Quote from: Ron Boerger on July 22, 2025, 07:42:55 PMQuote from: IC798891 on July 22, 2025, 04:59:46 PMThe thing I can't quite wrap my head around is, what "going all in" on athletics looks like. Albright's already got a robust athletics program, in terms of what they offer. They're adding men's wrestling (which seems like it makes women's wrestling the obvious next move) and women's stunt. But they've already got 19 teams. They don't have swimming, and from a cursory glance on the web, it doesn't look like they have required existing facilities needed to add it.According to the DoE's Equity in Athletics site, Albright had 1,215 FTE in the last year for which data was available (2023?), of which there were 324 male and 145 female athletes after duplicates were removed - nearly 40% of enrollment are athletes. Lightly endowed schools that get much higher than that don't have much success in the long run.
So, is the plan to just try and attract more athletes to the sports you're struggling to do so already? (The track teams strike me as very small)
And if I'd only *read the freaking article* I would have seen that they gained $13.8M in one-time revenue and nearly $4M in donations, so absent that they would have lost around $8M last year. That would be an improvement over the '23-'24 year when they lost $22.7M and the '22-'23 year when they lost $27.8M, but at the end of '23-'24 they had $155M in liabilities and $224M in assets, liabilities having increased by nearly $50M in that one year. The school listed $53M in endowments at the end of the year, but also $76+M in "lease liabililties", the increase in which accounted for most of the increase in liabilities over the prior year.
Albright dropped swimming a year ago. They were dominant in the MAC on the women's side in the 2000s and on the men's side in the 2010s.
