Any sport being self-supporting is a rarity.

Football itself is only self-supporting or better at about 60 schools, out of more than 250 schools playing FBS or FCS football. So more than half of FBS and more than two-thirds of D-I football programs lose money. Men's basketball is self-supporting at, probably, the top 50 or 60 schools in attendance and nowhere else. Every other men's and women's sport needs school support and earmarked donations, and I'd guess there are only about 10 schools where even one sport is paid for through donations alone.

(07-20-2019 02:49 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Any sport being self-supporting is a rarity.

Football itself is only self-supporting or better at about 60 schools, out of more than 250 schools playing FBS or FCS football. So more than half of FBS and more than two-thirds of D-I football programs lose money. Men's basketball is self-supporting at, probably, the top 50 or 60 schools in attendance and nowhere else. Every other men's and women's sport needs school support and earmarked donations, and I'd guess there are only about 10 schools where even one sport is paid for through donations alone.

And we there is talk about a breakaway upper tier how many programs are usually referenced? 48-60? What you just stated is why. And taxpayers everywhere are paying for the others to do something that the alumni and donors don't support. My question is if that's the case why should the taxpayers get stuck with the tab?

(07-16-2019 10:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-16-2019 08:05 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The fact that they're budget-cutting at a program with Auburn's budget underscores something I said on the CS&CR board the other day: A football program's appetite for more and more money is insatiable, and it's the "Olympic sports" that will continue to get squeezed.

They're making small cuts here and there at Auburn to ensure that football always gets what it wants -- so how much larger will the Olympic sports cuts be at FBS schools where the athletic budget is two-thirds, one half, or one third as much as Auburn''s budget?

You haven't a clue what is going on at Auburn! Leath, the guy who misused the aircraft at Iowa State took over 3 years ago and has spent oodles of money on the president's mansion, wanted more red ink for adding additional faculty and levels of bureaucratic administration, and in the meantime he alienated some donors of the university, and not just those in athletics, with an aloof presence and wanting to be the handler of things the AD or Trustees normally handled. He brought in a new Athletic Director who has done a decent job, but in the process of the transition Leath is the one who gave Malzahn a raise and a 7 year extension over objections by the some of the trustees. Greene the new athletic director was encouraged to cut the athletic budget by 10% to help cover the loss in donations. Most of it until the donations come back in will be covered by delaying the refurbishment of the baseball facility.

The athletic department at Auburn is a separate entity and does not impact the main campus. But the enhancement projects going way over budget sure as hell did.

It seems on this end that Leath has been a disaster, but that Greene has been a bit of a pleasant surprise after years of Jay Jacobs.

To put it into perspective donations to the Greater Auburn Fund (athletics) usually equals or exceeds TV media revenue. Auburn's average attendance (86,462) was only 989 below the capacity of 87,451 last year. It's mostly alienated donors who were withholding gifts until something was done about the president that impacted athletics. It's remodeling and added positions that impacted the school as a whole. Jay Gogue (former president) is now back as an interim. He did great with donors and some major campus projects here were completely funded by donation under his leadership. We're hoping for a better 2019 and 2020. But, the people who were responsible for hiring Leath may well face scrutiny now that he's gone.

Not to sure how long he would take the job, but our old president Dr. Michael Adams is retired and is from Montgomery AL originally. He was very tight with $$'s, if I recall.

(07-17-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The way for an Olympic sport to be secure long term is to cultivate donations earmarked for their sport alone.

Unless an Olympic sport cultivates enough earmarked donations to cover 100% of its costs, there will be no change to the status quo. Money is fungible. Any earmarked contributions will just be offset by reductions in funding from other sources.

Is the swimming coach going to ask contributors to the school's booster club to reduce their contributions (with the resulting impact on their seating status)? Or will they target people who bypass the booster club and just make an unearmarked donation directly to the school's athletic department? Are there a lot of those? Do they account for a large portion of total contributions relative to booster club donations?

(07-20-2019 05:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The way for an Olympic sport to be secure long term is to cultivate donations earmarked for their sport alone.

Unless an Olympic sport cultivates enough earmarked donations to cover 100% of its costs, there will be no change to the status quo. Money is fungible. Any earmarked contributions will just be offset by reductions in funding from other sources.

