Well done, Reed. Well said.
I am tired of the Athletics bashing.
No one ever seems to acknowledge how much of Athletics funding
goes BACK into the University - towards tuition fees, housing, bookstore,
food services and more. We continue to pay these fees each year (which
increase in cost each year due to inflation) for the same number of
athletes. Yet, each year our budget is cut and we have less to
operate with.
Cheri Thomas
UTC Athletics
>X-Auth-No:
>X-Sender: [log in to unmask] (Unverified)
>Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:48:20 -0400
>Reply-To: Reed-Sanderlin <[log in to unmask]>
>Sender: UTC Staff E-Mail List <[log in to unmask]>
>From: Reed-Sanderlin <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Generation of revenues by Athletics
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Sorry for length of this but thought some might be interested.
>
>Generation of revenues for UTC by
>Athletics and Men's Golf Program:
>
>As both a faculty member (since 1969 --now under a post-retirement
>contract) and golf
>coach (since 1977) -- I have had the somewhat unique experience of
>being on both sides
>of what has now turned into a very divisive battle between academics
>and athletics. Part
>of the rancor from the academic side stems from our having for years
>been underfunded,
>with at times no annual raises at all, sometimes a 2% raise that was
>actually not given
>until January, and at the best of times perhaps a 3% raise. And the
>extreme cutbacks for the last two years have meant positions have
>been eliminated; research, travel, and equipment funds have been
>severely reduced or dropped completely; and programs have been
>threatened and some eyed for serious reduction or possible
>elimination. Given these
>realities it is understandable why faculty desire to examine
>non-academic budgets,
>especially since there is widespread belief among faculty that
>non-academic programs
>are really non-essential, or really are at best a drain of resources
>that should be allocated
>to the support of teaching, research, equipment, travel for faculty,
>etc. (By the way,
>the Athletic Dept. budget has been cut by over 19% during the last two years.)
>
>Unfortunately budget information, especially allocation and
>expenditure reports, do not
>adequately tell the story or show where and how monies are
>generated. This is
>particularly true for athletics, where bottom line numbers are
>frequently misleading.
>
>Here are some basic numbers to begin with:
> Tuition/fees Instate:
> $3,852
>(apart from board Out-of-state: $11,504
>room, books, etc) State monies
> per FTE $5,135
>
>
>Now, let me offer an example of how budget numbers can be misleading.
>This past year the Athletic Dept. was provided monies for athletic
>grants-in-aid that amounted to approximately $2.1 million. Thus, the
>Athletic Dept. budget shows an expenditure of $2.1 million for
>grants. But that figure is misleading because most of that money went
>back to UTC itself as tuition/fees. Though it is difficult to
>separate out precise numbers for tuition/fee amounts as distinct from
>room/board/book amounts, it is a pretty good estimate that close to
>2/3's of the grant monies went directly back to the institution to
>cover tuition/fees. In effect, approximately $1.4 million was a
>pass-through budget figure, with the monies going back into the
>general budget of the institution. In addition, there are restricted
>gifts, endowment income, and other monies earmarked for athletic
>scholarships that help cover the cost of the $2.1 million that the
>Athletic Department is charged by UTC.
>
>Moreover, last year UTC received from the state $5135.00 for each FTE at UTC.
>The total number of athletes (these numbers from the NCAA compliance
>report for
>this year) is as follows:
>
> Men: Football 103
> $528,905
> Other
>106 544,310
> Women: 132 677,820
>
>Total state monies allocated to UTC for FTE headcount of athletes:
>$1,751,035
>
>The assumption here is that most, if not all, of these athletes would
>not be attending
>UTC without our having the particular sport they are participating in.
>
>Football issue:
>
>Eliminating football would thus reduce the state's appropriation to
>UTC automatically by $528,905. Eliminating football grants-in-aid
>would certainly show a significant Athletic Department reduction, but
>approximately $600,000 of this reduction would not be an actual
>increase in income or savings for the institution since that is
>approximately the amount that UTC is already getting and is paying
>back to itself through the football tuition/fee portion of the
>grant-in-aid budget. (The "real" dollars are the monies used to pay
>salaries, travel expenses, medical costs, equipment costs, room and
>board, etc.)
>
>There are also additional monies the department is charged that go
>right back to the
>institution. For example, Plus-one funds (used to help pay tuition
>for athletes who have used up their eligibility time as a means of
>helping them finish their degree) and summer school funds are
>additional costs charged against the department. Last year a
>$200,000 donation helped cover these costs.
>
>I do not have enough information to analyze all the sports UTC
>sponsors, but let me provide a run-down of the Men's Golf Budget.
>The figures show that we actually
>made money for the institution, and probably have been doing so for
>years. Here
>are some interesting numbers:
>
>
>
> 2003-04
> Income: NCAA payments to
> UTC for each sport:
> Golf share: $6,450
>
> Tuition/fee
> charges by UTC that
> were paid by golfers $17,926
> themselves
>
> Endowment income $42,808
> for golf scholarships
>
> State appropriated $51,350
> FTE mones (10)
> @ $5135 per
>
> Total income for UTC: $118,534
>
>
> 2003-04
> Budget: Coach's salary/benefits $25,236
> Operating (travel, equipment
> supplies, recruiting, etc.) 11,919
> Grants-in-aid 46,855
>
> Total golf budget: $84,010
>
> Total income: $118,534
> Total expenses paid 84,010
> by UTC
> Net income for UTC $ 35,524
> Tuition/fee payback
>43,550
> from golf to UTC
>
> Total net income/
> Payback income $ 79,074
>
>
>Of this last grant-in-aid figure of $46,855 at least $43,550 was paid
>back to UTC as
>tuiton/fees (UTC paying itself), which meant that the endowment
>income of $42,808
>and the $17,926 paid by the golfers themselves was all gravy.
>
>What doesn't show up here is that there is obviously no way to run a
>Division I program on $11,919 a year. (In fact, most SEC and ACC
>schools have golf operating budgets
>of over $150,000 a year, and some have unlimited budgets that can run
>as high as $250,000, depending on recruiting. Even Belmont has an
>operating budget of over
>$50,000.) The actual operating expenditures for golf this year will
>be over $30,000, (which would show up in a final budget report), but
>the difference in the budgeted amount and the actual expenditure was
>made up from doing a fundraiser, donations, special gifts, restricted
>accounts, etc.
>
>This rather lengthy document doesn't settle anything, and probably
>won't change any
>minds one way or another. But I would advise those making arguments
>and attacking non-academic budgets across campus to make sure they
>become informed about the
>hidden and subtle matters related to incomes and expenditures. One
>place to start would be one's own department. Get all costs,
>including all salaries, operating expenses, etc. and then divide
>total costs by number of credit hours generated each year in each
>department.
>That will let you know just how expensive the offerings are for each
>department and programon the academic side. Then do a comparison
>across all academic programs and
>see who's subsidizing who.
>
>
>
>--
|
