<p>There should be more TLC given to non-athletic campus groups which are serving their schools. But I do think these things are market-driven and colleges will respond with generosity and pride when non-athletic groups bring honor to the school. For example, now that the Dartmouth Aires garnered national attention from their recent success on the SingOff show, I suspect they’d pretty much get whatever budget they request for next year. I also suspect that if the Dartmouth students were to vote tomorrow for which campus groups should be funded and which should get the axe, the Aires would be an overwhelming favorite for continued financial support when normally a student acappela group wouldn’t experience such a high degree of of popularity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not as much about money as it is general interest. The money follows the interest. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, there is a much greater desire to have the best possible football team than there is to have the best possible orchestra. If the interest in college orchestras ever rises to the level of interest in college football, the money, intense recruiting, and student perks would all follow.</p>
<p>As it is, people in this country care far more for certain sports than they do for high culture.</p>
<p>To state the obvious, people like success. To continue with the Dartmouth example, their girls’ cross country team flew beneath the radar for years and had not had much success even in the Ivy League. Besides that, xc is not exactly a high profile sport. Still, the school decided to remedy the situation and brought in a new coach. He took a good, but not stellar, high school runner and developed her into a surprising talent who just came in 3rd at the NCAA national championships. That in turn brought honor and publicity to Dartmouth, and thus I’d imagine would predispose the administration to be generous to the cross country team for a while.</p>
<p>Many (if not all) colleges have booster clubs for each individual sport, which raise sometimes significant amounts of money. UCLA does this, according to its website. There is probably no reason why orchestras, bands, and other fine arts groups cannot do the same.</p>
<p>I know the UW Marching band does concerts, appearances and sells CDs to raise money. They also raise money through donations.</p>
<p>[Spring</a> Concert – University of Wisconsin Marching Band](<a href=“http://www.badgerband.com/concert/]Spring”>http://www.badgerband.com/concert/)</p>
<p>[UW</a> Marching Band | University of Wisconsin Foundation](<a href=“http://www.supportuw.org/making-a-gift/area-program/marching-band/]UW”>UW Marching Band | University of Wisconsin Foundation)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They do. It goes into the general fund of the athletic department to pay administrators’ salaries, sports medicine staffs, strength and conditioning staffs, marketing and promotions staffs, and non-revenue sports.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This really isn’t accurate. Are you basing this off of the UMD story? Maryland didn’t cut 8 sports because the football team had a bad year this year. We were already in debt and were on track for 17.6 million in debt by 2017 (NOTE: this came out BEFORE the football team’s season turned tragic). Football brought in about 2 million last year, it didn’t lose money - we went 9-4 and went to a bowl game. Our men’s basketball team brings in much more. And our football team started out literally on cloud nine this year, and publicity for it was arguably higher than ever. The commission was already working on their report. They didn’t just decide to get together after a bad year (he report came out DURING the season) and cut other sports. We are currently funding 27 sports - that’s a super high amount. </p>
<p>Also, UMD getting out of debt is relying on the fact that football and men’s basketball will return to national prominence. The report said so. It is more important than ever for our football team to get back on track - cutting funds for it will not help that cause, and guess what that would result in? MORE sports being cut. It’s just the way it goes - football and men’s basketball bring in the attention and money. Other sports don’t. The others NEED those teams to sustain them.</p>
<p>My point is that I don’t understand why athletics should have an entirely different pool of money than other university activities. If it’s valuable to the university to have a fencing team, why should it matter how much money the football team specifically brings in? I understand why the football team needs a huge budget, of course, and I’m not necessarily saying it should be smaller.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Years ago, during another economic downturn, faculty members were complaining about all of the $$ going to athletics. Thus, the Regents mandated that Cal and UCLA’s athletic departments become self-sufficient. Therefore, the response to your wondering is that state policy requires that the athletic department $$ be a separate pool.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In addition to what bluebayou says, many universities have a variety of departments that have separate budgets. My alma mater has several auxillaries who pay their own expenses and actually pay the university. Things such as the bookstore, the rec center, residence life, etc…</p>
<p>*My point is that I don’t understand why athletics should have an entirely different pool of money than other university activities. *</p>
<p>So that people don’t complain that “academic money” is being used for sports. Plus, donors should be able to donate to whatever cause that’s important to them. If donors want to provide funds (and get the naming rights) for a particular sports need, then they should be able to do so. </p>
<p>* its not right that football players are treated like royalty when musicians are treated like dirt.*</p>
<p>Where’s the evidence of that? How are musicians “treated like dirt”? The music dept at my kids’ school is very nice…I don’t hear those students complaining that they’re somehow being mistreated. </p>
<p>And, how are athletes treated like royalty? Those athletes work/sweat like dogs, are pushed til every muscle is aching, and often have to practice in extreme weather conditions. Staying in a hotel before a game is not being treated like royalty…it’s more like being imprisoned. You can’t do/go where you want; you can’t eat/drink what you want, and you have to go to bed at a specific time.</p>
<p>Exactly!
