menu
Logo
99+
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
99+
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Inside the sports budgets at Akron, Kent State, Cleveland State, other Ohio schools; ticket sales, student fees, more
Page: 2 of 3
mail
TWT
4/15/2018 2:30 PM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
I'd argue that you're putting the cart before the horse. When the P5 conferences were formed, they were formed among schools that were the flagships, land-grants and AAU type schools. Those schools were destined to be among the top publics 50 or 60 years down the road when college ranking came into vogue. OSU was AAU in 1916. It wasn't a real national power in football until the 30s. I don't think you can separate the two and find a causality occurring.

That's a fair argument, but you can compensate for any bias from that. Instead of looking at the absolute ranking, take the earliest Ranking, and compare that to the current one. Which have moved up most? P5? G5? FCS? Division II? Division III? No sports? Which have moved down?
Interesting but hard to do. I think the USN rankings for a long time were just the top 50 schools with the rest grouped into tiers 2 through 4 and the schools listed alphabetically within a tier. Within the last 15 years or so, you could look to see if any G5 or low P5 school has had a marked improvement that coincided with sustained football or basketball success.

At the end of the day though, if one justifies athletic subsidies based on some hoped for effect on the academic side of the university, I think it's a highly dubious argument since we're debating whether only a few schools have seen any fundamental Flutie Effect and for overwhelming number of schools it's been a clear money pit. It's a much more intellectually honest position to just say, I want big time sports at my school and I don't care what it costs to fund them rather than attempting to justify it based on some highly debatable (and even then for only a handful of schools) argument that those athletic departments somehow move the academic side forward.
The student fee covers all student programming. The performing acts the university brings into town, keeping lights on at Ping Center, Broomball weeknights on the IPF, money to keep Olympic sports operating. The students really do get their monies worth down at OU. I don't think you'll see a student mutiny against the fee because recreational athletics are popular on campus. Its different at other places. Akron made a mistake investing in a new stadium when they could have dropped football and moved into the Horizon League. They can't effectively recruit the state at the MAC level like Ohio can.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/15/2018 3:03 PM
Uncle Wes wrote:expand_more
I'd argue that you're putting the cart before the horse. When the P5 conferences were formed, they were formed among schools that were the flagships, land-grants and AAU type schools. Those schools were destined to be among the top publics 50 or 60 years down the road when college ranking came into vogue. OSU was AAU in 1916. It wasn't a real national power in football until the 30s. I don't think you can separate the two and find a causality occurring.

That's a fair argument, but you can compensate for any bias from that. Instead of looking at the absolute ranking, take the earliest Ranking, and compare that to the current one. Which have moved up most? P5? G5? FCS? Division II? Division III? No sports? Which have moved down?
Interesting but hard to do. I think the USN rankings for a long time were just the top 50 schools with the rest grouped into tiers 2 through 4 and the schools listed alphabetically within a tier. Within the last 15 years or so, you could look to see if any G5 or low P5 school has had a marked improvement that coincided with sustained football or basketball success.

At the end of the day though, if one justifies athletic subsidies based on some hoped for effect on the academic side of the university, I think it's a highly dubious argument since we're debating whether only a few schools have seen any fundamental Flutie Effect and for overwhelming number of schools it's been a clear money pit. It's a much more intellectually honest position to just say, I want big time sports at my school and I don't care what it costs to fund them rather than attempting to justify it based on some highly debatable (and even then for only a handful of schools) argument that those athletic departments somehow move the academic side forward.
The student fee covers all student programming. The performing acts the university brings into town, keeping lights on at Ping Center, Broomball weeknights on the IPF, money to keep Olympic sports operating. The students really do get their monies worth down at OU. I don't think you'll see a student mutiny against the fee because recreational athletics are popular on campus. Its different at other places. Akron made a mistake investing in a new stadium when they could have dropped football and moved into the Horizon League. They can't effectively recruit the state at the MAC level like Ohio can.
And yet, Akron has a MAC football title. And the student fees listed are for ICA alone, the remainder of their fees go to the things mentioned.
mail
person
L.C.
4/15/2018 9:09 PM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
Interesting but hard to do. I think the USN rankings for a long time were just the top 50 schools with the rest grouped into tiers 2 through 4 and the schools listed alphabetically within a tier. Within the last 15 years or so, you could look to see if any G5 or low P5 school has had a marked improvement that coincided with sustained football or basketball success.

