M Athletic Department "Funding 101" video
A little friendly propaganda from the Athletic Department, mailed out to donors/Victors Club members today:
http://support.mgoblue.com/our-vision/the-need/?hq_e=el&hq_m=518931&hq_l=2&hq_v=ec1409782a
It is really basic, non-news. Every good MGoBlogger should already know all of this info. If you don't, memorize it so that you can correct some of the dumbest guests at your next tailgate.
And I actually think that the video understated one of the remarkable features of University/Athletic Dept. relations; if I am not mistaken ALL of our scholarship athletes, at least in football and basketball, have their tuition paid to the University general fund by the Athletic Department at out of state rates.
I was also gratified to hear how important PSD's were to State Street's departmental budget. Scrolling down to the pie charts was a bit more informative than the video. All of the Victors Club members to whom this was sent will like that; it was presumably no accident in the way it was mentioned. With nearly a quarter of the departmental revenues coming from PSD's, someone might think we'd rate some decent parking places, ya know? The donors are bigger than all of the tv revenues! And we dwarf the licensing revenues. Uniformz, anybody?
Anyway, this video unsurprisingly sheds no light on the big problem in modern administration of an Athletic Department like Michigan's; Title IX. There was no specific discussion of the costs to the department in funding the large array of Title IX-mandated costs. I'd have liked it if they had given us some indication as well as to where costs are spiking the most. Administration personnel are 35% of the budget outflow. Something like 16% to other operating costs. It isn't clear how those costs are divided up over the Title IX-mandates.
I suspect that one of the things that John U. Bacon's new book is going to focus on is the soaring cost of these major college athletic operations; the time will soon come for Michigan to explain itself in that regard.
August 28th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^
What a surprise.
Also
And I actually think that the video understated one of the remarkable features of University/Athletic Dept. relations; if I am not mistaken ALL of our scholarship athletes, at least in football and basketball, have their tuition paid to the University general fund by the Athletic Department at out of state rates.
is less impressive than you think, because the AD is (for some reason that escapes me) allowed to confer benefits preferentially on AD donors versus donors to other parts of the University. If they weren't allowed to do that, a lot of their scholarship endowment money would have gone directly to the University to begin with.
August 28th, 2013 at 4:42 PM ^
I wonder if there are Title IX benefits for paying the out of state rates. For example, if there are more women athletes than men, and they pay the out of state rates, does that help defray the imbalance caused by how much they are spending on the football program?
I really don't know the answer, but it's probably worth asking.
August 28th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
Kidding, they just took it out a month ago.
August 28th, 2013 at 4:56 PM ^
Fuel would be part of the 16% of operating costs in the pie chart below the video embed.
I guess the additional pie chart I'd like to see is how budgetary items are divided for purposes of Title IX compliance. I don't expect anybody in the Athletic Department to produce such a cahrt, unless somebody sued them for non-compliance. Then we'd see a beauty of a chart, no doubt.
August 28th, 2013 at 9:15 PM ^
Maybe I missed something, but what is the problem with Title IX (at the college level)?
August 28th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^
It's just typical Section 1 political hysteria.
August 29th, 2013 at 9:11 AM ^
Undoubtedly, this is a political issue, so I'll try to just add a minor note. The big criticism is that Title IX forces universities to keep many players on scholarship and sports in existence that rarely break even or make money for the athletic department and the university. Essentially, athletic departments would have more money to work with for sports that people "watch" like football or men's basketball. However, this is just opinion and not necessarily mine.
August 29th, 2013 at 10:14 AM ^
We do understand that this is the point of Title IX, right?
August 28th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
At the end of the day, the athletic department is deep in the black off of TV money, football, basketball and a itty bit by hockey. I don't see how Brandon thinks he needs more by chasing after every individual donor on campus. I still think its b.s. that Brandon went from having four or five development professionals who just go after big gifts when they needed them (like Wilpon's for the baseball field and Glick for the practice facility) to now having a staff of like 30 development people and raiding alums from all over campus going after money that would ordinarily be headed towards academic side. Brandon runs it like business but somehow he's identified the rest of the University as his adversary and thats messed up.