The policy was adopted in response to Athletics Dept taken a lion’s share of a school’s overall budget. Some felt it was outside the mission of the university’s mission, and Athletics should be self-supporting. </p>
<p>What’s ironic about this situation, is that when athletic departments struggle and borrowed/took funds from the university and tax payers…the outcry was’ keep you hands off tax money’ we are an academic institution’. </p>
<p>then ESPN/CBS/ regional network etc comes in with a $ BILLION tv package to televise games, then its 'Hey, spread the $$‘s around’ </p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways. Either the athletic dept should be self supporting, and receive NO taxpayer $$…or it falls into the general school budget, and is supported through good and bad times.</p>
<p>Hunt,
It is highly unlikely that your alma mater’s fencing team is supported by its football reciepts, so presumably its funding comes out of the general fund and donations. Here is its donation page, and interestingly, it contains this tidbit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Yale</a> Fencing Association - Yale Bulldogs](<a href=“http://www.yalebulldogs.com/information/alumni/associations/fencing]Yale”>http://www.yalebulldogs.com/information/alumni/associations/fencing)</p>
<p>So, here is evidence that at least one sports team uses outside donations to help pay for its expenses on the road. UCLA’s football team may utilize similar funding approaches for its travel expenses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The fact that athletic recruits occur outside of the normal admissions process is the evidence of that. That football (etc) are sooooooo important that we lock in players outside the normal admissions process, but the debate coach / newspaper editor / theater professor / music professor / science professor don’t get to wave magic wands and pull in who they perceive as stars.</p>
<p>What I’m probing in my last couple of questions is why (if it is) the funding of one sport should necessarily depend on the funding of some other sport. I get that there may be an overall budget for athletics–but I’m just wondering whether the fencing team is really fundamentally different from, say, the jazz band. Should both be part of an overall budget process, or should the athletics and music extracurricular budgets be separate? A university may choose to fund one or the other of these because of student interest, even if it brings in no money at all, and indeed, costs money.</p>
<p>Most good schools in music/theater require an audition and that carries much weight with admissions. Football recruits still have to go through admissions. The coach does not have the final say. I’d guess that the stats profile for NU football players is not much different from those in the Music School.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not true. Theater majors at UCLA, for example need to audition in. The coach sends an ‘approved’ list to admissions. Ditto at USC and likely NYU. Rumor has it that debate coaches do ok at schools that ‘value’ that program.</p>
<p>*not right that football players are treated like royalty when musicians are treated like dirt.</p>
<p>Where’s the evidence of that? </p>
<p>===========</p>
<p>The fact that athletic recruits occur outside of the normal admissions process is the evidence of that. That football (etc) are sooooooo important that we lock in players outside the normal admissions process, but the debate coach / newspaper editor / theater professor / music professor / science professor don’t get to wave magic wands and pull in who they perceive as stars.*</p>
<p>Aside from the fact that your example is not an example that demonstrates that football players are treated like royalty and (even less so) that musicians are treated like dirt…</p>
<p>Various professors who’ve identified certain hooked prospects most certainly contact admissions to make appeals for those students whose stats may not let them get accepted thru normal admissions processes. Some fab performer or artist with lowish SATs will still likely get accepted. </p>
<p>Hooked applicants often have an “in” that non-hooked students don’t. Are we now saying that hooked applicants get treated like royalty because they’re accepted using a different assessment process for application/acceptance? </p>
<p>When people use the words, “treated like royalty,” it sounds like they’re using images from silly movie comedies that feature outrageous scenarios of football players receiving special privileges and bullying others on various campuses. </p>
<p>* Rumor has it that debate coaches do ok at schools that ‘value’ that program. *</p>
<p>Definitely…schools with ranking forensics teams certainly have directors helping talented prospects get accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I went to a very large state university with a BIG FOOTBALL program. It’s one of the 22 whose athletic department is not only self-sufficient, but makes large profits. </p>
<p>I would agree that at my alma mater, the football players are “treated like royalty.” However, the musicians were not treated “like dirt.” I was a musician at this large university, and I was thrilled, just thrilled with the facilities which the school built for the fine arts programs. I was grateful for the scholarship I received as incentive to attend, and we had top notch instructors, many of whom were brilliant performers in their own right.</p>
<p>We weren’t treated like dirt, we were treated very well. We just weren’t treated like royalty, and I don’t remember ever being resentful of that.</p>
<p>*What’s ironic about this situation, is that when athletic departments struggle and borrowed/took funds from the university and tax payers…the outcry was’ keep you hands off tax money’ we are an academic institution’. </p>
<p>**then ESPN/CBS/ regional network etc comes in with a $ BILLION tv package to televise games, then its 'Hey, spread the $$‘s around’ **
You can’t have it both ways. *</p>
<p>or worse…after the multi-million dollar packages are signed, those on the outside are whining, “why are we paying Coach GetsUsBowlBids that million dollar salary?”</p>
<p>But the truth is that when a school gets all this extra publicity by having televised games, the school’s coffers get enriched as well. Alums love to see their teams win, and that motivates donations. Some will argue that the ivies have the biggest endowments without bowl-bound teams, but the sources/amounts of their donations are more unique. Non-elites have to rely more on getting smaller donations from a wider base.</p>