At the end of the day though, if one justifies athletic subsidies based on some hoped for effect on the academic side of the university, I think it's a highly dubious argument since we're debating whether only a few schools have seen any fundamental Flutie Effect and for overwhelming number of schools it's been a clear money pit. It's a much more intellectually honest position to just say, I want big time sports at my school and I don't care what it costs to fund them rather than attempting to justify it based on some highly debatable (and even then for only a handful of schools) argument that those athletic departments somehow move the academic side forward.

In any event, there are two pretty good Flutie Effect cases to watch in the next couple of years in Nevada and Loyola.

There are certainly data points that indicate the opposite is true. U.Chicago and Tulane are two schools that dropped out of P5 conferences in the past, and both are doing well academically.
mail
person
OUPride
4/16/2018 9:10 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
Interesting but hard to do. I think the USN rankings for a long time were just the top 50 schools with the rest grouped into tiers 2 through 4 and the schools listed alphabetically within a tier. Within the last 15 years or so, you could look to see if any G5 or low P5 school has had a marked improvement that coincided with sustained football or basketball success.

At the end of the day though, if one justifies athletic subsidies based on some hoped for effect on the academic side of the university, I think it's a highly dubious argument since we're debating whether only a few schools have seen any fundamental Flutie Effect and for overwhelming number of schools it's been a clear money pit. It's a much more intellectually honest position to just say, I want big time sports at my school and I don't care what it costs to fund them rather than attempting to justify it based on some highly debatable (and even then for only a handful of schools) argument that those athletic departments somehow move the academic side forward.

In any event, there are two pretty good Flutie Effect cases to watch in the next couple of years in Nevada and Loyola.

There are certainly data points that indicate the opposite is true. U.Chicago and Tulane are two schools that dropped out of P5 conferences in the past, and both are doing well academically.
I agree. Chicago is unique in that it's one of the top universities on the world regardless of what kind of athletic department they try to run. I think Tulane and Rice though are both good examples. And in Rice, we have a situation where the demotion was in our lifetimes and during the era of college rankings, yet they don't seem to have missed a beat. And then of course you can look at schools like Alabama or Kentucky which are still mired in mediocrity despite being blue bloods in their respective sports.
mail
person
L.C.
4/16/2018 9:46 AM
My personal opinion is that the schools in the Top 50 or so are so "elite" that things like sports aren't necessary. The real question for me is when you get down into schools from 100-300. Do Sports help build a tie to alumni, helping them grow their endowment, and also help them attract better students? We'll have some more interesting data points soon, with a number of schools moving up to G5 from FCS such as ODU, Appalachian State, Texas State, etc, and one moving down, in Idaho.

As you point out, the situation in Texas could produce interesting data indeed, what with schools like Rice, SMU, and Houston being evicted from P5, and schools like Texas State and UTSA moving up from FCS. There used to be two levels of difference separating Rice/SMU/Houston from Texas St/UTSA, and now they are at the same level.
Last Edited: 4/16/2018 10:14:06 AM by L.C.
mail
person
OUPride
4/17/2018 10:32 AM
L.C. wrote:expand_more
My personal opinion is that the schools in the Top 50 or so are so "elite" that things like sports aren't necessary. The real question for me is when you get down into schools from 100-300. Do Sports help build a tie to alumni, helping them grow their endowment, and also help them attract better students? We'll have some more interesting data points soon, with a number of schools moving up to G5 from FCS such as ODU, Appalachian State, Texas State, etc, and one moving down, in Idaho.

