D3boards.com

What is it with the national sports media? I understand DIII is pretty much off the radar except for the occassional fun fodder stat or ridiculous play, but do these people understand the NCAA so little that they think teams can just jump divisions the way players can?

In today's BMOC Gene Woj suggests Grambling can no longer afford FCS football and that, "As painful as it might be for the Grambling football purists, perhaps the administration should consider dropping the program to, say, Division III, or dropping the program altogether."

This implies that DIII football has teams with filthy, rotten, uncared for equipment and training rooms, lack of resources, and doesn't involve long bus rides. It also supposes that Grambling could just up and move the football program, ignoring that all other sports have to be in the same division.

It just continues to amaze me that these guys don't understand the things they cover. Maybe he doesn't need to know about DIII, but Gene Woj should certainly understand the rules about how the NCAA is structured.

It is a pretty dumb rule as long as you don't let scholarship basketball players also play football.  That conference is terrible in the FCS and it would make fiscal sense for them to move all sports to D3.  Would be fun to see.

Halfway agree with you.  Actually, about 80% agree with you.

I do think most of the national sports media is pretty ignorant about Division III athletics, unless they had a relative play D3 sports.  Not all - some have given shout-outs to smaller colleges over the years - but most.

I don't think that the suggestion Grambling should drop to Division III implies that D3 football teams have filthy, rotten, uncared for equipment or that D3 athletics is some wasteland.  I think it implies that Grambling is at this point not capable of affording an FCS football program, and that they might be able to better manage the program if they left FCS, and that dropping to D3 might possibly allow them to run the program on a smaller budget.  Note that he didn't give any specifics, he just said they should "consider" dropping the program to Division III. 

Now, with that said: I recognize the other problems with this suggestion, specifically the notion that football teams can change divisions and conferences like they're an NFL free agent and it's just a matter of simply signing up to play in a different league.  There are plenty of other reasons why Grambling moving down doesn't make sense, but it's not totally asinine to suggest the Grambling administration consider such a move.  He didn't say they'd do it this season, or next season.  He said they should consider it.  It would obviously be part of a longer-term reclassification of all their sports programs, which, if the financial situation is as dire as it seems, might be necessary.  I expect that, given time, they would find a home in one of the Southern conferences down yonder, but I'm a Yankee from the North and don't know anything about Louisiana geography :P

Don't get me wrong - the comment is still plenty dumb.  But I don't think it makes the insinuation that most D3 schools have the problems found by Grambling.  I really think all he "meant" (poorly thought, but still) is that they cannot afford to sustain an FCS football program and should explore other options.

I agree Ex. The problem is he is a national sports columnist. He is PAID to have well thought out, well reasoned, attractive arguments about national sports, especially collegiate sports. His whole column, and most of his job, revolves around NCAA sports, primarily football. The way this column was written demonstrates that he lacks significant knowledge about part of his primary focus. Very disturbing. Even more disturbing than the lack of knowledge is the poorly written and reasoned arguments.

If journalists can be hard on players and teams for bad games, we can be hard on columnists for putting out poorly thought out and worded junk...

Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2013, 01:51:16 PM
I agree Ex. The problem is he is a national sports columnist. He is PAID to have well thought out, well reasoned, attractive arguments about national sports, especially collegiate sports. His whole column, and most of his job, revolves around NCAA sports, primarily football. The way this column was written demonstrates that he lacks significant knowledge about part of his primary focus. Very disturbing. Even more disturbing than the lack of knowledge is the poorly written and reasoned arguments.

If journalists can be hard on players and teams for bad games, we can be hard on columnists for putting out poorly thought out and worded junk...

Oh, I full-heartedly agree that we can be hard on columnists for putting out crap, and with the sentiments in your first paragraph - the apparent lack of understanding of the issues in play with dropping to D3.  I say "apparent" because there are two other factors to consider here - his audience and how much any of THEM will care.  The guys & gals who frequent this site are probably, on average, far more educated and thoughtful than the "average" D1 football fan; plenty of D1 fans are "fans" just by the mere happenstance that people who live in State X root for State U and thus consider themselves big-time college football experts (read the comments section of any article on ESPN for evidence of the brain-surgeons at work there).  Most of the ESPN column readers are likely not aware of the intricacies of D3 football and, more importantly, don't really care - so Woj can either spend 1,000 words trying to explain why Grambling dropping to D3 is really complicated, or he can say "Maybe it's time for Grambling to consider dropping the program to a lower division" and be done with it.

That won't appease you, I know, but he's not trying to appease you.  He's trying to keep getting ESPN page views.

All that is true, but dropping to a lower division, any division, doesn't actually solve the problem. Again, this is my point. That argument implies that simply dropping down would make the sport less expensive and therefore they could do a better job of maintaining it. Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect.

In a lower division, Grambling would still have the fixed expense of an outsized stadium and would be unlikely to fill it. That would drop ticket and concession revenue. Scholarship costs might dissipate from the athletic department, but they'd probably be increased in the general student fund, unless you assume that the student athletes you recruit would pay full freight, unlikely at an HBCU. Sadly for Grambling, you still need clean pads, clean facilities and, as far as I've ever seen, Gatorade, even at the DIII level. I guess you could can some coaches, but it seems like they've already done that. La Col, the only DIII football school in LA I'm aware of, takes some pretty long bus trips every year, so you aren't going to get away from that either.

In other words, dropping down isn't just a matter of doing it and the money situation will improve. Again, a fallacy in his argument. You think I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. I'm arguing he is simply wrong. Dropping down doesn't solve the problem and, as a national sports columnist, he should have been able to understand that. And he does impugn DIII simply by associating it with a failing FCS program. Especially to the knuckle draggers and mouth breathing morons that post on those comment boards...

Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2013, 02:17:27 PM
All that is true, but dropping to a lower division, any division, doesn't actually solve the problem. Again, this is my point. That argument implies that simply dropping down would make the sport less expensive and therefore they could do a better job of maintaining it. Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect.

In a lower division, Grambling would still have the fixed expense of an outsized stadium and would be unlikely to fill it. That would drop ticket and concession revenue. Scholarship costs might dissipate from the athletic department, but they'd probably be increased in the general student fund, unless you assume that the student athletes you recruit would pay full freight, unlikely at an HBCU. Sadly for Grambling, you still need clean pads, clean facilities and, as far as I've ever seen, Gatorade, even at the DIII level. I guess you could can some coaches, but it seems like they've already done that. La Col, the only DIII football school in LA I'm aware of, takes some pretty long bus trips every year, so you aren't going to get away from that either.

In other words, dropping down isn't just a matter of doing it and the money situation will improve. Again, a fallacy in his argument. You think I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. I'm arguing he is simply wrong. Dropping down doesn't solve the problem and, as a national sports columnist, he should have been able to understand that. And he does impugn DIII simply by associating it with a failing FCS program. Especially to the knuckle draggers and mouth breathing morons that post on those comment boards...

These are all true - I'm not arguing any of those semantics, we're on the same side here, and I agree with literally every point you make about clean pads and Gatorade (yes, we got Gatorade at CMU; no Muscle Milk, though, we had to buy that ourselves if we wanted it) and why just not having to pay for scholarships doesn't fix the entire financial situation.  I'm simply saying that his job isn't a civic duty to report the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as much as you'd like it to be.  It's to get ESPN readers to keep reading ESPN columns.  The vast majority of ESPN readers, as we note here, don't know anything about D3 football and don't care.  They'd much rather read a two-sentence suggestion that Grambling can't afford big-time football and thus should drop down than a detailed description of why dropping to a smaller level will probably not really solve the problem anyway.