August 28th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
If you ask me, they're getting ahead of the story for Fourth and Long. While I'm only halfway through the book (got an early copy), it's not exactly friendly to Brandon's lack of finesse in justifying his mixing of corporate business strategies with athletic administration.
I'm interested to see what happens when Brandon goes to the well one too many times on the donor base. It's starting to happen, but I tend to believe it's really about to hit the fan. I really think we're at the tipping point, where a few more years of these kinds of aggressive, business-oriented philosophies will turn off the people whose loyalties Michigan has counted on the most for decades. We're sick of being nickeled-and-dimed, and tired of everything getting a price tag. At some point, we'll all start finding better, more rewarding, and less thankless outlets for our time and money than Dave Brandon's Michigan can offer.
August 28th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
I pay PSDs for football, basketball and hockey. Add to that the cost of all of these tickets and associated fees and extras and I feel I give enough. I should give more to Engineering but I feel Athletics gets enough from me.
Edit: To add on to other's point above. If I didn't give so much to Athletics I would feel more generous toward Engineering.
August 28th, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
However, I feel that by giving to the athletic fund each academic dept does benefit. These kids are spread across many degree programs. I am happy to see that we are still making money and not in the red.
August 28th, 2013 at 11:36 PM ^
The AD cannibalized my UM donations for years.
August 28th, 2013 at 5:14 PM ^
but what's a "Title IX mandated cost"? Are you talking about the cost of a salary for the person who is responsible for sending a report in to the Department of Education each year, or what?
August 28th, 2013 at 5:52 PM ^
...funding women's sports. If you think the reason the University of Michigan funds women's sports is because Title IX tells them to, you don't know the University of Michigan.
August 29th, 2013 at 7:11 AM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 6:03 PM ^
Nobody says much, so it's hard to line-item.
Whatever we spend, to satisfy the broad-based "proportionality" requirement that OCD enforces. How many new scholarship-supported womens' sports have we developed since Title IX? What percentage of the Athletic Department budget are they? If the argument becomes (as i suspect it will with you) that "Title IX doesn't mandate equalized absolute spending, and Michigan would have expanded womens' sports with or without Title IX," that's okay, but just try cutting them now.
August 28th, 2013 at 6:09 PM ^
I just read your statement
There was no specific discussion of the costs to the department in funding the large array of Title IX-mandated costs.
and was curious what the large array of costs consisted of.
August 28th, 2013 at 6:13 PM ^
...you know that you have the ability to vote with your wallet. If you don't like the fact that the AD spends money on women's sports, stop supporting it.
As I noted, Michigan's core values are such that it would seek to equalize access to intercollegiate athletics to women regardless of the existence of Title IX. Maybe not at the speed that the law mandated, but over time, that's what would have happened.
August 28th, 2013 at 6:32 PM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 8:04 PM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 6:00 PM ^
Tough to listen to others' opinions when yours are always correct. Maybe you have a thought or two on RR's time here?
I would argue about the value of Title IX, but I'm not itching for a fight when you're obviously going so far out of your way to pick one.
August 28th, 2013 at 6:16 PM ^
Section 1 doesn't have a problem with women, per se, he's just concerned that Title IX is increasing medical risks at universities across the country.
Or maybe he hates women. Except Rita.
August 28th, 2013 at 7:23 PM ^
In 4th grade, all we had to do was draw a can of cootie spray on our palm. The way medical costs have gone up is outrageous! People can't even protect themselves from cooties now.
August 28th, 2013 at 6:58 PM ^
If you want to see the salaries for all 321 individuals in the athletic department and figure out which are "Title IX" related and which aren't, then be my guest.
See http://www.umsalary.info/deptsearch.php?Dept=Athletics&Year=0&Campus=0
How much is Brandon's $800K salary Title IX related? Would you base that on the number of sports UM supports, because that would mean it's over 50%. The ratio of female to male athletes? How about breaking it down by percentage of overall revenue of men's and women's sports? Or perhaps by expense?
When you look at these salary numbers, do you include what they get beyond the listed salary? Brady Hoke's salary from UM is $300K, but he gets paid from other sources as well. Do you include them or just the portion that comes out of the athletic department budget?
