OT: UConn Athletics Program Gets Big Mention in ESPN Article About Spending

[Charliebball]

Per Raul:

UConn part of story starts about half way through article

OTL: Power 5 schools made $6 billion last year

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

If you pull up the database, for 2015 UConn had the largest loss (before subsidy from student fees, state and other university sources) for any of the schools reported (private school data was not available).

Another take-away from looking at the table for 2015 (last year available) was that being in a P5 conference didn't mean you made money. Rutgers, of course, lost money, but surprisingly, Arizona did - big time (this is all before subsidies). In 2015 financial year football made the Fiesta Bowl, basketball was one of the top teams, most sports had successful seasons (not all, of course), but I remember Volleyball hosting the first 2 rounds of the NCAA's, etc. So in a good year, in a P5 conference, the athletic department was dependent on subsidies.

Very detailed information in the data-base and I wish some numbers geek would look in more detail at some of the figures. You can pull up one school from 2008-2015 or pull up any year entire.

 

[bags27]

And, just to remind folks (the thread is around 8 months ago, I think) that research suggests--counter-intuitively--that a winning sports program has no significant positive effect on alumni donations. I know that's hard to believe, but development people (now known as "advancement" people) have been saying the same thing for decades. Great tailgating parties and cocktail parties hosted by college presidents at bowl games don't produce significantly higher donations. Athletic bottom lines are pretty much just that: there is no great knock-on effect from a successful or unsuccessful athletic program.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

And, just to remind folks (the thread is around 8 months ago, I think) that research suggests--counter-intuitively--that a winning sports program has no significant positive effect on alumni donations. I know that's hard to believe, but development people (now known as "advancement" people) have been saying the same thing for decades. Great tailgating parties and cocktail parties hosted by college presidents at bowl games don't produce significantly higher donations. Athletic bottom lines are pretty much just that: there is no great knock-on effect from a successful or unsuccessful athletic program.

This particular article argued that having a successful athletic program does not necessarily "market" a university as much as some may think. Not that it doesn't or can't, it just isn't a given.

The same applies to your point. Rutgers developing a (relatively) successful football program from the ashes some years ago almost certainly increased athletic donations. But once you get a "hit" I think it might be difficult to replicate. Success in the B1G, whenever that happens, probably won't materially increase gifts.

Two factors that I don't think universities are good at realizing - funds for most donors are not unlimited, and it is perfectly ok to challenge for an increase, but to expect a huge increase every year is just unrealistic. I remember RU suggesting I more than double my gift one time, I was shocked. I increase my gift (now, to Arizona, with a set amount to RU WBB) slightly each year, as I am able. Substantially, no way. The 2nd factor is that I can give to athletics or academics, but the total amount isn't going to change. I currently give to athletics, although I would consider academics at my alma mater, Rutgers. At Arizona, I'll likely only give to athletics.

 

[BroadwayVa]

And, just to remind folks (the thread is around 8 months ago, I think) that research suggests--counter-intuitively--that a winning sports program has no significant positive effect on alumni donations. I know that's hard to believe, but development people (now known as "advancement" people) have been saying the same thing for decades. Great tailgating parties and cocktail parties hosted by college presidents at bowl games don't produce significantly higher donations. Athletic bottom lines are pretty much just that: there is no great knock-on effect from a successful or unsuccessful athletic program.

President parties may not bring in more donations --but they are a lot more fun than writing a check..

 

[BroadwayVa]

This particular article argued that having a successful athletic program does not necessarily "market" a university as much as some may think. Not that it doesn't or can't, it just isn't a given.

The same applies to your point. Rutgers developing a (relatively) successful football program from the ashes some years ago almost certainly increased athletic donations. But once you get a "hit" I think it might be difficult to replicate. Success in the B1G, whenever that happens, probably won't materially increase gifts.