As someone with a degree in journalism, and a brief career as a journalist, I get your argument. But even a columnist, who has more latitude in his/her ability to entertain as opposed to report the facts, is still expected to make a logical and well reasoned argument. In the eyes of anyone who would understand the basic finances of "dropping down", Woj failed at that. He could have had the same "wow" impact by simply saying Grambling needed to drop football, and he would have had an argument that actually worked. In the eyes of his common audience, they probably don't care, but I've never been a big proponent of playing to the lowest common denominator, even when I was a member of the fifth estate.

For all intents and purposes though, we'll have to agree to agree on this one!

Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2013, 02:17:27 PM
All that is true, but dropping to a lower division, any division, doesn't actually solve the problem. Again, this is my point. That argument implies that simply dropping down would make the sport less expensive and therefore they could do a better job of maintaining it. Unfortunately, that assumption is incorrect.

In a lower division, Grambling would still have the fixed expense of an outsized stadium and would be unlikely to fill it. That would drop ticket and concession revenue. Scholarship costs might dissipate from the athletic department, but they'd probably be increased in the general student fund, unless you assume that the student athletes you recruit would pay full freight, unlikely at an HBCU. Sadly for Grambling, you still need clean pads, clean facilities and, as far as I've ever seen, Gatorade, even at the DIII level. I guess you could can some coaches, but it seems like they've already done that. La Col, the only DIII football school in LA I'm aware of, takes some pretty long bus trips every year, so you aren't going to get away from that either.

In other words, dropping down isn't just a matter of doing it and the money situation will improve. Again, a fallacy in his argument. You think I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not. I'm arguing he is simply wrong. Dropping down doesn't solve the problem and, as a national sports columnist, he should have been able to understand that. And he does impugn DIII simply by associating it with a failing FCS program. Especially to the knuckle draggers and mouth breathing morons that post on those comment boards...

I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Quote from: AO on October 22, 2013, 02:49:05 PM
I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Even if you are not paying for the stadium, you have to pay to maintain it. Much more expensive to maintain that facility than a DIII facility. As for the "less expensive", yes and no. If they spent 7M and earned 5M, then they were 2M in the red as opposed to LC's 1.6M in the red. So, 400K is the big difference, correct? How much of that is "fixed" costs? Coaches under contract? Facilities maintenance, etc? You can't just drop those costs. They either have to be weeded out over time, or they have to be paid for upfront. Very expensive. Further, what is the effect on alumni donations going to DIII? How about concessions, or school paraphenalia?

Regardless of whether they switch to a lower division or not, you can't have moldy pads and unclean facilities, so the cost to clean up the program exists whether you move or not. That is also fixed. If you are going to demolish and rebuild DIII appropriate facilties, that is another expense. How about your other sports? Many students are on partial athletic scholarships. That means they pay part of the way. If you drop the partial, what is the effect on your student population? Can you make it up simply by not offering scholarships at all? If so, what about financial aid to all those new students, no longer part of the athletic department but part of the general fund.

You are dramatically oversimplifying the costs simply by pointing to a single budget. That's not how schools work and it doesn't even come close to encompassing how much it would cost Grambling to "drop down". In the long run, you are correct. DIII schools pay less. But a decision like this could spell the end of a university by its spillover effect, especially a university in as precarious a position as Grambling right now.

University of New Orleans did a reasonable case study on this in the years following Hurricane Katrina and, as precarious as their position was, the school decided in the end it was better to remain Division I. How many D1 schools have we seen make a division change down? We've seen lots go up, but not many go down (a few DII schools, St. Michael's and Mississippi College come to mind). Centenary in LA and Birmingham Southern are the ones that comes to mind from DI, but they didn't have football at the D1 level when making the decision. There is a very good reason for this. See the following story for some good examples of colleges desperate to stay in DI and why.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

An interesting article on how it paid off for B-SC
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/stories/2008/12/08/focus3.html?page=all

Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2013, 03:13:24 PM

Quote from: AO on October 22, 2013, 02:49:05 PM
I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Even if you are not paying for the stadium, you have to pay to maintain it. Much more expensive to maintain that facility than a DIII facility. As for the "less expensive", yes and no. If they spent 7M and earned 5M, then they were 2M in the red as opposed to LC's 1.6M in the red. So, 400K is the big difference, correct? How much of that is "fixed" costs? Coaches under contract? Facilities maintenance, etc? You can't just drop those costs. They either have to be weeded out over time, or they have to be paid for upfront. Very expensive. Further, what is the effect on alumni donations going to DIII? How about concessions, or school paraphenalia?

Regardless of whether they switch to a lower division or not, you can't have moldy pads and unclean facilities, so the cost to clean up the program exists whether you move or not. That is also fixed. If you are going to demolish and rebuild DIII appropriate facilties, that is another expense. How about your other sports? Many students are on partial athletic scholarships. That means they pay part of the way. If you drop the partial, what is the effect on your student population? Can you make it up simply by not offering scholarships at all? If so, what about financial aid to all those new students, no longer part of the athletic department but part of the general fund.

You are dramatically oversimplifying the costs simply by pointing to a single budget. That's not how schools work and it doesn't even come close to encompassing how much it would cost Grambling to "drop down". In the long run, you are correct. DIII schools pay less. But a decision like this could spell the end of a university by its spillover effect, especially a university in as precarious a position as Grambling right now.

University of New Orleans did a reasonable case study on this in the years following Hurricane Katrina and, as precarious as their position was, the school decided in the end it was better to remain Division I. How many D1 schools have we seen make a division change down? We've seen lots go up, but not many go down (a few DII schools, St. Michael's and Mississippi College come to mind). There is a very good reason for this. See the following story for some good examples of colleges desperate to stay in DI and why.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

Grambling has a laughable $5 Million endowment.  Alumni donations couldn't get lower.  I have no doubt that Grambling could recruit kids willing to come pay full tuition with the chance to play football.  If I was the AD or President of Grambling, I'd want to stay D1, but if I was a Louisiana taxpayer I'd send them to D3.

Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2013, 01:51:16 PM
I agree Ex. The problem is he is a national sports columnist. He is PAID to have well thought out, well reasoned, attractive arguments about national sports, especially collegiate sports. His whole column, and most of his job, revolves around NCAA sports, SEC   , primarily football. The way this column was written demonstrates that he lacks significant knowledge about part of his primary focus. Very disturbing. Even more disturbing than the lack of knowledge is the poorly written and reasoned arguments.

If journalists can be hard on players and teams for bad games, we can be hard on columnists for putting out poorly thought out and worded junk...

Among the many thing that Gene Woj ignores is the "like minded institutions" criteria that schools at nearly every level consider when figuring out where to align their programs academically.  Grambling is a HBCU with a storied history, and, sadly, like many other HBCUs, has struggled of late.  Grambling can't (and shouldn't) stop being an HBCU.  The SWAC is a storied HBCU conference that has chosen to compete at the DI-FCS level.  Why should Grambling abandon its conference and scheduling of "like minded institutions?"  I certainly hope Grambling, with its storied history, gets its house back in order and gets back on the field.