If people want to look at the latest budget submission back in June of this year for FY 2014, go to http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-13/2013-06-X-13.pdf
August 28th, 2013 at 7:14 PM ^
I wrote a piece about that once after doing some of the research you suggest.
http://mgoblog.com/diaries/michigan-coachs-salaries-and-title-ix
August 28th, 2013 at 7:38 PM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 8:09 PM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 9:14 PM ^
Right, you know what Brandon is thinking I guess. It all makes sense now.
August 28th, 2013 at 9:20 PM ^
/s
August 28th, 2013 at 9:58 PM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 7:13 AM ^
Nonprofit or not for profit? Big difference between the two...
August 28th, 2013 at 11:50 PM ^
I find it interesting that anyone here thinks Michigan athletics is "gilding the lilly". To me, that definition would mean that UM tore down Crisler and Yost and replaced them with new buildings. Instead, the AD's management opted to refurbish the existing structure at less cost (and will do so with other structures as well). By extension, most of the money has gone to the revenus sports--football, men's BB and ice hockey. It only makes sense to invest in those areas first because that's where UM gets the biggest return (such as on the luxury boxes as Michigan Stadium).
I also don't think Brandon is going to overextend the athletic department's finances, especially with $230M of debt on the books due to the renovation projects that incurs around a $15M annual expense to be serviced. The whole reason why this video was put out was to help rally donors to continue their support for Michigan Athletics--people like Al Glick, Stephen Ross, Donald Shepherd and Fred Wilpon. It's clear that if any of the things they're envisioning gets done, they're going to need that assistance (plus whatever boost in conference distributions comes about from the new television deals the conference will have in place in a few years' time).
I don't know about you, but the money spent to me seems to have actually improved the fan experience and accessibility. Crisler Center and Michigan Stadium, in particular, are much more fan friendly places than they were in recent years--and those improvements were long overdue. Crisler hadn't been touched much since it was built in the late 1960s and I remember not so long ago waiting in line for a port-a-john outside Michigan Stadium druing halftime of a football game.
One last point. The #1 and #2 programs in terms of revenue are Texas and Ohio State. But the two athletic departments are completely different in terms of the number of sports they support. UT is at 18 while OSU is over 30. Yet both have comparable football and basketball ticket prices. PSLs, etc. The thing driving revenue in college sports for the major programs isn't based on the number of non-revenue sports they support. It's based on the popularity and demand for college football and basketball--both of which have blosssomed these last two decades--in the market place.
Now if I was David Brandon, I'd consider giving a "state of the athletic department" presentation annually to the press and general public so we can have a snapshot picture of not only the finances (which are in the annual budget presented to the regents each June), but the specific plans and goals for the AD. I realize much of this is covered on the UM website, but I think we'd be better served if he gave the presentation in person, answered questions about his goals, etc.
August 28th, 2013 at 9:42 PM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 10:18 PM ^
Yeah, me and these two guys. The worst:
August 28th, 2013 at 11:24 PM ^
August 28th, 2013 at 11:49 PM ^
Well, we can have an intelligent discussion about this, or we can post stupid memes.
Agree or disagree with Section 1, at least he's articulate and will give you a well-reasoned argument.
August 28th, 2013 at 11:58 PM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 12:18 AM ^
Well, those five-paragraph essays take time.
August 29th, 2013 at 12:21 AM ^
I'm neutral.
Title IX for the big colleges. But for some schools it cripples their athletic department.
Perhaps Canham's dislike for Title IX is why all the women's athletic programs were horrendous from their inception and then some. Maybe they were a little neglected.
All I know is, if Michigan is going to have teams- men's or women's. They have to be good. I'm honestly amazed, literally amazed how the women's basketball program has been so bad, for so long. Recently though, things have been getting a lot better because more attention has been given to it.
August 29th, 2013 at 12:34 AM ^
Let's get the history correct.
Michigan women's basketball wasn't bad in the 2000s because of lack of attention. In fact, it had been pretty good under Sue Guevara.
What happened was that Bill Martin simply made one of the worst hires in Michigan history in Cheryl Burnett, then stuck with her for two seasons too long. It was a trainwreck no one saw coming. Burnett buried the program in a black hole. A year-plus without a Big 10 victory. Players were quitting left and right every year, basically because they hated Burnett. You know things are bad when you have a freshman captain.