As you point out, the situation in Texas could produce interesting data indeed, what with schools like Rice, SMU, and Houston being evicted from P5, and schools like Texas State and UTSA moving up from FCS. There used to be two levels of difference separating Rice/SMU/Houston from Texas St/UTSA, and now they are at the same level.
And since the schools you're talking about aren't sitting on billion dollar endowments, is it an efficient use of those funds. That's always been my underlying point. I don't maintain that sports has zero effect on the university as a whole, but I do maintain that it's a highly inefficient use of money if the stated goal is to move the academic side forward as opposed to simply putting the money directly towards students, faculty and academic facilities.
mail
person
OUPride
4/18/2018 1:20 PM
I think Texas has a very good test case for the academic benefits, or lack thereof, of being in a P5 conference, and that's a comparison of SMU and TCU. Those are very similar schools with good reputations but not elite, somewhat selective admissions and equal fundraising. Both are roughly private versions of Miami of Ohio: safety schools for rich preppy kids. Has TCU separated itself from SMU by any significant such as student selectivity, rankings, fundraising?
mail
person
Alan Swank
4/19/2018 9:37 AM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
My personal opinion is that the schools in the Top 50 or so are so "elite" that things like sports aren't necessary. The real question for me is when you get down into schools from 100-300. Do Sports help build a tie to alumni, helping them grow their endowment, and also help them attract better students? We'll have some more interesting data points soon, with a number of schools moving up to G5 from FCS such as ODU, Appalachian State, Texas State, etc, and one moving down, in Idaho.

As you point out, the situation in Texas could produce interesting data indeed, what with schools like Rice, SMU, and Houston being evicted from P5, and schools like Texas State and UTSA moving up from FCS. There used to be two levels of difference separating Rice/SMU/Houston from Texas St/UTSA, and now they are at the same level.
And since the schools you're talking about aren't sitting on billion dollar endowments, is it an efficient use of those funds. That's always been my underlying point. I don't maintain that sports has zero effect on the university as a whole, but I do maintain that it's a highly inefficient use of money if the stated goal is to move the academic side forward as opposed to simply putting the money directly towards students, faculty and academic facilities.
Both SMU and TCU have endowments north of 1.5 billion. Miami is at 447 million and OU at 550.
mail
person
L.C.
4/19/2018 2:45 PM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
I think Texas has a very good test case for the academic benefits, or lack thereof, of being in a P5 conference, and that's a comparison of SMU and TCU. Those are very similar schools with good reputations but not elite, somewhat selective admissions and equal fundraising. Both are roughly private versions of Miami of Ohio: safety schools for rich preppy kids. Has TCU separated itself from SMU by any significant such as student selectivity, rankings, fundraising?

WIKI doesn't data for Houston, Texas St, or UTSA, but I do have data for Texas, Texas A&M, Trinity, Rice, SMU, Baylor, and Texas Tech. The following is the average percentage growth rate of their endowments:

For the 5 years from 2007-2012 (which includes some bad market years)
P5 Schools +2.8% (Baylor, UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech)
Non P5 Schools -1.3%

For the 5 years from 2012-2013
P5 Schools +6.9% (same as above, plus TCU)
Non P5 Schools +5.5%

There isn't much difference between the three teams that originally were excluded from P5. Here are the first five and second five year numbers for them:
Rice -1.1% +5.6% (stayed in CUSA)
TCU -0.1% +5.2% (Jumped from WAC to Big Twelve)
SMU -2.4% +5.2% (Jumped from CUSA to AAC)
Trinity -1.7% +5.6% (Not Division I football)

The ones that were clearly higher than the rest were the UT, Texas Tech, and Texas A&M.
mail
person
D.A.
4/20/2018 8:51 AM
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/04/19/degree...