All too often these poorly written big sports media references to Division III almost read like too many people in Bristol pay too much attention to european soccer league organization.  Division I-FBS is not a "premier league" equivalent any more than FCS, DII, or DIII are equivalent to lower football divisions.  I'm sure that deep down, ESPN's ultimate dream would be to organize an elaborate promotion-relegation system that limited the highest echelon of college football to 15-20 teams that played each other every week (think of the ratings!!). 

Quote from: wabndy on October 22, 2013, 03:50:01 PM
Among the many thing that Gene Woj ignores is the "like minded institutions" criteria that schools at nearly every level consider when figuring out where to align their programs academically.  Grambling is a HBCU with a storied history, and, sadly, like many other HBCUs, has struggled of late.  Grambling can't (and shouldn't) stop being an HBCU.  The SWAC is a storied HBCU conference that has chosen to compete at the DI-FCS level.  Why should Grambling abandon its conference and scheduling of "like minded institutions?"  I certainly hope Grambling, with its storied history, gets its house back in order and gets back on the field.

All too often these poorly written big sports media references to Division III almost read like too many people in Bristol pay too much attention to european soccer league organization.  Division I-FBS is not a "premier league" equivalent any more than FCS, DII, or DIII are equivalent to lower football divisions.  I'm sure that deep down, ESPN's ultimate dream would be to organize an elaborate promotion-relegation system for football that limited the highest echelon of college football to 15-20 teams that played each other every week (think of the ratings!!).

The whole SWAC could move down, and your promotion-relegation idea would be AWESOME.

I love promotion relegation in European sports. It keeps interest at both ends of the table and increases interest in lower levels. However, if I was a franchise owner, I would never, ever agree to go to that system and I'm sad MLS never took that route, as it would have been a way to dramatically differentiate soccer in America from other pro sports. At one time, almost all the teams were owned by Lamar Hunt (I think at one point MLS had 10 teams and 8 were owned by Hunt), and he could have instituted that change. It didn't happen, but it would have been awesome. Of course, MLS is doing pretty well these days without it, so maybe it would have been the wrong choice.

That being said, if we do go to a "super-conference" system in football, I wouldn't mind seeing a promotion/relegation system from "old" DI to a new superconference. That would be awesome. Sadly I think the structure of the superconference system will lock in teams, and it will be near impossible for an up and coming school to break in going forward. We're going to institutionalize the advantages that the historically big schools have...

Quote from: AO on October 22, 2013, 03:32:12 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 22, 2013, 03:13:24 PM

Quote from: AO on October 22, 2013, 02:49:05 PM
I doubt Grambling is still paying for its 30 year old stadium.   It's undeniably less expensive to go D3.  In 2011, Grambling spent $7 Million on athletics versus $1.6 Million for Louisiana College.  Grambling athletics only earned $5 Million through the Bayou Classic and other revenues so $2 Million of their budget was subsidized by the general university fund.  Maybe they're holding onto hope that someday their football program will be profitable enough to pay for a larger share of the athletics budget, but it doesn't look like they're headed in that direction.

Even if you are not paying for the stadium, you have to pay to maintain it. Much more expensive to maintain that facility than a DIII facility. As for the "less expensive", yes and no. If they spent 7M and earned 5M, then they were 2M in the red as opposed to LC's 1.6M in the red. So, 400K is the big difference, correct? How much of that is "fixed" costs? Coaches under contract? Facilities maintenance, etc? You can't just drop those costs. They either have to be weeded out over time, or they have to be paid for upfront. Very expensive. Further, what is the effect on alumni donations going to DIII? How about concessions, or school paraphenalia?

Regardless of whether they switch to a lower division or not, you can't have moldy pads and unclean facilities, so the cost to clean up the program exists whether you move or not. That is also fixed. If you are going to demolish and rebuild DIII appropriate facilties, that is another expense. How about your other sports? Many students are on partial athletic scholarships. That means they pay part of the way. If you drop the partial, what is the effect on your student population? Can you make it up simply by not offering scholarships at all? If so, what about financial aid to all those new students, no longer part of the athletic department but part of the general fund.

You are dramatically oversimplifying the costs simply by pointing to a single budget. That's not how schools work and it doesn't even come close to encompassing how much it would cost Grambling to "drop down". In the long run, you are correct. DIII schools pay less. But a decision like this could spell the end of a university by its spillover effect, especially a university in as precarious a position as Grambling right now.

University of New Orleans did a reasonable case study on this in the years following Hurricane Katrina and, as precarious as their position was, the school decided in the end it was better to remain Division I. How many D1 schools have we seen make a division change down? We've seen lots go up, but not many go down (a few DII schools, St. Michael's and Mississippi College come to mind). There is a very good reason for this. See the following story for some good examples of colleges desperate to stay in DI and why.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-15/small-schools-financial-deficit/54959184/1

Grambling has a laughable $5 Million endowment.  Alumni donations couldn't get lower.  I have no doubt that Grambling could recruit kids willing to come pay full tuition with the chance to play football.  If I was the AD or President of Grambling, I'd want to stay D1, but if I was a Louisiana taxpayer I'd send them to D3.

Gregg Easterbrook (who has his flaws, no doubt) runs an item every so often in TMQ entitled "Rich People, Stop Giving To Harvard!" where he bemoans the super-rich giving big, big donations to schools with endowments in the billions solely for the prestige and invitation to the yearly golf tournament, not considering that the same donation to Grambling or another school with a similarly small endowment would make a much, much bigger impact at the school with a smaller endowment.  A $1 million donation to Harvard is a drop in the bucket in their endowment. while a $1 million donation to Grambling could make a world of difference.

Quote from: ExTartanPlayer on October 22, 2013, 04:11:42 PM
Gregg Easterbrook (who has his flaws, no doubt) runs an item every so often in TMQ entitled "Rich People, Stop Giving To Harvard!" where he bemoans the super-rich giving big, big donations to schools with endowments in the billions solely for the prestige and invitation to the yearly golf tournament, not considering that the same donation to Grambling or another school with a similarly small endowment would make a much, much bigger impact at the school with a smaller endowment.  A $1 million donation to Harvard is a drop in the bucket in their endowment. while a $1 million donation to Grambling could make a world of difference.

I'm not an Easterbrook fan, though his long columns can eat up some time, but I am completely onboard with this feature of his column. W&L's endowment is nowhere near the size of Harvard's, but I think it is ridiculous, especially when combined with the cost of the school. My wife and I have dropped the percentage of our donations that go to W&L versus other charities quite considerably. It's a personal choice, and I still give to my alma mater, but the money being talked about in higher education these days is an absolute joke.

I give a nominal amount to Hobart for the Football training room to buy tape and supplies. Other than that, I assiduously avoid giving Hobart a dime for two reasons: a) my old man already paid cash for my tuition with no financial aid, so they got their money. If they didn't use it well then, they won't use it well now. b) everything the school teaches is completely antithetical to everything I believe. Why donate to support a gaggle of Marxist professors who make more than I do to tell the students that the world is a bad place because of people like me? Those schmendricks can go schtupp their own rumproasts.

But I do love me some Hobart Football, so the Statesmen Athletic Association gets a check every now and then.