All the credit in the world goes to Kevin Borseth for turning it around.
August 29th, 2013 at 12:59 AM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 1:08 AM ^
Can you prove there was a "lack of attention" from the university? Or are you just looking at the annual records on wiki and making a conjecture?
Michigan had a women's athletic director position for decades, though it has now been combined into other positions. Are you familiar with Phyllis Ocker? In fact, I'd argue that Michigan gave more than adequate attention to women's athletics when a lot of schools simply weren't. Lack of on-field success isn't always an indicator of a lack of faith in a program on the part of the university.
August 29th, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^
You want proof of a "lack of attention" for women's sports? Take a look at this 2007 article on the women's basketball program from McCabe of the Freep titled "U-M Has History of Neglect."
August 29th, 2013 at 9:42 AM ^
I know for a fact that Canham neglected women's sports and as the AD that directly affected the success of womens sports at M. Ocker and Hutchinson were successful in spite of Canham. and Bo was no fan of women in athletics- giving the cold shoulder to women in his football courses. They were not fans of T9 is all. Canham was a businessman and Bo was not fold of putting that much financial pressure of football for fear of money tainting the integrity of the sport.
Read Canham 's autobiography.
August 29th, 2013 at 12:15 AM ^
If you haven't had a chance, read Robert M. Soderstrom's book, "The Big House: Fielding H. Yost and the Building of Michigan Stadium".
Yost was committed to "athletics for all"--and that included women. The bond sale that raised money to build Michigan Stadium in 1927 was also used to build the facilities for Palmer Field for the 3,000 women then on the campus. Yost had it completely refurbished and extended to include four hockey fields, 18 tennis courts, special fields for archery and some putting greens. A new field house for women was built adjacent to the field at the cost of $250K. To quote the book (page 327 in my copy):
When completed, Michigan had the finest athletic plant for women in America. Athletic facilities for co-eds were widely ignored by American education at that time, but Yost was pleased to use athletic department money, football money, to build a modern plant. To Yost, even in 1927, "athletics for all" inclujded women. When he received a letter sharply critical of this expenditure for women, Yost replied,
"I want to say that I am convinced that no better use has ever been made of athletic incomes at this or any other institution thatn the development and equipment of a suitable place to carry on the physical education activiteis of this group of students who have, so some extent, been heretofore neglected. It is fully as urgent that the women have these essential facilities as it is that men have them."
The Ann Arbor New could only celebrate:
"The activities on Palmer Field remind us of football for the very good reason that football is paying the shot. The state of Michigan isn't spending a nickel for the improvements. Yet it is an improvement that might very well be financed from the state treasury as indeed it would be in almost any place but Michigan."
"The news story concerning the letting of these contracts ought to be considered seriously by any man who opposes intercollegiate football on the ground that it "benefits a few". For here is an instance of football benefitting every woman student at the Universty of Michigan. Eleven boys playing on Ferry Field have provided more than 3000 girls with the facilities for beneficial physical culture . . . "
"Yes, we have commercialized athletics at Michigan. There is no denying that statement. And we regard the situation as extremely gratifying. There should be more of this kind of commerciallized football...Ferry Field has been one of Michigan's very best investments."
END OF EXCERPT
If we were to apply Yost's "Athletics for All" principal from the late 1920s to today, then I submit to you that the approach Michigan and David Brandon are taking to fund and support women's athletics is much closer to the spirit and substance of Yost's vision than what Canham and Schembechler might have proposed in their opposition to Title IX.
August 29th, 2013 at 7:22 AM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 10:26 AM ^
Excellent distinction. This is often overlooked in many arguments of this nature, mostly political.
August 29th, 2013 at 7:15 AM ^
I'll downgrade my admiration accordingly, balanced of course by the good things they did.
But I'm not sure I place much weight on an AD's position on Title IX. Just like I don't think GM's CEO's opinion on whether automakers should have to comply with federal emissions standards is particularly relevant. An AD is responsible for bottom line kinds of considerations, and I can see where they might have a beef with the financial consequences of Title IX.
To which I say, tough tits. Justice is more important than the bottom line at an educational institution. Don't like it? Convince the Board of Trustees to forgo all direct or indirect federal funding. Then you don't have to follow it.