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #115
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-04-2013 01:17 PM)123az Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 08:39 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(06-03-2013 01:40 PM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  In football, there is no difference between UNC and NCSU in the minds of folks in the state or folks nationally.

In basketball, there is obviously a huge difference in perception nationally. In Carolina, I'd say there are more casual UNC fans than NCSU.

Academically, the schools are night and day.

That's not really true. Academically it is a little harder to get into UNC-CH but not that much harder.

I was under the impression that the OOS acceptance rate at UNC-CH was comparable to the tier just under the Ivy's (something like 10%). I remember being shocked by this, and I removed UNC-CH from my list of schools to apply too. That was just a few years ago.

There is an OOS acceptance rate max. for the University of North Carolina system. It is 18% (give or take) for UNC-CH, NCSU, UNC-P, ASU and on and on. So that isn't a real indication of anything particular to UNC-CH but a reflection of the desire to keep NC citizens as the top priority for our tax funded schools.
06-05-2013 12:44 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CrazyPaco Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,944
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation: 275
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #116
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
(06-05-2013 09:18 AM)mlb Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 03:28 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  Probably not, because if your campaign is now completed, most of that money given for endowment funds has already been added to your reported endowment numbers.

UC's endowment has been at $1B since before the campaign began. I don't think they are reporting anything yet.

No, they aren't holding it back from reporting it into the endowment. That's not how it works. When someone donates an endowed fund, it enters the endowment investing pool so the principal can generate both the amount need to fund the annual disbursement for the actual purpose of the gift (usually 5% or less of the fund's principal) and the amount needed to both replenish the disbursement and offset inflation. The only thing they aren't adding are things held in living wills, annuities, or trusts....things like that where they have to wait for a donor's death, etc, to add to the endowment pool, although they'd report it as a total raised for the campaign. Just going to the fast facts page on your campaign and you can see the bulk is not going to endowed funds like new scholarship. It says are $37 million for new scholarships (likely but not necessarily endowed) or endowed chairs of $45 million. That's not even $90 million total for what are likely two of the biggest endowed fund purposes. Don't get me wrong, that's not unusual.

UC's endowment lost over $27.5 million last year. Most of the changes you see from year-to-year are due to investment returns or losses, not donations. You're not going to see some giant jump next year just because the stated goal of your capital campaign was successfully reached. If there is a big jump, it will likely be to good investment strategies by your fund manager, but economic indicators are up, so likely most schools will see a jump next year.
(This post was last modified: 06-05-2013 01:49 PM by CrazyPaco.)
06-05-2013 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
UConn-SMU Offline
often wrong, never in doubt
*

Posts: 12,961
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 373
I Root For: the AAC
Location: Fuzzy's Taco Shop
Post: #117
RE: Reaction in Ohio to Gee's Comments
Ohio University should change its name to The University of Ohio.

That would tell Ohio State to shove it.
06-08-2013 02:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.