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 23, 2013, 12:39:37 AM
I give a nominal amount to Hobart for the Football training room to buy tape and supplies. Other than that, I assiduously avoid giving Hobart a dime for two reasons: a) my old man already paid cash for my tuition with no financial aid, so they got their money. If they didn't use it well then, they won't use it well now. b) everything the school teaches is completely antithetical to everything I believe. Why donate to support a gaggle of Marxist professors who make more than I do to tell the students that the world is a bad place because of people like me? Those schmendricks can go schtupp their own rumproasts.

LOL.

Like you, I also was the beneficiary of parents that "paid the freight" for my tuition and thus would prefer to save money for my future children's tuition as opposed to subsidizing CMU for the moment (basically, making sure I can take care of my own first).  With that said, as you describe yourself, I have dutifully sent $20 to the CMU football program each year, reasoning that I was provided a couple of new CMU Football T-shirts and shorts every year and that at least pays for a kid's clothing for the season.  I may increase that donation as my disposable income increases, but plan to make sure that I can help my children pay for college first (assuming that the world still exists by the time I have children of college age; it could be a photo finish). 

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 23, 2013, 12:39:37 AM
I give a nominal amount to Hobart for the Football training room to buy tape and supplies. Other than that, I assiduously avoid giving Hobart a dime for two reasons: a) my old man already paid cash for my tuition with no financial aid, so they got their money. If they didn't use it well then, they won't use it well now. b) everything the school teaches is completely antithetical to everything I believe. Why donate to support a gaggle of Marxist professors who make more than I do to tell the students that the world is a bad place because of people like me? Those schmendricks can go schtupp their own rumproasts.

But I do love me some Hobart Football, so the Statesmen Athletic Association gets a check every now and then.

:D  +k 

Of course, tuition in no way covers the entire cost of an education, and I believe that it's important to give back philanthropically to what shaped you, but I digress. (Though in CMU's case, they're almost of the RICH PEOPLE, STOP GIVING TO HARVARD size - but they do a lot of research that eats a lot of $$$). Your philanthropic priorities are your own business, but working at a state school with a small endowment (thanks to some lack of planning a while ago - we're changing that mindset now that the new Advancement team is here), I can assure you that every gift helps here. Every. Gift.

In fact, I would gather that those who paid the full freight are also large donors to their institutions as well. That's conjecture, but the large donors are definitely not just those who got tons of aid or scholarships.

The issue with moving the SWAC back to D-3 is that for almost all (ok, let's just say ALL) of the schools they NEED the D-1 revenue for their entire athletics program. That's why their hoops teams are the designated tomato cans on many high major home schedules. That's why they hope against hope that one of their schools pulls an upset in the NCAA men's hoop tourney. There's no way they can move to D-3 and really survive without even more cutbacks to sports, which would decrease enrollment and tuition not just from athletes, but from other students who want a well-rounded college experience with athletics and other items.

This is what is sad about the draconian budget cuts to education (not just higher ed, but all throughout the system) - what makes a well-rounded person is not just a strict focus on classroom learning, but in the rich tapestry of the learning experience. What you learn in music, art and theater programs are just as vital as math or history. Same with athletics.

Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2013, 12:20:13 PM
Of course, tuition in no way covers the entire cost of an education, and I believe that it's important to give back philanthropically to what shaped you, but I digress. (Though in CMU's case, they're almost of the RICH PEOPLE, STOP GIVING TO HARVARD size - but they do a lot of research that eats a lot of $$$). Your philanthropic priorities are your own business, but working at a state school with a small endowment (thanks to some lack of planning a while ago - we're changing that mindset now that the new Advancement team is here), I can assure you that every gift helps here. Every. Gift.

This is true - and I do hope to one day give something back to what shaped me - but I think that (for the time being) my priority has to be getting my financial house in order to provide for my future children.  If not, then they will be applying for need-based aid...while my gifts to CMU have already been spent on someone else's children, so to speak.  I do acknowledge that every gift helps, and that's why I'm at least trying to chuck a few bucks to the CMU football program every year, at least hoping to pay for a kid's new clothing each season.  Or something.  I don't pretend to know exactly how that money is disbursed nor how the University general fund is allocated.

Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2013, 12:20:13 PM
The issue with moving the SWAC back to D-3 is that for almost all (ok, let's just say ALL) of the schools they NEED the D-1 revenue for their entire athletics program. That's why their hoops teams are the designated tomato cans on many high major home schedules. That's why they hope against hope that one of their schools pulls an upset in the NCAA men's hoop tourney. There's no way they can move to D-3 and really survive without even more cutbacks to sports, which would decrease enrollment and tuition not just from athletes, but from other students who want a well-rounded college experience with athletics and other items.

Correct, this is the same argument jknezek is making (and you guys are right) of why "just drop to D3" is not the program-saving panacea that naive reporters think it is.

Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2013, 12:20:13 PM
This is what is sad about the draconian budget cuts to education (not just higher ed, but all throughout the system) - what makes a well-rounded person is not just a strict focus on classroom learning, but in the rich tapestry of the learning experience. What you learn in music, art and theater programs are just as vital as math or history. Same with athletics.

Agreed.  I am quick to credit my athletics experience with developing me into a better and more productive person.  As a brief digression, I work in the field of public health; I am a biostatistician that works on large research studies in medicine.  What makes me "good" at my job, relative to my peers, is my ability to function within a large research team and communicate well with others; those skills were at least partially developed by my athletic experience.  I had several colleagues in graduate school who definitely had superior quantitative skills and can run circles around me when it comes to computer programming, but they're nearly useless in the setting where I thrive because they just don't grasp the bigger research picture and how they fit into it.  They're really good at developing statistical models in a vacuum, but without the personal skills and desire to learn (which can be developed through some of the other things you've mentioned - music, art, theater programs all can serve this same purpose), those skills aren't fully realized.

Despite my childhood obsession with sports, I have often said to family/friends/girlfriends that I really don't care whether my future kids play sports or not, but I would require that they do something stimulating.  Play tennis.  Or join the cross-country team.  Or the marching band.  Lead the school spirit squad.  Or be in the school play.  I don't care.  Just do something that requires some degree of intellectual stimulation and personal interaction.

Donating to a particular program, football, say does not always mean that the program's budget is enhanced.  Schools have to be careful not to let one sport receive all the money.  And because you give "to football" does not mean the football budget increases by that amount.  In some instances (all this is institutionally determined) your money goes to offset, not enhance, a sport's budget--the school simply reduces its own funding to the sport and uses your funds to keep the budget where the institution decides it should be. 
     If I believe that the football team needs new uniforms and I give money for this, it might be that, yes, they get new uniforms--it's time for new uniforms according to the Athleltic Department's rotation of uniforms schedule.  If we want the football team to have new uniforms every year, unless we have real clout, that's probably not going to happen.  And the Department has to be careful about one team getting what other coaches and teams think too much, and think that the school is being unfair or playing favorites.  Morale matters a lot.
     "Booster Clubs"and individuals who give money to enhance a program have to be carefully managed..  That's a topic for a long discussion.
     A large issue internally at many schools is how policies and politics affect athletic funding.  Presidents, Boards, and others usually don't want to give faculty the impression (even if it's not the reality as objectively perceived) that athletics is getting too large a piece of the budgetary pie.   Suffice to say that I have been involved in discussions with faculty about athletic facilities and team budgets.  It was not pretty--ever.  They think that every dollar spent on athletics is a dollar lost on the faculty and academic programs--and not without evidence when a school has finite resources, as most do.  They don't think about the potential benefits to the institution in recruiting students/student-athletes.  I think it's fair to say that some of the most vocal faculty (not all by any means) believe that the less spent/attention on athletics the better because they don't think athletics is "good for" academics.  Again, a topic for another time.  By the way, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush; many small colleges recognize that athletics recruiting is essential to their future--and the faculty are increasingly, slowly being won over to this reality even if they continue to feel that athletics takes too much time and too much of the institution's budget.
     What I've written here is a bare outline with many holes.  The nuances are many and complex.
   