Two factors that I don't think universities are good at realizing - funds for most donors are not unlimited, and it is perfectly ok to challenge for an increase, but to expect a huge increase every year is just unrealistic. I remember RU suggesting I more than double my gift one time, I was shocked. I increase my gift (now, to Arizona, with a set amount to RU WBB) slightly each year, as I am able. Substantially, no way. The 2nd factor is that I can give to athletics or academics, but the total amount isn't going to change. I currently give to athletics, although I would consider academics at my alma mater, Rutgers. At Arizona, I'll likely only give to athletics.

Knight--2 comments:

The world of donations for any group, university or hospital is of the mind--that if you gave you will give more. Also if you gave for a disaster--if a disaster happens anywhere you shall be tapped again and bigger.

I am shocked that Colleges do not know that Donor pockets are not bottomless--Unlike our local/state/fed governments --all have long arms and will tickle your toes while in your pockets--and they spend accordingly.

 

[bags27]

I am shocked that Colleges do not know that Donor pockets are not bottomless--Unlike our local/state/fed governments --all have long arms and will tickle your toes while in your pockets--and they spend accordingly.

University advancement offices (used to be called development) are pretty sophisticated: lots of research into the psychology of giving, etc. And no major school starts a "campaign" without bringing in top pros to assess maximum goals and strategies; it's a very big business and they have a very good idea how much they can get. But of course, you are correct that universities spend to their limits and then some (all except the likes of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore which have more money than they know what do with).

 

[BroadwayVa]

University advancement offices (used to be called development) are pretty sophisticated: lots of research into the psychology of giving, etc. And no major school starts a "campaign" without bringing in top pros to assess maximum goals and strategies; it's a very big business and they have a very good idea how much they can get. But of course, you are correct that universities spend to their limits and then some (all except the likes of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore which have more money than they know what do with).

Bags--good info!!!
Harvard, one of my daughters went there, while there they published that over 50 percent were on some financial aid. There is a bit of misleading view there but I'll discuss that later in this. The fact is that Harvard extends it's hands to obtain as many "disadvantaged" students as they can-
On the second bit--Many of those of REAL wealth --their wealth is not directly from "income" and not easily defined so their kids get "student aid". It gives a moral feeling of improper --but I am a believer in that if it is not illegal and offered and it does not destroy your ethics--I can't damn it.
Another daughter attended MIT at the same time--and they offered academic assistance such that it was very difficult to fail (if accepted you usually have the IQ to make it to the end).

 

[bags27]

Bags--good info!!!
Harvard, one of my daughters went there, while there they published that over 50 percent were on some financial aid. There is a bit of misleading view there but I'll discuss that later in this. The fact is that Harvard extends it's hands to obtain as many "disadvantaged" students as they can-
On the second bit--Many of those of REAL wealth --their wealth is not directly from "income" and not easily defined so their kids get "student aid". It gives a moral feeling of improper --but I am a believer in that if it is not illegal and offered and it does not destroy your ethics--I can't damn it.
Another daughter attended MIT at the same time--and they offered academic assistance such that it was very difficult to fail (if accepted you usually have the IQ to make it to the end).

Pretty impressive children, BroadwayVa!

You put your finger on one of the scandals of financial aid. Often the money is with the grandparents, who don't pass it to their children until their grandchildren are out of college, so that their kids don't look wealthy. Nothing universities can do about this of course. Everything is both well-intended and corrupt simultaneously in the college funding business (Emerson attacked his alma mater, Harvard, in his The American Scholar address for this very reason--in 1837!!).

 

[BroadwayVa]

Pretty impressive children, BroadwayVa!

You put your finger on one of the scandals of financial aid. Often the money is with the grandparents, who don't pass it to their children until their grandchildren are out of college, so that their kids don't look wealthy. Nothing universities can do about this of course. Everything is both well-intended and corrupt simultaneously in the college funding business (Emerson attacked his alma mater, Harvard, in his The American Scholar address for this very reason--in 1837!!).

Thanks --my intelligent wife , who taught me enough math to get into college, deserves any credit--I just take the bows.