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 29th, 2013 at 7:26 AM ^
Interesting. I could have sworn it was equality (particularly of opportunity and access). That's a very different thing from justice, with very different approaches and consequences.
August 29th, 2013 at 8:27 AM ^
You don't think that the moral necessity of equality of access and opportunity is based on considerations of justice?
I take justice to be met when we have allocated social goods appropriately. To my way of thinking, we've properly allocated the social good of the opportunity to participate in intercollegiate sports appropriately when access isn't restricted by arbitrary factors like race or gender.
August 29th, 2013 at 10:28 AM ^
height and size. Let's mandate 3 players under 5'9" on every basketball team!
August 29th, 2013 at 10:56 AM ^
Nice strawman yo. -1 fake mgopoints for you.
August 29th, 2013 at 10:57 AM ^
No one is advocating that membership on a team ignore things like ability, and certain physical features contribute to ability. How fast you are is arbitrary too. No one thinks there should be a minimum number of short people on a basketball team or slow people on the track team. This is a false analogy.
If you can't tell the difference between Title IX requirements to offer roughly equal opportunities for people of both genders to participate in sports and a quota system that ignores the abilities of the participants then you're probably hopelessly confused on this issue.
August 29th, 2013 at 12:45 PM ^
Sure, and that's the way I view it, too, but that isn't what the application of Title IX has resulted in. Actually, exactly the opposite, as it has restricted the access of men to participation because their programs are cut so that the schools can meet the equality of opportunity requirements of Title IX. The other way to do it, that would actually meet the goal that you articulated, would be to increase the opportunities provided for women, period. Under the current interpretation of Title IX, you're good to go if you have a net decrease in participation in terms of total numbers, so long as the opportunities are equal. In other words, Title IX does restrict opportunities based upon gender. In application, anyway.
August 29th, 2013 at 1:35 PM ^
You're thinking about it in the wrong way, I think. Take a simplified example: say an institution has the ability to support 100 varsity scholarship athletes. Those should be allocated roughly 50 for men and 50 for women (and I know Title IX is more complicated in real life, but bear with me). The fact that that institution may have had 65 scholarships for men prior to Title IX doesn't matter. If they can't afford the increase to 65 scholarships for women, they need to cut the men's scholarships and increase those for women until they in balance.
We live in a world with limited resources. Title IX basically says, whatever your athletic support resources are, you need to distribute them evenly among male and female recipients. The fact that some institutions have had to reduce men's scholarships is unfortunate, but it's better than allocating those same limited opportunities unfairly.
August 29th, 2013 at 2:15 PM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 2:42 PM ^
Whether resources are limited is an empirical matter, and it seems odd to suggest that it's a matter of philosophical dispute that ADs don't have unlimited money to do unlimted things. The question becomes, given the fact that institutions have limited resources, what's the proper way to allocate those to provide equal access to the opportunity to participate in college sports for men and women?
I guess I don't see what could count as meeting the standards of fairness beyond numbers parity.
August 29th, 2013 at 7:52 AM ^
It isn't justice, women can go out for football, football shouldn't count against scholarships.
August 29th, 2013 at 8:26 AM ^
I'm sure you'd love to be a member of one of the men's sports teams cut. Their were and are plenty.
This is the stupidest argument in the world. What about the women's teams that wouldn't even exist without Title IX???
It's funny, because after the big 3, the next two popular sports at Michigan are softball and volleyball. More popular than baseball and men's soccer and lacrosse. People that think educational institutes should not be committed to equal opportunity are people I don't want to hang out with.
August 29th, 2013 at 10:30 AM ^
So theoretically those sports you mentioned as the next two most popular would still exist right? I don't think that argument is really relevant.
August 29th, 2013 at 12:54 PM ^
We can have both, no?
"People that think educational institutes should not be committed to equal opportunity are people I don't want to hang out with."
People have differences when it comes to what that means, though. For example, I am absolutely in favor of equal opportunity for ALL people by giving them all limitless opportunity. Title IX, however (and this is irrefutable), limits the opportunities for some while expanding the opportunities for others.
August 29th, 2013 at 1:08 PM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 2:17 PM ^
I never said it did.
August 29th, 2013 at 8:46 AM ^
There is much to complain about in this post. The anti-Title IX stuff has been discussed (at length), so I will avoid comment.
What bugged me in addition:
"If you don't, memorize it so that you can correct some of the dumbest guests at your next tailgate."
There seems to be some sense by the OP that our goal is to take the propaganda pushed by the AD and spread the good word. Goodness, are we apostles for the Holy Church of Michigan Football?
We all love sports (why else are we on mgoblog?) but not to be appalled about what "amateur" athletics has become takes a special kind of obliviousness. it's just like the Jack the Magician said in Seth's wonderful interview:
"I don't think I'd like football today; it wouldn't be as fun. Back then we didn't lift weights; we didn't have a weight room. If we wanted to play another sport Fritz encouraged it. To me it was a lot more fun then; today it's a grind. These kids are just pushed and pushed 11 months."
That sounds like something admirable - kids having fun, instead of semi-professional athletes hired by the University to aid in the marketing of the "brand name".
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark; if you really want to help Michigan sports, instead of praising the odd state of affairs that exists, you'd be figuring out how to evolve it into something better and more appropriate as part of the mission of an educational institution.
August 29th, 2013 at 10:54 AM ^
August 29th, 2013 at 10:12 PM ^
I have no reputation for acting as any sort of stooge for the University or the Athletic Department.Oh really?