   

Quote from: sigma one on October 23, 2013, 01:50:02 PM
Donating to a particular program, football, say does not always mean that the program's budget is enhanced.  Schools have to be careful not to let one sport receive all the money.  And because you give "to football" does not mean the football budget increases by that amount.  In some instances (all this is institutionally determined) your money goes to offset, not enhance, a sport's budget--the school simply reduces its own funding to the sport and uses your funds to keep the budget where the institution decides it should be. 

Was afraid that this was the case, and figured you'd have some insight here.  I guess, then, I figure it as my token show of support and hope that similar gifts help the administration view football as a sport that "needs less" from them because it gets some alumni gifts.  I did have a hunch that my gift didn't "increase" the football budget, but just meant that the football program would need less from the University general fund.

This is why giving to an endowment helps more - the greater the endowment - the more funds are spun off (based on the rate the institution sets and other parameters).

Alas, most, if not all, D-3 schools don't have athletics endowments I would bet since they don't give athletics scholarships.

Where I work, most current use funds are for scholarships for next season. For whatever reason, they never really established many endowed athletics scholarships or funds here - they needed to spend the money as soon as they got it in. Of course, that leads to a hand-to-mouth existence.

According to a quick google search, an endowment gift of $1 million is needed to fund one full athletics scholarship at USC. (Tuition + room and board, not for the Lane Kiffin 'Go Away Ye Scurvy Dog' Fund). UVa said it needed an endowment of $295 million to fully fund its scholarships - this I found in the Athletics Endowment Campaign literature. Just some food for thought. They give out 316.6 scholarships a year. They also have endowment funds for operations of each sport. Smart.

In the best of all worlds for the HBC's - they'd each have some sugar daddies and mommies get together and start (or add to) the athletics endowment and start endowment funds for scholarships, program upkeep, etc. so that money is there in perpetuity.

The questions, of course:

A. Do they exist? (Probably, yes)
B. Are they inclined to do so? (Another story, major gift philanthropy doesn't just happen overnight - it's at least 12-24 months of work just to get a gift agreement. It's a slow dance.)

And that's where some of the media, but especially fans, don't quite get it. "Just ask your rich alumni" - Well, were it to be so easy. These wealthy folks not only have philanthropic priorities, they are asked by all kinds of organizations for money, time and talent, AND even if you're their alma mater you don't just waltz in and expect the money to flow into your coffers. You need to build relationships and see if their philanthropic intent matches your need.

I'd say that even the most ardent booster can't give 100% of his charitable dollars to his alma mater - and that most ardent booster will not keep increasing their donations year over year after they fulfill a major gift.

Ok, a little too much shop talk for me...

Quote from: smedindy on October 23, 2013, 05:15:45 PM
This is why giving to an endowment helps more - the greater the endowment - the more funds are spun off (based on the rate the institution sets and other parameters).

Alas, most, if not all, D-3 schools don't have athletics endowments I would bet since they don't give athletics scholarships.

Where I work, most current use funds are for scholarships for next season. For whatever reason, they never really established many endowed athletics scholarships or funds here - they needed to spend the money as soon as they got it in. Of course, that leads to a hand-to-mouth existence.

According to a quick google search, an endowment gift of $1 million is needed to fund one full athletics scholarship at USC. (Tuition + room and board, not for the Lane Kiffin 'Go Away Ye Scurvy Dog' Fund). UVa said it needed an endowment of $295 million to fully fund its scholarships - this I found in the Athletics Endowment Campaign literature. Just some food for thought. They give out 316.6 scholarships a year. They also have endowment funds for operations of each sport. Smart.

In the best of all worlds for the HBC's - they'd each have some sugar daddies and mommies get together and start (or add to) the athletics endowment and start endowment funds for scholarships, program upkeep, etc. so that money is there in perpetuity.

The questions, of course:

A. Do they exist? (Probably, yes)
B. Are they inclined to do so? (Another story, major gift philanthropy doesn't just happen overnight - it's at least 12-24 months of work just to get a gift agreement. It's a slow dance.)

And that's where some of the media, but especially fans, don't quite get it. "Just ask your rich alumni" - Well, were it to be so easy. These wealthy folks not only have philanthropic priorities, they are asked by all kinds of organizations for money, time and talent, AND even if you're their alma mater you don't just waltz in and expect the money to flow into your coffers. You need to build relationships and see if their philanthropic intent matches your need.

I'd say that even the most ardent booster can't give 100% of his charitable dollars to his alma mater - and that most ardent booster will not keep increasing their donations year over year after they fulfill a major gift.

Ok, a little too much shop talk for me...

???

I meant their well-heeled supporters - their versions of T. Boone Pickens.

I can't say that all places operate in the way I described earlier.  But generally giving money to the program results in offsetting the money put in the football budget.  I do know of special funding from alums, boosters, etc. for special needs of the program that a college has permitted--equipment of various kinds, for example.  This can happen when a group or individual finds out that the institution is not going to add the equipment or otherwise help the program because the institutional budget won't permit it or it is not a priority when measured v. other needs.  Or in the case of equipment or other help for one sport, it would appear that they were overly favoring that sport.  The institution can then say, well, the team (or the athleltic department) had a legitimate need that we could not accommodate, so we prermit  this as a special case.
     I know of one year when an alumnus had the idea that it would be special to fund the purchase of new uniforms for a significant Monon Bell Game.  The institution allowed that to happen.
     Many schools have special off-budget accounts, money donated or money raised by team activities. I've seen what were obviously student-athletes working a concession stand at football games, and I have asked them if they were working to help their group take a trip, etc.  Yes, Sir.  We are the track team allowed to use the profits to go south over spring break. The college says if we can come up with the money (or most of it) we have permission to travel.   We do this every year.  Or the college is funding the trip on a shoestring and the money will help make the trip better--or in more cases than we often know about the athletes have to come up with part of the money themselves, and not all of them are financially fortunate.  This is, after all, Division III.  We all should ask and after paying for our hot dog and drink tell them to keep the rest of the 10 bucks we've handed them.  Institutions often allow these accounts under strict management by the AD and/or others.
    Lastly, and here I become a mouthpiece of sorts:  even if the money you give doesn't enhance the athletic budget, give anyway according to your means and belief in your alma mater.  You are helping your college, and along the way, the teams as well.   There are many reasons not to give, philosophical  as well as financial.  But you're not going to change your college's faculty's politics or punish your alma mater for what you deem its poor decisions.  Unless you have really big money to give and hold some sway, you're just satisfying yourself without making a difference in the way the college operates.    Plus every dollar you give has some indirect or direct impact on students.     
      Schools want to be able to say that a high percentage of their alums contribute.  This helps when they approach foundations or other groups for help.
      Aren't I idealistic.     
     