Is the swimming coach going to ask contributors to the school's booster club to reduce their contributions (with the resulting impact on their seating status)? Or will they target people who bypass the booster club and just make an unearmarked donation directly to the school's athletic department? Are there a lot of those? Do they account for a large portion of total contributions relative to booster club donations?

I'm sure there are different ways to do it. I know of two, in addition to just soliciting earmarked donations:

Set up a corporation or foundation that accepts donations and holds fundraisers exclusively for the benefit of one sport.

Alums with a ton of money can set up endowments that exclusively benefit a single sport. Cal now has one for men's tennis. Stanford has several such endowments, including some that pay the compensation of specific coaches, including their head football coach and their offensive coordinator -- same kind of endowment that pays a professor with an endowed professorship.

(07-20-2019 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The way for an Olympic sport to be secure long term is to cultivate donations earmarked for their sport alone.

Unless an Olympic sport cultivates enough earmarked donations to cover 100% of its costs, there will be no change to the status quo. Money is fungible. Any earmarked contributions will just be offset by reductions in funding from other sources.

Is the swimming coach going to ask contributors to the school's booster club to reduce their contributions (with the resulting impact on their seating status)? Or will they target people who bypass the booster club and just make an unearmarked donation directly to the school's athletic department? Are there a lot of those? Do they account for a large portion of total contributions relative to booster club donations?

I'm sure there are different ways to do it. I know of two, in addition to just soliciting earmarked donations:

Set up a corporation or foundation that accepts donations and holds fundraisers exclusively for the benefit of one sport.

Alums with a ton of money can set up endowments that exclusively benefit a single sport. Cal now has one for men's tennis. Stanford has several such endowments, including some that pay the compensation of specific coaches, including their head football coach and their offensive coordinator -- same kind of endowment that pays a professor with an endowed professorship.

But those endowments still only increase the funding for an Olympic sport if they exceed the current budget for it. Endowing the tennis coach's salary just means the general funds of the athletic department can be used to fund something else (like improvement's to the football players' lounge).

(07-20-2019 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The way for an Olympic sport to be secure long term is to cultivate donations earmarked for their sport alone.

Unless an Olympic sport cultivates enough earmarked donations to cover 100% of its costs, there will be no change to the status quo. Money is fungible. Any earmarked contributions will just be offset by reductions in funding from other sources.

Is the swimming coach going to ask contributors to the school's booster club to reduce their contributions (with the resulting impact on their seating status)? Or will they target people who bypass the booster club and just make an unearmarked donation directly to the school's athletic department? Are there a lot of those? Do they account for a large portion of total contributions relative to booster club donations?

I'm sure there are different ways to do it. I know of two, in addition to just soliciting earmarked donations:

Set up a corporation or foundation that accepts donations and holds fundraisers exclusively for the benefit of one sport.

Alums with a ton of money can set up endowments that exclusively benefit a single sport. Cal now has one for men's tennis. Stanford has several such endowments, including some that pay the compensation of specific coaches, including their head football coach and their offensive coordinator -- same kind of endowment that pays a professor with an endowed professorship.

And I bet they still get better seats! It's all hypocrisy.

(07-20-2019 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The way for an Olympic sport to be secure long term is to cultivate donations earmarked for their sport alone.

Unless an Olympic sport cultivates enough earmarked donations to cover 100% of its costs, there will be no change to the status quo. Money is fungible. Any earmarked contributions will just be offset by reductions in funding from other sources.

Is the swimming coach going to ask contributors to the school's booster club to reduce their contributions (with the resulting impact on their seating status)? Or will they target people who bypass the booster club and just make an unearmarked donation directly to the school's athletic department? Are there a lot of those? Do they account for a large portion of total contributions relative to booster club donations?

I'm sure there are different ways to do it. I know of two, in addition to just soliciting earmarked donations:

Set up a corporation or foundation that accepts donations and holds fundraisers exclusively for the benefit of one sport.

Alums with a ton of money can set up endowments that exclusively benefit a single sport. Cal now has one for men's tennis. Stanford has several such endowments, including some that pay the compensation of specific coaches, including their head football coach and their offensive coordinator -- same kind of endowment that pays a professor with an endowed professorship.

