thanks, richard, for setting the record straight. no amount of "fuzzy", rob peter to pay paul math is going to change the fact that the football program is not a priority with students or that it is a drain on the finances of this university.
Harry M. Hays
History Dept.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Rice <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:09:18 -0400
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Bashing
I respond to both Ms. Thomas and Reed Sanderlin:
First, no one has said anything bad about athletics; they can play their
part in a university, but as Reed pointed out, these are not normal times
and academics has suffered and suffered. We are talking about budget and
priorities. If we have to cut course offerings and programs, why should we
not also look at other parts of the university budget? And if we had the
wisdom to replace a costly ineffective program like football with several
other sports, would we not have the same tuition and other benefits? Reed
may be right about hidden benefits, but there are also a lot of hidden
costs, too many to list here.
Let us face reality: UTC is a different place than it was 20-30 years ago.
Over 60% of our students are now women, and they deserve funding in sports
they compete in. For example, our splendid women's basketball team last
year brought us plenty of attention. Maybe if they had a little more money
we would not have lost those outstanding assistant coaches. The Vols and
now the Titans compete for football ticket sales and the attention of our
alumni.
Unless I am mistaken, no one on this campus has refuted the THEC report
cited by Dorie Turner in the Times Free Press a month or more ago, which
stated that only UTC and MTSU had increased (the opposite of a budget cut)
athletics funding last year defying a THEC mandate to reduce state
spending. All other schools cut spending, some substantially.
Even sports writer Mark Wiedmer now admits UTC had no business offering
"it's not the money" Lebo $350,000 a year in 2002. Wiedmer in another
recent column correctly gives Athletic Director Steve Sloan credit for his
strong, persistent efforts to build a football program here. Steve has done
his best, but fans voted with their feet: we built it and they did not
come. It is time to rethink the entire UTC athletics program to give the
most students the best opportunity here for playing and financial support.
Finally, we should give faculty credit for desperately trying to maintain
the quality of UTC even at the expense of their own paychecks. The Library
Committee recommended, the Senate approved, and Provost Friedl put into his
budget $75,000 for the library, the first increase, I believe, in over ten
years, years when athletics thrived with state money and tuition and fees
(yes, current fees too support sports).
Now that works out to only $185.64 for each of the 404 faculty (counting
library and one-year), but coming after a year and a half of no pay
increase, and only a modest 2% (plus a 1% bonus) this year in beginning in
July, and an insurance increase (as much as $800 more a year), that
determination to maintain academic values at UTC is substantial. With
inflation projections now running at 4-5% for the year, once again UTC
faculty will have less to take home. But we value supporting academics,
that is what we are here for.
Call it athletics-bashing if you wish, but it is about deciding if UTC is
going to survive as a respected institution of higher learning. Perhaps the
final budget committee meeting tomorrow will give us some indication of
where we are heading. No admission charge for that sporting event.
Richard
At 01:42 PM 4/28/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>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.
>>
>>
>>
>>--
|