     

Although it's not D-III, here's another essay (from a law professor) advocating for HCBU's to drop out of Division I.

http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/10/24/essay-calling-historically-black-colleges-move-division-ii

Quote from: sigma one on October 23, 2013, 10:01:37 PM
I can't say that all places operate in the way I described earlier.  But generally giving money to the program results in offsetting the money put in the football budget.  I do know of special funding from alums, boosters, etc. for special needs of the program that a college has permitted--equipment of various kinds, for example.  This can happen when a group or individual finds out that the institution is not going to add the equipment or otherwise help the program because the institutional budget won't permit it or it is not a priority when measured v. other needs.  Or in the case of equipment or other help for one sport, it would appear that they were overly favoring that sport.  The institution can then say, well, the team (or the athleltic department) had a legitimate need that we could not accommodate, so we prermit  this as a special case.
     I know of one year when an alumnus had the idea that it would be special to fund the purchase of new uniforms for a significant Monon Bell Game.  The institution allowed that to happen.
     Many schools have special off-budget accounts, money donated or money raised by team activities. I've seen what were obviously student-athletes working a concession stand at football games, and I have asked them if they were working to help their group take a trip, etc.  Yes, Sir.  We are the track team allowed to use the profits to go south over spring break. The college says if we can come up with the money (or most of it) we have permission to travel.   We do this every year.  Or the college is funding the trip on a shoestring and the money will help make the trip better--or in more cases than we often know about the athletes have to come up with part of the money themselves, and not all of them are financially fortunate.  This is, after all, Division III.  We all should ask and after paying for our hot dog and drink tell them to keep the rest of the 10 bucks we've handed them.  Institutions often allow these accounts under strict management by the AD and/or others.
    Lastly, and here I become a mouthpiece of sorts:  even if the money you give doesn't enhance the athletic budget, give anyway according to your means and belief in your alma mater.  You are helping your college, and along the way, the teams as well.   There are many reasons not to give, philosophical  as well as financial.  But you're not going to change your college's faculty's politics or punish your alma mater for what you deem its poor decisions.  Unless you have really big money to give and hold some sway, you're just satisfying yourself without making a difference in the way the college operates.    Plus every dollar you give has some indirect or direct impact on students.     
      Schools want to be able to say that a high percentage of their alums contribute.  This helps when they approach foundations or other groups for help.
      Aren't I idealistic.     
     

Wabash has the advantage of not having to adhere to Title IX regulations.  If suspect if Grambling was an all-male institution, their donations would be more easily spent on the Football weight room since they don't have to worry about getting sued if their Volleyball locker room is terrible by comparison.

AO,

That's not the case at all. Check your trite Title IX bashing at the door. I can tell you from experience at Wabash and other institutions it doesn't matter the gender, or even the size of the institution - direct donations to a certain program are usually budget offsetting.

And the case at Grambling is support of the institution as a whole. The whole place needs money, and academics does come before athletics.

Quote from: smedindy on October 24, 2013, 11:08:52 AM
AO,

That's not the case at all. Check your trite Title IX bashing at the door. I can tell you from experience at Wabash and other institutions it doesn't matter the gender, or even the size of the institution - direct donations to a certain program are usually budget offsetting.

And the case at Grambling is support of the institution as a whole. The whole place needs money, and academics does come before athletics.

In what way could you call it a direct donation to a team if it's just "budget offsetting".  If the team's budget didn't go up, your donation clearly went elsewhere.

No. Your money went to the program. Other monies set aside from the program are allocated elsewhere. We in the fundraising world follow donor intent for accepted donations. But the institution's policy is to either offset or enhance the budget. It's still a win for everyone involved.

In the case of Grambling, they don't want gifts to go to specific athletics teams since there are greater needs elsewhere. That's their right.

So we're basically saying the money is fungible. By donating to the football team you decreased the football team's reliance on university funding, but all that did was allow the university to divert the previous football funding elsewhere. Essentially any donation to the football team is the same as a donation to the general fund.

I always hate when charitable institutions behave this way. My wife worked at the Red Cross for years and it was the absolute worst at this. They finally got in trouble for it and now if you specify money for a disaster, on the check, it has to be spent on that disaster. Sadly this causes other problems in that specific "hot button" disasters are over-funded and the Red Cross's general fund has less for day to day smaller disasters. Definition of a no win situation.

Also, you must remember that funds given in this academic year probably won't be spent until next academic year.

Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way. 

Many years ago, in a smiilar discussion about donations, allocations, and budgeting my boss said, son, you've gotta' realize that all money is fungible.  I nodded, and had to look up the meaning of fungible (Division II type:  Wabash guys will understand.  And also not too bright.).  Good to see that phrase again.

Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

Quote from: wabndy on October 24, 2013, 03:20:33 PM
Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way.

You also have purpose-restricted donations. A donor may restrict its donation, only to be used for athletics facilities, etc...Therefore, the school can only use the funds for that specific purpose, if they choose not to use the funds, it lays dormat in Temporary Restricted and can only be released as funds are spent on that specific purpose. All other donations (unrestricted) can be used for the school purpose, be it athletics or something education related.

Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 24, 2013, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: wabndy on October 24, 2013, 03:20:33 PM
Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way.

You also have purpose-restricted donations. A donor may restrict its donation, only to be used for athletics facilities, etc...Therefore, the school can only use the funds for that specific purpose, if they choose not to use the funds, it lays dormat in Temporary Restricted and can only be released as funds are spent on that specific purpose. All other donations (unrestricted) can be used for the school purpose, be it athletics or something education related.

I thought I heard that (using funds meant for athletics, although not expressly restricted to athletics) was a problem at Maryville a few years back.  I would assume that's why a few upset alumni, parents, family, fans, etc. of the football program got together to found the Fighting Scots Gridiron Club. I'm fuzzy on the details of the enter workings between the parties, but something must have been done to PO some donors. At any rate, the Gridiron Club is a fantastic organization with the sole purpose to help elevate the MC football program, but they have inadvertently help other sports programs on campus as well, just by being a bridge between the MC and Maryville/Alcoa/Blount County communities.  If your school doesn't have a gridiron club or some sort of alumni football chapter, I'd encourage you look into starting one up.  Our GC has helped the program tremendously, as evident by this:
http://mcscots.com/sports/fball/2013-14/releases/20131007go9av4
mind you, the club has done all this in a matter of 18 or so months and without a large membership. 

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

Nice rant.  Of course, totally off-topic for smed's point.

Grambling as an institution is in severe danger of going belly-up very soon.  Title IX is the least of their worries.  One thing I think they are grossly underutilizing is their name recognition among older folks.  Their fb team could make millions in guarantees from big-time schools to serve as cannon-fodder; and who knows, they might pull an Appalachian State!

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

It's trite because it was:

A. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is not the venue for Title IX issues.
B. We've heard it all before. There was no new information.

Sounds like someone is prickly...adjust your tin foil, sir. And remember, you can stereotype groups all you want, just be prepared to face the music when people call you out for ill-founded half-baked generalizations.