There's nothing wrong with this approach. It could actually help an Olympic program stay afloat in the event of an economic downturn that affects the overall revenue of an AD. It could never make much of a difference with regard to what the specific program takes in though.

It's just that there's an underlying economic reality. These sports don't make money because very few people care about them. Most Olympic sports are poorly attended. That's a national standard and there are obviously exceptions, but you can't drive revenue without demand.

Even the Olympic sports that are relatively popular in certain locales aren't going to be able to charge big bucks for tickets. To a significant degree, the popularity of some of these sports boils down to cheap tickets, an entertaining product, and a convenient outing for a family.

Take Alabama for example, softball is actually very popular here. The program tends to lead the country in attendance. It's a fun atmosphere with a team that's usually very good. Youth softball is very popular in this region so there will always be a ready crop of fans. The issue is this...for the vast majority of the potential fan base, they are not going to shell out the same kind of money as they do for football or reorient their schedules to make sure they're in front of a TV for a softball game. The demand for the product is wildly different.

Actually, the only real problem with your approach on endowments and the like is that you're unlikely to find very many donors that are willing to fund it. Most of the alumni with money would rather spend their dollars on their favorite sport rather than spend it on one that might technically need it more. That's just as true as most alumni would rather spend their money on football tickets than softball tickets.

I am worried when schools (the public ones) go down this road of privatizing their athletic departments. This article on Florida State's impending move raises some of those points on transparency, especially on the financial end.

It gets to a point where you have to take the school at their word that money, taxpayer money, is not going into funding failing athletics. Yeah, people shouldn't trust that.

(07-21-2019 05:17 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 06:29 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(07-20-2019 05:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(07-17-2019 04:06 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The way for an Olympic sport to be secure long term is to cultivate donations earmarked for their sport alone.

Unless an Olympic sport cultivates enough earmarked donations to cover 100% of its costs, there will be no change to the status quo. Money is fungible. Any earmarked contributions will just be offset by reductions in funding from other sources.

Is the swimming coach going to ask contributors to the school's booster club to reduce their contributions (with the resulting impact on their seating status)? Or will they target people who bypass the booster club and just make an unearmarked donation directly to the school's athletic department? Are there a lot of those? Do they account for a large portion of total contributions relative to booster club donations?

I'm sure there are different ways to do it. I know of two, in addition to just soliciting earmarked donations:

Set up a corporation or foundation that accepts donations and holds fundraisers exclusively for the benefit of one sport.

Alums with a ton of money can set up endowments that exclusively benefit a single sport. Cal now has one for men's tennis. Stanford has several such endowments, including some that pay the compensation of specific coaches, including their head football coach and their offensive coordinator -- same kind of endowment that pays a professor with an endowed professorship.

There's nothing wrong with this approach. It could actually help an Olympic program stay afloat in the event of an economic downturn that affects the overall revenue of an AD. It could never make much of a difference with regard to what the specific program takes in though.

It's just that there's an underlying economic reality. These sports don't make money because very few people care about them. Most Olympic sports are poorly attended. That's a national standard and there are obviously exceptions, but you can't drive revenue without demand.

Even the Olympic sports that are relatively popular in certain locales aren't going to be able to charge big bucks for tickets. To a significant degree, the popularity of some of these sports boils down to cheap tickets, an entertaining product, and a convenient outing for a family.

Take Alabama for example, softball is actually very popular here. The program tends to lead the country in attendance. It's a fun atmosphere with a team that's usually very good. Youth softball is very popular in this region so there will always be a ready crop of fans. The issue is this...for the vast majority of the potential fan base, they are not going to shell out the same kind of money as they do for football or reorient their schedules to make sure they're in front of a TV for a softball game. The demand for the product is wildly different.

Actually, the only real problem with your approach on endowments and the like is that you're unlikely to find very many donors that are willing to fund it. Most of the alumni with money would rather spend their dollars on their favorite sport rather than spend it on one that might technically need it more. That's just as true as most alumni would rather spend their money on football tickets than softball tickets.

For sure it has limits, but the idea is to reach out to donors who are interested in, and usually have prior history with, a specific sport. Cal's men's tennis endowment was funded by a former Cal men's tennis player who has been very successful in Silicon Valley. I would assume most other sport-specific donors have similar connections.

JR, I take it you don't want our old president.