RE: Introduction to New Interim AD Martin
Having slept on it, and realizing that Martin couldn't cover everything in 30 minutes, here are a few points where I'd like to see more elaboration:
- Under "Levers to Address the Structural Deficit," it was stated that "unrestricted private funds" were totally off the table, because they all have been "designated for other mission essential needs" (slide version) or "mission critical priorities" (spoken version). These "designations" were not made by divine decree; they're just a decision somebody made. Having been involved in the sausage-making that goes on when funds are divvied up among competing constituencies, I think a closer look here could identify some opportunities. In any university, things get funded that aren't "mission critical" unless your definition of that is awfully broad. Saying "just forget about it" from the start isn't exactly creative thinking. (Realizing, of course, that some on the academic side could argue that intercollegiate athletics is not "mission critical" either).
- The statement was made that "roughly half" of our teams' budgets are "below the median" in the CAA. This is another way of saying "a little more than half are at or above the median." (If "more than half" were below, they would have said that, not "roughly"). But in any case, it's a meaningless statistic standing alone. How tightly are the figures clustered? And to what extent are we comparing apples to oranges, since these are different universities spread across a broad geographic area in which costs vary.
- The discussion of "resources per student athlete" has a similar apples-to-oranges problem, exacerbated by the fact that the schools offer different menus of sports. What, to pick an example, are Delaware's above-the-median athletes getting for $51,641 each that our athletes aren't getting for $45,791 each? Is it something important enough to justify cutting 118 athletes from $45,791 to zero?
- Even assuming that some sports may need to be cut, how were these particular seven sports chosen? I can think of some others (no, I'm not talking football or basketball) with a long record of mediocrity.
- Since it appears that significant efforts to raise money to save the seven sports were not made before the cuts were announced, what efforts will be made now, over what time period, with what assistance provided to the teams, and how will the benchmarks for success be determined? (e.g., a team will need to have an endowment sufficient to cover X% of its actual [not inflated] annual costs and show the consistent ability to raise an additional Y% in annual giving toward operations, with the remaining Z% coming from the athletic department). Will these same benchmarks be applied to all teams? Or even to other "non-revenue" teams? If not, why not?
- It was stated that Tribe Club giving in FY20 was less than half the budgeted amount ($2.58 million vs. $5.43 million). What factors do you believe caused this imbalance, and how long do you expect those factors to persist?
Just some thoughts.
(This post was last modified: 10-09-2020 08:44 AM by Blow Gym rat.)
|