Quote from: D3MAFAN on October 24, 2013, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: wabndy on October 24, 2013, 03:20:33 PM
Smed,
I think a better way of saying it is that most nonprofits hope to be able to budget based on an expected amount of recurring donations, hopefully with a standard deviation that is time tested.  If I donate $100 for athletics to my school, i'm sure it's going into athletics.  That doesn't mean that my one year one time $100 donation moved the athletic dept budget north by that amount in that year.  It just means that my donation either fell within the standard deviation or that the college more or less expects to get a certain amount of one-off donations from random donors every year.  The college (or any non-profit) then also actively solicits unrestricted donations to fill in the gaps of its normal operating budget.  Allowing donors the privilege of earmarking donations is a tool fundraisers use to increase donor interest.  Any nonprofit who completely ignores those earmarks is, at the very worst, committing fraud or, at best, is deceiving donors who most likely will be very unhappy and cut their donation if its found out.  I don't think any donor can reasonably expect any nonprofit to only establish earmarked donation accounts and forbid "topping up" each account to a budgeted level with unrestricted funds or other revenue sorces.  A non-profit just couldn't reliably prepare a budget that way.  A good development program will build relationships with key donors, educate them about how their money is being spent, and sell them on where the institution's critical needs are. 

That doesn't mean institutions don't take in earmarked donations for areas that is not their most critical need.  If the balance gets too far out of whack, the institution will then either need to 1) approach donors and ask them to rebalance, or 2) redefine earmark category restrictions to give flexibility - at the risk of alienating donors.  The third option is to refuse the donation in hopes the donor will give another way.

You also have purpose-restricted donations. A donor may restrict its donation, only to be used for athletics facilities, etc...Therefore, the school can only use the funds for that specific purpose, if they choose not to use the funds, it lays dormat in Temporary Restricted and can only be released as funds are spent on that specific purpose. All other donations (unrestricted) can be used for the school purpose, be it athletics or something education related.

Yeah, that's the way it should be. Good stewards of money make darn sure the restricted funds are just that (either temporarily or permanently restricted). My gosh, non-profit accounting and FASB / GASB rules are exciting!

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 24, 2013, 11:24:00 PM

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

Nice rant.  Of course, totally off-topic for smed's point.

Grambling as an institution is in severe danger of going belly-up very soon.  Title IX is the least of their worries.  One thing I think they are grossly underutilizing is their name recognition among older folks.  Their fb team could make millions in guarantees from big-time schools to serve as cannon-fodder; and who knows, they might pull an Appalachian State!

I looked at their recent history in playing D-1A schools.

2013 - Louisiana Monroe
2012 - TCU
2011 - Louisiana Monroe
2010 - Louisiana Tech
2009 - Oklahoma State
2008 - Nevada

The rest of their schedule is filled with SWAC teams and / or mainly other HBCU's. This year they did play Lamar (relatively new program), and Lincoln (MO).

It looks like money games aren't foreign to them, but also they tend to keep it close at hand as well if they don't get a money game.

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 11:48:19 AM

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

It's trite because it was:

A. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is not the venue for Title IX issues.
B. We've heard it all before. There was no new information.

Sounds like someone is prickly...adjust your tin foil, sir. And remember, you can stereotype groups all you want, just be prepared to face the music when people call you out for ill-founded half-baked generalizations.

I think you are the prickly one, gelding. A normal man would have let teehee title IX comment slide without worrying about it--especially if irrelevant. You're the one who made it an issue. Now go to living with the red hat ladies and make sure you divide the bill to the penny. Be prepared to get called out when you're a bitch.

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 11:48:19 AM

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

It's trite because it was:

A. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is not the venue for Title IX issues.
B. We've heard it all before. There was no new information.

Sounds like someone is prickly...adjust your tin foil, sir.

I would think you would be at risk of a Title IX lawsuit if the Grambling built a new Football facility and left the girls in the building with the mold, mildew and broken floors.

QuoteIn one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University (LSU). In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes by refusing to fund a trip to a women's volleyball tournament in Hawaii, when earlier in the year, travel for a men's basketball tournament was funded.[25] Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance.

Quote from: Mr. Ypsi on October 24, 2013, 11:24:00 PM

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

Nice rant.  Of course, totally off-topic for smed's point.

Grambling as an institution is in severe danger of going belly-up very soon.  Title IX is the least of their worries.  One thing I think they are grossly underutilizing is their name recognition among older folks.  Their fb team could make millions in guarantees from big-time schools to serve as cannon-fodder; and who knows, they might pull an Appalachian State!

Mrs Ypsi. I knew I could count on the gelding of the UP to chime in. Your blouse has a stain on it. You must have spilled some sauce while dining with your red hat club. I think it's on your skirt, too. Schmendrick.

Motion to close.

Quote from: wabndy on October 25, 2013, 12:18:39 PM
Motion to close.

Second.

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 12:07:52 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 11:48:19 AM

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 24, 2013, 07:41:31 PM
Why is any and all criticism of Title IX automatically labelled "trite bashing"?
Sounds like we have a forbidden topic. One that, in modern America, if you talk about this we can label it "hate speech" and vilify the critic without a substantial argument. Sort of like labeling someone racist, sexist, or homophobic. You call them those names because you can't make a decent argument against the criticism leveled against the protected group.

My family is a direct benefactor of Title IX as my sister was a hell of an athlete and Ithaca added teams while she was there. But I also see failure stories where schools shut down men's programs rather than open new avenues for women. Of course this kind if balanced observation is hate speech because we know that Title IX has been double plus good and only double plus good. Only Goldstein and his evil hidden minions would dare think otherwise.

It's trite because it was:

A. Irrelevant to the topic at hand. This is not the venue for Title IX issues.
B. We've heard it all before. There was no new information.

Sounds like someone is prickly...adjust your tin foil, sir.

I would think you would be at risk of a Title IX lawsuit if the Grambling built a new Football facility and left the girls in the building with the mold, mildew and broken floors.

QuoteIn one specific instance, Title IX was instrumental in a court case involving Louisiana State University (LSU). In 1996, a federal court referenced Title IX in ruling that LSU violated the civil rights of female athletes by refusing to fund a trip to a women's volleyball tournament in Hawaii, when earlier in the year, travel for a men's basketball tournament was funded.[25] Since this ruling, LSU has made changes in its athletic programs to achieve compliance.

Well, there's no way they'd do that, of course. They don't want a new football facility - just some laundry and general maintenance.

I'm sure the other sports have the same complaints.

Quote from: Rt Rev J.H. Hobart on October 25, 2013, 12:37:23 PM

Quote from: wabndy on October 25, 2013, 12:18:39 PM
Motion to close.

Second.

Third. 

I like all you guys.  Don't start fighting. 

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 12:43:14 PM
Well, there's no way they'd do that, of course. They don't want a new football facility - just some laundry and general maintenance.

I'm sure the other sports have the same complaints.

Not all sports are created equally.  This would not get to ESPN if the women's soccer team was the one with the complaints.  Without Title IX, the women's soccer program might be a club team and Grambling might be able to better maintain their buildings.  Obviously Grambling is struggling for a variety of reasons, but with a stressed budget you have to look at the value of all your teams compared to their expenses.

I still think the SWAC could make it in D3.  How long can they stand to be completely uncompetitive in their division?  Are they like the NESCAC and content to only measure themselves against their own conference?

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
Not all sports are created equally.  This would not get to ESPN if the women's soccer team was the one with the complaints.  Without Title IX, the women's soccer program might be a club team and Grambling might be able to better maintain their buildings.  Obviously Grambling is struggling for a variety of reasons, but with a stressed budget you have to look at the value of all your teams compared to their expenses.