Tangentially related, article above on how heavily endowed universities use their endowment funds to offset the rising cost of higher ed.
mail
person
giacomo
4/25/2018 2:10 PM
The problem begins, as I see it, when a school like ours has been spending X and that number is plus or minus the tier for the MAC, but thinks they can spend much more to elevate their status. It almost never works out. Think Northwestern spending like Michigan and OSU.
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
4/26/2018 11:09 AM
D.A. wrote:expand_more
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/04/19/degree...

Tangentially related, article above on how heavily endowed universities use their endowment funds to offset the rising cost of higher ed.
I have said this time and time again. There's a reason why Toledo has a top 5 zoo and a top 5 art museum.....and it's not because we have a ton of money here. Endowments and trusts were developed so many years ago to keep them well funded to the point where we couldn't possibly screw it up.

So I look at the collegiate model and say the same thing. If the Ivy League wanted to be tops in athletics, the entire department would be endowed and in turn bury a lot of schools. But their model is not that so whatever.

Long story short, I am always willing to throw towards endowments, not towards "general funds" or what they are truly known as, slush funds for people to use freely without us questioning.
mail
person
Alan Swank
4/26/2018 11:40 AM
Buckeye to Bobcat wrote:expand_more
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/04/19/degree...

Tangentially related, article above on how heavily endowed universities use their endowment funds to offset the rising cost of higher ed.


Long story short, I am always willing to throw towards endowments, not towards "general funds" or what they are truly known as, slush funds for people to use freely without us questioning.
Amen. Unfortunately when the obc quit counting sport specific funds towards your seat donation, some folks starting writing checks to other places.
mail
person
D.A.
4/26/2018 5:41 PM
Buckeye to Bobcat wrote:expand_more
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/04/19/degree...

Tangentially related, article above on how heavily endowed universities use their endowment funds to offset the rising cost of higher ed.
I have said this time and time again. There's a reason why Toledo has a top 5 zoo and a top 5 art museum.....and it's not because we have a ton of money here. Endowments and trusts were developed so many years ago to keep them well funded to the point where we couldn't possibly screw it up.

So I look at the collegiate model and say the same thing. If the Ivy League wanted to be tops in athletics, the entire department would be endowed and in turn bury a lot of schools. But their model is not that so whatever.

