How is the athletic budget determined?

[bluehaze]

I've read where the athletic budget hasn't been raised in about 6 years.
I've also read that student fees make up the lion share of the athletic budget.

Now according to the A&T website, student fees are as followed:
1-5 HOURS $156.25
6-8 HOURS $483.50
9-11 HOURS $710.00
12 HOURS OR MORE $710.00

I know all of that doesn't go to athletics, but a set percentage does, or should.

Here is the enrollment for the last 6 years:

Year Undergraduate Graduate Total
2000 6,850 898 7,748
2001 7,331 988 8,319
2002 7,982 1,133 9,115
2003 8,715 1,315 10,030
2004 9,121 1,262 10,383
2005 9,735 1,368 11,103

That's roughly 3,400 more people or roughly $2million (avg $500 per student)

In other words, does anyone know how much of the student fees goes to athletics and shouldn't the budget increase by that much?

[runaggierun]

The total amount each (full-time) student pays in ATHLETIC student fees is $204/semester.

[TOPPDOGG]

bluehaze said:

I've read where the athletic budget hasn't been raised in about 6 years.

Doomsday has posted this, but it cannot be accurate. For one we've moved the salaries for all of our coaches onto the athletic budget. There was a time several years ago when only a portion of their salaries were covered under athletics. The rest was under the University's general budget due to the fact that our coaches taught classes. The budget has had to increase somewhat to accomodate that change. Everything costs more even if we haven't upped the # of scholarships we're offering, we do know that we're spending more because the cost of tuition and room and board has increased.

The real issue is the BOT refuses to raise the student athletic fee. That's understandable. However, we simply cannot afford the type of program we desire without an infusion of cash. It appears that our administrators are having a very difficult time getting the cash from the alumni (save Aggie Club) or corporations.

[Maxell]

toppdogg said:

[The real issue is the BOT refuses to raise the student athletic fee. That's understandable. However, we simply cannot afford the type of program we desire without an infusion of cash. It appears that our administrators are having a very difficult time getting the cash from the alumni (save Aggie Club) or corporations.

I disagree. What we fail to understand is that IF a university determines that athletics is important, there are several funding sources that can be used to augment athletic department. It's just that some university presidents don't deem it important.

For example, Vanderbilt University decided to use money generated by it's endowment to help fund athletics. The president set a goal to compete for the Director's Cup every year.

If it was deemed important enough our BOT could certainly do something like that on a short term basis until the department was self-sustaining at a competitive level. There's all sorts of money that could be diverted. Don't think narrowly. Research what some other universities are doing that are committed to athletics. If the "old fogies" thought is was important to A&T, it would be very easy to fork over another mil or two for athletics the same way they found another $1.4 million for the Education building out of nowhere when the lowest bid was too high.

The administrators and BOT front at Homecoming but can't see past their noses about the cascading impact of a winning athletic program on the rest of the university. If we had won that game last night they would be the first ones grinning and fronting.

We have about a $5.8 million dollar budget. About 4.0 million from student fees, about $1.0 million from ticket sales, the rest from beat down games and contributions(both corporate and individual). How much from the university itself? You guessed it.

To me that says little or no committment to athletics. That has to change. The university has to put some "skin in the game" also. HBCUs look forward to Homecoming but the university wants everybody to pay but itself. That's the real deal and the message D. Todd is trying to get everybody to understand.

I went to A&T because my dad took me to a football game when I was 8 years old when we used to play Central on Thanksgiving. I now have an Engineering degree, and Aggie Club member and I love my school. Athletics are important and the university needs use some of the "unrestricted funds" to get us competitive. Sometimes gifts are given to the General Fund in hopes that the university will make the best decision on how it should be spent. If I had not gone to that one football game so long ago I wouldn't be an Aggie today. It's now time for Athletics to get its just due from the university.

[TOPPDOGG]

Well we aint Vanderbilt. Last I checked our total endowment was in the teens. The athletic department isn't close to being the only under-funded department on campus. Why should the University divert discretionary funds to athletics, and not the Engineering Dept?

I just don't agree. Dee Todd and Phillip McAlpin simply have to raise more money from more sources.

[DOOMS]

I don't think you pimp the students out either. But if we're going to count on the kindness of strangers to fund athletics, not only should we not be division I, we shouldn't be fielding a football team.

I heard from several sources the budget hadn't been raised in eons; and that was before Dee Todd said it in her interview. TD, just because the coaches' salaries got shifted completely over doesn't mean they had to raise the budget. They simply had to take money from somewhere else. Like the recruiting budget for the baseball team. Or the existence of men's tennis. Or the men's tennis coach's salary. Catch my drift?

[Bornthrilla]

toppdogg said:

bluehaze said:

I've read where the athletic budget hasn't been raised in about 6 years.

Doomsday has posted this, but it cannot be accurate. For one we've moved the salaries for all of our coaches onto the athletic budget. There was a time several years ago when only a portion of their salaries were covered under athletics. The rest was under the University's general budget due to the fact that our coaches taught classes. The budget has had to increase somewhat to accomodate that change. Everything costs more even if we haven't upped the # of scholarships we're offering, we do know that we're spending more because the cost of tuition and room and board has increased.

