Brian, while I agree we need more endowments, keep in mind that schools tend to spend what they bring in. Many schools that generate a significant portion of their revenues from endowments are hurting worse than us right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Brian, while I agree we need more endowments, keep in mind that schools tend to spend what they bring in. Many schools that generate a significant portion of their revenues from endowments are hurting worse than us right now.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
I heard that the board of regents was cutting "low completion rate" programs. They specifically mentioned an Anthropology program and Northwestern and something like Horticulture at Southeastern.
It is true that everyone is hurting right now. But many of these had more cushion as they had achieved more when the economy was stronger. My concern is that because Tech had achieved its status by a very thin margin because of our almost exclusive reliance on state funds, we stand to lose a great deal of stature.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
The bottom line is that most successful enterprises of any kind cultivate multiple streams of revenue. For whatever reason, our administration has chosen not to maximize our endowments, a proven formula at other state institutions who have achieved stature. This is particularly puzzling in light of the emphasis on becoming an institution know for research. I cannot find a single example of a state university that is known for research that has such a small endowment:student ratio.
In sum, we'd be making cutbacks even if our endowments were in a respectable range. But we'd be less likely to be at risk of falling behind in key metrics. This tendency to do the least necessary to get by is going to continue to haunt us.
Ultimately, though, this is just an opportunity for me to continue to advance my agenda. :icon_wink: I failed to exploit information I had last year when the state Board of Regents awarded funding for doctoral fellowships and Tulane received nearly three times as much funding as Louisiana Tech. It doesn't get any clearer than that: The state is not interested in Tech's growth.
They cut Philosophy at ULL already.
http://www.rustonleader.com/news.php?id=5200
This was in Thursday's paper. I think the last link posted was from the RDL on the 22nd. Hope I'm not doubling up.
New Orleans Saints, Gov. Jindal to announce new deal
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/2...TES02/90430001"The Jindal administration wants to use $85 million of a state surplus as well as pay up to $6 million a year to keep the Saints football team in Louisiana, lawmakers said Wednesday.I'm confused, state force budget cuts of higher education but will spend $85 mil of surplus for the New Orleans Saints?
...Leger said the $85 million would be used for infrastructure improvements."
At least they avoided the $8 million to the Hornets.
Points out the misguided priorities that simply has to change. Athletics, esp. the non-revenues, should be the first cut, and never brought back. Universities can support minor sports as club sports, with minimal financial obligations. You want to play tennis or soccer or....then join the club, pay your dues, have your own fund raisers, and have fun! Again, as an overall service to the students and to enhance the college experience, athletics are great. But, we did just fine in club soccer, got to play, represented Louisiana Tech very well, thankyaverymuch, and at practically no cost to the university (taxpayers). Coach Maxie Lambright did give us $100 to help pay for hotal expense when we went to Florida for a tourney. We beat Florida State in that tourney too!
Universities have become dinosaurs. There was a time when the current complete mission made sense, but not any longer. On-line schools, like the Univ of Phoenix, are taking market share from traditional universities because they offer no nonsense, quality education. That is the primary function of a university...ain't it?
I don't get it either. If they really have that much of an economic impact, you would think they'd also be able to make a little money. Especially in the NFL, when they also benefit from revenue sharing from the bigger-market programs.
There is something to your argument, except that as I understand it, if we cut very many of our non-revenue sports, we would no longer be able to maintain DI status (not even FCS, I think). At DII, even our revenue sports would no longer produce revenue to speak of.
With the earning potential in DI FBS, I think good management could make college athletics self-supporting, or at least dramatically reduce direct institutional support. The marketing advantages decent sports (in our market, football is the only one that really matters, though) give a school are invaluable. If we were in a city, we could be a pure commuter school and be able to afford to drop athletics or drop down to DII. Out here in the country, though, athletics are very important to keeping our name in the minds of prospective students.
Can you name a single rural state university that has enrollment as great as or greater than Tech, with a comparable or better reputation, who competes at the DII level?
Athletics can be a huge drain on a university, or it can be a huge boon. The bottom line is that you have to understand your market, maximize your impact in that market, and have effective management. And you can't get caught up in the "keeping up with the Joneses" game that causes so many other schools to lose so much money on the enterprise.
I cannot and will not attempt to argue your points.....based as they are in the current framework. But, I am not merely advocating minor changes and that Tech, or schools in Louisiana, do this unilaterally. Rather I mean that ALL universties, in every state, at every current competitive level, undergo radical changes to their missions. Under those parameters, Tech nor any particular university, would be placed at some competitive disadvantage. Not if everyone is doing it.
Besides, as an aside. Universities like MIT, Harvard, the Univ of Chicago, and many others that you hear little about, are woeful in football...but awesome, where it counts the most!
Check out their endowments, though. Tulane sucks ass in football, but has over $1 billion in endowments.
I like the Ga Tech model: Do it ALL well! Big money in athletics (and that helps with branding, providing an additional revenue stream), exceptional academics, owning their metro market, and major endowments. :icon_wink:
I agree that it would be nice to return to a more club-sport type of deal. But with college sports generating so much cash for corporate entities like ESPN and CBS (not to mention Nike and other apparel sellers), this thing has taken on a life of its own. The task, then, is to find a way to make the system work for our school.
And if even one or two universities refused to play along with a complete overhaul, then that would kill the attempt, because nobody would want just those schools to profit.
Now, if all revenues went through the NCAA and were distributed back to universities equally, then you could help universities focus on their academic mission. But as it stands now, if you are not in the Ivy League, most students are going to judge you by the prestige of your athletics. I bet less than 10% of HS kids in Louisiana could tell you what tier LSU is on in the US News rankings, or how big their endowments are. But 90% could tell you that they won the B(c)$ football title a couple of times lately. Similarly, they couldn't name LSU's chancellor, but they could name the football coach. And college athletics has become the biggest tool universities use to attract these HS kids to their campuses for schooling.
You are right, though, the system sucks. Hell, I'd like to see us all living on communes such that everyone contributes according to their abilities and receives according to their needs. But that is not the system I live in, so I have to do the best I can to make this system work for me. :icon_wink:
Marxist.
It'll be interesting to see what UNO actually does.
http://www.wwl.com/pages/4224745.php?
I, personally, don't see where they'd lose a whole lot with that move. Their athletic programs really don't have much name recognition, so it's hard to argue that they get much marketing value from it. They are located in a major city (a struggling city, but a city nonetheless). I think it wouldn't make much difference one way or the other in their case.
The fact that they are named for a well-known city is their best marketing tool, in my opinion. Hitch your horses to that wagon, UNO.
They are also strategically named the same as a popular card game. They should see about getting royalties.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
And that is just the beginning of the marketing opportunities. U-NO it!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