Long story short, I am always willing to throw towards endowments, not towards "general funds" or what they are truly known as, slush funds for people to use freely without us questioning.
Funny, but as an example of what you state above, check out Harvard's sports website and note how many of the coaching positions have endowments. You'll be surprised at how much of their athletic department positions/sports have endowments: http://www.gocrimson.com/information/support/endowed
Last Edited: 4/26/2018 5:51:58 PM by D.A.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/26/2018 11:51 PM
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
mail
person
BillyTheCat
4/27/2018 11:04 AM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
We were doing this, remember P.A.W.S.? However, we had an AD who wanted that money directed to things that made him look better and that program was dismantled in a very short-sighted decision.
mail
person
Ohio69
4/27/2018 11:26 AM
BillyTheCat wrote:expand_more
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
We were doing this, remember P.A.W.S.? However, we had an AD who wanted that money directed to things that made him look better and that program was dismantled in a very short-sighted decision.
Agree OhioCatFan. Seems like this should be a focus. But, not sure about your math. Wouldn't you need to cover around $2 million per year. 85 scholarships times $25K for tuition, room and board, and meal plan? We'd need to raise a boat load of money to cover it all.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/27/2018 12:11 PM
Ohio69, you are correct. I was basing this on some calculations made a number of years ago, and hadn't properly accounted for the increase in total costs of tuition, room, board, etc. I just recalculated and we'd need about a $35 million endowment to cover the 85 scholarships. Let's get cracken!
mail
person
OUPride
4/28/2018 8:26 AM
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
We were doing this, remember P.A.W.S.? However, we had an AD who wanted that money directed to things that made him look better and that program was dismantled in a very short-sighted decision.
Agree OhioCatFan. Seems like this should be a focus. But, not sure about your math. Wouldn't you need to cover around $2 million per year. 85 scholarships times $25K for tuition, room and board, and meal plan? We'd need to raise a boat load of money to cover it all.
Cost of attendance is currently $27,142 for in-state students and $36,606 for out of state students. For arguments sake assume, 45 in-state players and 40 oos players. That's an annual disbursement of $2,685,630. Assuming the endowment would disburse 4.5% of its principal, it would need to be $60,426,675. That's more than Ohio raises in an average year in total donations. It's more than 10% of the current total endowment. And you'd raise the inevitable question of whether such an ambitious fundraising project for the athletic department would crowd out donations to overall student aid and scholarship funds. To be feasible, it would need to be something along the lines of a ten to fifteen year plan.
mail
person
Ohio69
4/28/2018 9:35 AM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
Assuming the endowment would disburse 4.5% of its principal, it would need to be $60,426,675. That's more than Ohio raises in an average year in total donations.
So we can do this in 2-3 years then. 😎
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
4/28/2018 10:45 AM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
We were doing this, remember P.A.W.S.? However, we had an AD who wanted that money directed to things that made him look better and that program was dismantled in a very short-sighted decision.
Agree OhioCatFan. Seems like this should be a focus. But, not sure about your math. Wouldn't you need to cover around $2 million per year. 85 scholarships times $25K for tuition, room and board, and meal plan? We'd need to raise a boat load of money to cover it all.
Cost of attendance is currently $27,142 for in-state students and $36,606 for out of state students. For arguments sake assume, 45 in-state players and 40 oos players. That's an annual disbursement of $2,685,630. Assuming the endowment would disburse 4.5% of its principal, it would need to be $60,426,675. That's more than Ohio raises in an average year in total donations. It's more than 10% of the current total endowment. And you'd raise the inevitable question of whether such an ambitious fundraising project for the athletic department would crowd out donations to overall student aid and scholarship funds. To be feasible, it would need to be something along the lines of a ten to fifteen year plan.
I will say this as well: $25,000 automatically starts the endowment. I mention this number because if we were to ever start one, that's the number you have to hit within 5 years. In the event that $25,000 is not raised, then those funds go towards the general fund.

That said, I am all in if it can be an effective plan over 15 years. I would personally love to see something like this done at Ohio and would be willing to throw money into the fund to pay for scholarships so that we can finally get the OU Faculty off our rear ends. Sorry, just personal vendetta about that.
mail
person
Buckeye to Bobcat
4/28/2018 10:51 AM
D.A. wrote:expand_more
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2018/04/19/degree...

Tangentially related, article above on how heavily endowed universities use their endowment funds to offset the rising cost of higher ed.
I have said this time and time again. There's a reason why Toledo has a top 5 zoo and a top 5 art museum.....and it's not because we have a ton of money here. Endowments and trusts were developed so many years ago to keep them well funded to the point where we couldn't possibly screw it up.

So I look at the collegiate model and say the same thing. If the Ivy League wanted to be tops in athletics, the entire department would be endowed and in turn bury a lot of schools. But their model is not that so whatever.

Long story short, I am always willing to throw towards endowments, not towards "general funds" or what they are truly known as, slush funds for people to use freely without us questioning.
Funny, but as an example of what you state above, check out Harvard's sports website and note how many of the coaching positions have endowments. You'll be surprised at how much of their athletic department positions/sports have endowments: http://www.gocrimson.com/information/support/endowed
Oh definitely aware. The thing is they're not going to pull a Michigan and pay $5 million for a coach and put their athletes up in a place like Wildcat Manor down at Kentucky with swag bags out to wazoo.