This is what Dee Todd said about that in her exclusive interview with this site:

Dee Todd: “The most challenging issue is money. If we put our budget on a doggy bone and threw it our there, he probably would walk away (laughs). At best, we are probably operating on a Division II budget. Our budget hasn’t changed in about six years. However, what has changed is the things that have to come out of our budget. Like for instance, the state mandated that all of our coaches have to come off of state salaries, but we still have a position and a half that is still on the state. Anytime there’s a mandated raise from the state in coach’s salaries that has to come out of our budget. Also, you always have to provide equitable opportunities for the under-represented population, as in gender equity. We want to be competitive and we’re working very hard and we have very good coaches, but we have schools that are outspending us right now. And outspending beats outworking.

[Maxell]

toppdogg said:

Well we aint Vanderbilt. Last I checked our total endowment was in the teens. The athletic department isn't close to being the only under-funded department on campus. Why should the University divert discretionary funds to athletics, and not the Engineering Dept?

I just don't agree. Dee Todd and Phillip McAlpin simply have to raise more money from more sources.

Because the Engineering Department has positioned itself over the years to command gifts and grants from corporations and donors. How? By being successful in the years when the grants weren't there. By having money shifted there in the Fort years to prop up the Eng. school while he worked to get more outside funding.

As far as Vandy is concerned; your response says it all. Let's do some math.

If the endowment is $15 million and it's 8% that means it's throwing off $1.2 million dollars a year. Let's say the BOT voted to give $600,000 of that to Athletics each year for say the next 4 years. Do you think that would make a difference? Of course it would. That give would Dee and her crew 4 years to get it together with adequate funding for recruiting, salaries and infrastructure. During that 4 years you cultivate outside funding sources while building the program. At the end of 4 years, the endowment funding ceases or reduces to a lower yearly number. Something like that is both doable, fair and effective.

[AggieMike]

We pay a $225 athletic fee each that can't be waived...

[TOPPDOGG]

maxell said:

toppdogg said:

Well we aint Vanderbilt. Last I checked our total endowment was in the teens. The athletic department isn't close to being the only under-funded department on campus. Why should the University divert discretionary funds to athletics, and not the Engineering Dept?

I just don't agree. Dee Todd and Phillip McAlpin simply have to raise more money from more sources.

Because the Engineering Department has positioned itself over the years to command gifts and grants from corporations and donors. How? By being successful in the years when the grants weren't there. By having money shifted there in the Fort years to prop up the Eng. school while he worked to get more outside funding.

As far as Vandy is concerned; your response says it all. Let's do some math.

If the endowment is $15 million and it's 8% that means it's throwing off $1.2 million dollars a year. Let's say the BOT voted to give $600,000 of that to Athletics each year for say the next 4 years. Do you think that would make a difference? Of course it would. That give would Dee and her crew 4 years to get it together with adequate funding for recruiting, salaries and infrastructure. During that 4 years you cultivate outside funding sources while building the program. At the end of 4 years, the endowment funding ceases or reduces to a lower yearly number. Something like that is both doable, fair and effective.

With all of our needs on this campus I simply cannot support diverting funds from the endowment or other sources to pay for athletics even if it is only temporary.

The athletic dept. needs to find the money on its own. We've got to get more corporate sponsorships and more booster donations. Or, going back to schedule multiple beatdown games in football and basketball.

[Bornthrilla]

Topp Dog, are you fully considering how much impact an athletic department has on the overall image of a university?

The layperson who watched ESPN Thursday night has no idea A&T is one of the top annual producers of miniority engineers or that we played a lead role in the civil right movement. All they know is that we got drug 70-7 by BCC and looked like a junior high school team in doing so.

Like it or not, our football program is one of the chief marketing and recruiting tools for this school. If it continues to struggle, in my opinion, the value of the entire school will soon begin to be depreciated. I think you have to make an investment to get a return. You reap what you sow. That's why fortune 500 companies allocate millions of dollars to their marketing and adversting budget each year.

You only can get out what you first put in.

[captaggie]

Lets get our priorities straight, education always precedes athletics. With that said, I too believe the university needs to provide greater financial support to the Athletic Department. But money is not the only problem. Some of our leaders are making bad decisions and they're not learning from them.

Money is only as effective as the person who decides how its spent.

[Bornthrilla]

That's true. A fool and his money soon parts.

[Maxell]

toppdogg said:

maxell said:

Because the Engineering Department has positioned itself over the years to command gifts and grants from corporations and donors. How? By being successful in the years when the grants weren't there. By having money shifted there in the Fort years to prop up the Eng. school while he worked to get more outside funding.

As far as Vandy is concerned; your response says it all. Let's do some math.

If the endowment is $15 million and it's 8% that means it's throwing off $1.2 million dollars a year. Let's say the BOT voted to give $600,000 of that to Athletics each year for say the next 4 years. Do you think that would make a difference? Of course it would. That give would Dee and her crew 4 years to get it together with adequate funding for recruiting, salaries and infrastructure. During that 4 years you cultivate outside funding sources while building the program. At the end of 4 years, the endowment funding ceases or reduces to a lower yearly number. Something like that is both doable, fair and effective.

With all of our needs on this campus I simply cannot support diverting funds from the endowment or other sources to pay for athletics even if it is only temporary.

The athletic dept. needs to find the money on its own. We've got to get more corporate sponsorships and more booster donations. Or, going back to schedule multiple beatdown games in football and basketball.

Yep all those things need to be done but in the meantime we're getting our azz kicked. We agree to disagree.