-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
um programs being cut
- Thread starter argh!
- Start date
I guess what is lost in this a bit, is how 'efficiently' run the athletic department is. Far more efficiently than the rest of the campus obviously, and in my experience its overhead and number of support personnel and positions is smaller than most schools of its size. Wasn't too long ago that it had assistant coaches holding secondary jobs in the department.
The budget cutbacks isn't a reference on the losing money nature of the department, but as I noted earlier is hold back because philosophies have changed. I'll use high school athletics as an example.
30 years ago, almost everything at the high school was funded by the school. I don't know many schools in Montana, Idaho or California that fund their athletic departments fully. As such I have spent much of my time, over the past 15 years as a coach, in a public institution raising money that funds essentially basic elements of the program. There is a principle at play here or at least an ethical question: Are athletics apart of public schools and post secondary schools mission? If your answer is yes, then there is likely a fiduciary requirement by schools to fund them. How much? That is up for debate.
To that end, I am not sure anyone can argue that college or high school athletic programs shouldn't feel the pain. What is different and I think this is the SIGNIFICANT issue, is athletic departments and programs can be privatized or essentially privatized, whereas public education can't. If you can bring in revenue streams that directly fund programs, then you can divest the state support and funnel it elsewhere.
College academic programs aren't asked to generate money in the same way that athletic programs are. They can generate grants and endowments for the university, but they aren't and shouldn't be required to show income for the university. They however should be asked to show solvency, that what we are spending for the right for your program to exist. Are there butts in your seats? If not? you are going to feel the pain, or your program cut.
As a teacher who has felt that pain twice in my career, I wish that colleges in someways were much more beholden to bottom lines. Public schools are, but colleges regardless of type are large entities that are slow to respond to budgetary problems. The UM is in year six of enrollment decline, and its ponderous and sloth like response to remedy its budgetary issues is almost criminal. States, including Montana, are seemingly inclined to allow post secondary schools inefficiently swallow up money, but while they are going to almost in a draconian method excise the fat from primary and secondary schools. Talk about a disconnect.
Apologize for the soap box. This issue sort of gets me right in feelers.
The budget cutbacks isn't a reference on the losing money nature of the department, but as I noted earlier is hold back because philosophies have changed. I'll use high school athletics as an example.
30 years ago, almost everything at the high school was funded by the school. I don't know many schools in Montana, Idaho or California that fund their athletic departments fully. As such I have spent much of my time, over the past 15 years as a coach, in a public institution raising money that funds essentially basic elements of the program. There is a principle at play here or at least an ethical question: Are athletics apart of public schools and post secondary schools mission? If your answer is yes, then there is likely a fiduciary requirement by schools to fund them. How much? That is up for debate.
To that end, I am not sure anyone can argue that college or high school athletic programs shouldn't feel the pain. What is different and I think this is the SIGNIFICANT issue, is athletic departments and programs can be privatized or essentially privatized, whereas public education can't. If you can bring in revenue streams that directly fund programs, then you can divest the state support and funnel it elsewhere.
College academic programs aren't asked to generate money in the same way that athletic programs are. They can generate grants and endowments for the university, but they aren't and shouldn't be required to show income for the university. They however should be asked to show solvency, that what we are spending for the right for your program to exist. Are there butts in your seats? If not? you are going to feel the pain, or your program cut.
As a teacher who has felt that pain twice in my career, I wish that colleges in someways were much more beholden to bottom lines. Public schools are, but colleges regardless of type are large entities that are slow to respond to budgetary problems. The UM is in year six of enrollment decline, and its ponderous and sloth like response to remedy its budgetary issues is almost criminal. States, including Montana, are seemingly inclined to allow post secondary schools inefficiently swallow up money, but while they are going to almost in a draconian method excise the fat from primary and secondary schools. Talk about a disconnect.
Apologize for the soap box. This issue sort of gets me right in feelers.
grizpsych said:
Looking at those numbers it points to mainly one thing. "Poor Management" of the sports programs. Unless you are the US Government, you can't keep operating in the Red. Is this a continuing issue? I mean, has this been a problem over the last few years or for a long time? I know women's softball only came about four years ago and there are probably a lot of startup cost involved.
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
IdaGriz01 said:
Good luck with that since a truckload of moola went to building, updating and adding on the Softball Complex.
srgrizizen
Well-known member
PlayerRep said:
To put this dismal fact into context, the percentage covered has indeed shrunk, but the absolute dollars have also increased substantially. Cost inflation has been much, much greater in higher education than in almost any other aspect of the economy.
That said, I personally would favor much higher taxes in order to make college affordable for anyone capable of benefiting from it. The problem is, there is one political party who thinks education is an individual rather than a societal benefit and that low taxes are the be all and end all of good government, regardless of unmet needs.
IdaGriz01
Well-known member
Fair enough, if the cost of all that upgrading was the main reason for the big deficit. So there's your "hard look" -- if it was a one-time thing and costs drop back to something not so bad, then no problem. Soccer (a half-million dollar loss) would be next in line for a hard look. Did they incur special expenses during the year? If not, why were they so expensive ... soccer should be a relatively cheap sport. Of course, women's BBall also lost a half million, but they've been through a rough patch (in terms of W-L) which can hopefully improve.MissoulaMarinerFan said:
MissoulaMarinerFan
Well-known member
I'm not saying don't give a hard look - all I'm saying is that cutting Softball would be bananas since it has just barely been established and has had quite a bit of money sunk into it.IdaGriz01 said:
It's even worse. I neglected to mention that the "Institutional Support" provided to the AD is predominantly scholarships which the University credits itself at total cost, including out-of-state, when in fact they are of course incremental.AZGrizFan said:kemajic said:
Good god, I knew it was bad, but had no idea it was THAT bad. Perhaps if I lived closer and wasn’t too far removed to understand...
kemajic said:It's even worse. I neglected to mention that the "Institutional Support" provided to the AD is predominantly scholarships which the University credits itself at total cost, including out-of-state, when in fact they are of course incremental.AZGrizFan said:kemajic said:
Good god, I knew it was bad, but had no idea it was THAT bad. Perhaps if I lived closer and wasn’t too far removed to understand...
Any chance these "contracts", for lack of a better term, are changed with new leadership? It seems we are paying for the sins of our fathers here.
You can thank the government funded and guaranteed student loan program (and more recent 2010 Federal Direct Student Loan program) for the bolded part. College cost escalation happened right in line with the ability of universities to get their snout in the government trough WRT a giant pile of easily available money.srgrizizen said:
So no, it's not about raising everyones taxes more. It's about understanding cause and effect (and unintended consequence) of OTHER government programs with ostensibly good intentions.
HelenaHandBasket
Well-known member
AZGrizFan said:
For one, they don't carry men's golf. Second, there is a minimum number of sports required by the NCAA, and third, there are specific sports mandated by the BSC to be a full member in addition the the Title IX requirements.