But yes, that's the master concept of what I hope Ohio could do.
mail
OhioCatFan
4/28/2018 6:24 PM
OUPride wrote:expand_more
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
We were doing this, remember P.A.W.S.? However, we had an AD who wanted that money directed to things that made him look better and that program was dismantled in a very short-sighted decision.
Agree OhioCatFan. Seems like this should be a focus. But, not sure about your math. Wouldn't you need to cover around $2 million per year. 85 scholarships times $25K for tuition, room and board, and meal plan? We'd need to raise a boat load of money to cover it all.
Cost of attendance is currently $27,142 for in-state students and $36,606 for out of state students. For arguments sake assume, 45 in-state players and 40 oos players. That's an annual disbursement of $2,685,630. Assuming the endowment would disburse 4.5% of its principal, it would need to be $60,426,675. That's more than Ohio raises in an average year in total donations. It's more than 10% of the current total endowment. And you'd raise the inevitable question of whether such an ambitious fundraising project for the athletic department would crowd out donations to overall student aid and scholarship funds. To be feasible, it would need to be something along the lines of a ten to fifteen year plan.
I'll stand by my recalcuation, $35 million would just about do it. Those kinds of endowment funds can usually garner a return of 7 to 8 percent with a mixture of CD-type investments, mutual funds, and other instruments not available to the average investor.
mail
person
OUPride
4/29/2018 5:35 PM
OhioCatFan wrote:expand_more
I've long felt that the AD should try to raise endowment money for football (and maybe basketball) scholarships. Just endowing the football scholarships would significantly help decrease the reliance on student fee. Would not eliminate it, but would make a significant dent. Several years ago I calculated that $5 million would cover football scholarships. The earnings from this would be about $300,000 a year, with a reasonable interest rate. Not, sure if that would cover football scholarship needs now, or not. It's about $3,500 per player. What's a full ride cost today? I'm sure a $10 million endowment would cover it. With just a three donors able to give the same level of donations as was made for the Academic Center now under construction, it could be covered.
We were doing this, remember P.A.W.S.? However, we had an AD who wanted that money directed to things that made him look better and that program was dismantled in a very short-sighted decision.
Agree OhioCatFan. Seems like this should be a focus. But, not sure about your math. Wouldn't you need to cover around $2 million per year. 85 scholarships times $25K for tuition, room and board, and meal plan? We'd need to raise a boat load of money to cover it all.
Cost of attendance is currently $27,142 for in-state students and $36,606 for out of state students. For arguments sake assume, 45 in-state players and 40 oos players. That's an annual disbursement of $2,685,630. Assuming the endowment would disburse 4.5% of its principal, it would need to be $60,426,675. That's more than Ohio raises in an average year in total donations. It's more than 10% of the current total endowment. And you'd raise the inevitable question of whether such an ambitious fundraising project for the athletic department would crowd out donations to overall student aid and scholarship funds. To be feasible, it would need to be something along the lines of a ten to fifteen year plan.
I'll stand by my recalcuation, $35 million would just about do it. Those kinds of endowment funds can usually garner a return of 7 to 8 percent with a mixture of CD-type investments, mutual funds, and other instruments not available to the average investor.
But isn't the idea to keep the fund running in perpetuity. So if you're disbursing 4.5%, you need to see an annual return of 4.5% + the rate of inflation just to stay even. And since tuition has grown at a rate higher than the cpi, I'd guess a return of around 10% would be necessary. Out of curiosity, what percent of the principal does your dad's fund disburse annually?
mail
OhioCatFan
4/29/2018 10:40 PM
Good question, OUPride, I'll have to locate the figures on Dad's Scholarship. I haven't seem them for a few years. I do remember that there is a lot slight of hand in this kind of thing. Or, maybe it would better be called creative accounting. Though, in essence, many university endowment funds are actually invested together, to earn higher rates, they are sometimes reported as though they are standalone funds with a lower effective return on investment. This gives them the ability to bifurcate funds into different classes of endowments on a somewhat arbitrary basis. What I'm saying is that looking at any one endowment fund does not give a true picture of the actual return seen in the aggregate. All the above being true, I will see if I can find the specific current figures for Dad's endowed scholarship fund. I do know from previous work I did at the medical school that they like to plow about two percent of any earnings back into the principal so as to grow the principal over time.
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 52
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)