I still think the SWAC could make it in D3.  How long can they stand to be completely uncompetitive in their division?  Are they like the NESCAC and content to only measure themselves against their own conference?

Actually yes. The SWAC, like the NESCAC and Ivy League, does not send it's football champion to the FCS playoffs. Many SWAC schools, however, do play the paycheck game annually that helps boost revenues. Grambling seems to do that less frequently. The MEAC, also made up primarily of HBCUs, does send teams to the playoffs.

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 01:20:50 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 12:43:14 PM
Well, there's no way they'd do that, of course. They don't want a new football facility - just some laundry and general maintenance.

I'm sure the other sports have the same complaints.

Not all sports are created equally.  This would not get to ESPN if the women's soccer team was the one with the complaints.  Without Title IX, the women's soccer program might be a club team and Grambling might be able to better maintain their buildings.  Obviously Grambling is struggling for a variety of reasons, but with a stressed budget you have to look at the value of all your teams compared to their expenses.

I still think the SWAC could make it in D3.  How long can they stand to be completely uncompetitive in their division?  Are they like the NESCAC and content to only measure themselves against their own conference?

Oh, they would get to Deadspin and the Big Lead, no doubt. The reason it's a story is not necessarily because it's football. It's GRAMBLING football, home of Eddie Robinson - and Doug Williams. Williams was a big part of the story. For those other blogs, it would be a sports story and there'd be outrage, sure, about a walkout, etc. If, say, a team at Hamline or Whitworth went on strike for similar issues, it'd be a story. It was a big story because it's Grambling.

The Bayou Classic is a game that the SWAC chooses instead of the playoffs. Since it's always November 30, and features two SWAC teams, the league doesn't go to the playoffs lest Grambling or Southern are their representatives. They also have their own league championship in December since 1999, when the SWAC split into divisions.

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2013, 01:43:58 PM

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
Not all sports are created equally.  This would not get to ESPN if the women's soccer team was the one with the complaints.  Without Title IX, the women's soccer program might be a club team and Grambling might be able to better maintain their buildings.  Obviously Grambling is struggling for a variety of reasons, but with a stressed budget you have to look at the value of all your teams compared to their expenses.

I still think the SWAC could make it in D3.  How long can they stand to be completely uncompetitive in their division?  Are they like the NESCAC and content to only measure themselves against their own conference?

Actually yes. The SWAC, like the NESCAC and Ivy League, does not send it's football champion to the FCS playoffs. Many SWAC schools, however, do play the paycheck game annually that helps boost revenues. Grambling seems to do that less frequently. The MEAC, also made up primarily of HBCUs, does send teams to the playoffs.

They're not really un-competitive in D-1AA. In most sports, the SWAC and MEAC are tomato cans during the non-conference season to make money. They play an insane amount of road games. But in football, against D-1AA teams, they're OK.

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 04:42:35 PM

Quote from: jknezek on October 25, 2013, 01:43:58 PM

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 01:20:50 PM
Not all sports are created equally.  This would not get to ESPN if the women's soccer team was the one with the complaints.  Without Title IX, the women's soccer program might be a club team and Grambling might be able to better maintain their buildings.  Obviously Grambling is struggling for a variety of reasons, but with a stressed budget you have to look at the value of all your teams compared to their expenses.

I still think the SWAC could make it in D3.  How long can they stand to be completely uncompetitive in their division?  Are they like the NESCAC and content to only measure themselves against their own conference?

Actually yes. The SWAC, like the NESCAC and Ivy League, does not send it's football champion to the FCS playoffs. Many SWAC schools, however, do play the paycheck game annually that helps boost revenues. Grambling seems to do that less frequently. The MEAC, also made up primarily of HBCUs, does send teams to the playoffs.

They're not really un-competitive in D-1AA. In most sports, the SWAC and MEAC are tomato cans during the non-conference season to make money. They play an insane amount of road games. But in football, against D-1AA teams, they're OK.

Unlike the Ivy League and NESCAC, the SWAC used to allow teams to accept at large bids.  They are 0-19 in the playoffs.  I suppose you can consider them "ok" if you compare them to the non-scholarship leagues.

Is that record relevant? Last playoff appearances:

Alcorn State 1994
Grambling 1989
Jackson State 1997
Miss. Valley St. 1984

I don't think any results in the last decade are really relevant as to the strength of the conference.

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 06:58:09 PM
Is that record relevant? Last playoff appearances:

Alcorn State 1994
Grambling 1989
Jackson State 1997
Miss. Valley St. 1984

I don't think any results in the last decade are really relevant as to the strength of the conference.

They don't have anybody rated in the top 25 and Massey puts their top rated team Jackson St. at #62 out of 127 and ranks the conference only above the non-scholarship Pioneer league.  The playoffs were at 20 teams until expanding to 24 this year; I'd say it's unlikely they would have won any games had they continued to keep playing them.  Deciding not to send teams to the playoffs certainly didn't improve their teams.

It doesn't mean that they don't belong in 1-AA.

Again, they would LOSE a lot of revenue moving to D-3 from the NCAA basketball tournament AND being tomato cans in hoops. If their champ can pull an upset, that's big money for the league.

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 07:40:38 PM
It doesn't mean that they don't belong in 1-AA.

Again, they would LOSE a lot of revenue moving to D-3 from the NCAA basketball tournament AND being tomato cans in hoops. If their champ can pull an upset, that's big money for the league.

ESPN ranked Grambling dead last today in hoops.  351 out of 351.  http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9859613/projections-all-351-division-teams-college-basketball (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9859613/projections-all-351-division-teams-college-basketball). Now that would be an upset!

HBCU's have not found a home in D-3.  Remember Lincoln PA, Stillman, Fisk, Spelman?  Where are they now?

Only Rust is still in D-III.

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 07:55:22 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 07:40:38 PM
It doesn't mean that they don't belong in 1-AA.

Again, they would LOSE a lot of revenue moving to D-3 from the NCAA basketball tournament AND being tomato cans in hoops. If their champ can pull an upset, that's big money for the league.

ESPN ranked Grambling dead last today in hoops.  351 out of 351.  http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9859613/projections-all-351-division-teams-college-basketball (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9859613/projections-all-351-division-teams-college-basketball). Now that would be an upset!

You do know that the conference shares the NCAA money, not the team. So Jackson State or Alcorn State or whoever can upset, and it helps the entire league.

Quote from: smedindy on October 26, 2013, 01:49:32 PM

Quote from: AO on October 25, 2013, 07:55:22 PM

Quote from: smedindy on October 25, 2013, 07:40:38 PM
It doesn't mean that they don't belong in 1-AA.

Again, they would LOSE a lot of revenue moving to D-3 from the NCAA basketball tournament AND being tomato cans in hoops. If their champ can pull an upset, that's big money for the league.

ESPN ranked Grambling dead last today in hoops.  351 out of 351.  http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9859613/projections-all-351-division-teams-college-basketball (http://insider.espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/9859613/projections-all-351-division-teams-college-basketball). Now that would be an upset!

You do know that the conference shares the NCAA money, not the team. So Jackson State or Alcorn State or whoever can upset, and it helps the entire league.

yes, I know.  The SWAC is also terrible in hoops, but upsets do happen.  Let's just agree that moving to D2 would be a dumb idea.