Bravo, Reed! Finally, someone with informed banter for Raven.
>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.
>
>
>
>--
Don Harris
Chattanooga Women's SID
(423) 425-4618
www.GoMocs.com
|
