Missouri State financial problems

[tornado]

well not the whole school - but apparently the athletic department..

here's a long article explaining that they need a lot of money and need it right away...
and that they are currently transferring money from the general university operating fund as well as their foundation -
to the athletic department and kinda keeping all this quiet since they have opponents to the idea of using those resources on sports...

They even note that their arena (which is named for a benefactor and many had claimed was all going to be done via "private funding")
is part of what's costing the school almost $14 million per year!!

"Last week's state audit report of Missouri State University highlighted an
athletic department requiring more than $7 million per year in state and
private money to break even.

"They have their priorities in the wrong place," economics professor Tom
Wyrick said of athletic spending.

The audit said MSU transferred about $8.9 million in private gifts from its
foundation to the athletic department in the two-year period, along with
$5.5 million from the university operating fund.

..the school fears it could lose 15 percent or more in state appropriations.

..the 2010-11 budget is $13.7 million and that includes JQH Arena..."

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101024/NEWS01/10240386/Athletics-funding-a-question-of-priorities%3Cbr

[PTTB]

Honest question that I don't 100% know/understand.

Do private schools (such as Bradley, since this is the BU board) accept 'institutional support'? I have heard (somewhere, and who knows how long ago it came about) that some private schools receive an allotment of scholarships for their athletic programs from the school. For example, school XYZ may allot their athletic dept 100 scholarships for athletics for the year. When BU does fundraising, are they doing it to keep their sports self sufficient on a yearly basis, or are they doing it to increase their endowment, which continues to improve their their facilities and athletic programs? Or is that money going into the general school fund which they gets dispersed to the varied programs on campus? There aren't any open records for private schools that I know of, which is why I ask the question.

Thanks for your help. Just trying to grasp some of this.

Also, tornado, can you clarify something in your post? You posted:

They even note that their arena (which is named for a benefactor and many had claimed was all going to be done via "private funding" is costing the school almost $14 million per year!!

How is a building costing that much per year? The McLeod Center was built for only about double that? Also, is the $14 million per year the cost of the total athletic dept (or is that where you get the $14 mil number). Just set me straight!

[tornado]

I don't know -- that's their quote-- but the arena is part of what's costing them about $14 mil per year -- so I corrected the statement..
I would take it to mean the year to year operating costs, like insurance, electricity, heating, maintenence, employee costs, etc....
I am always struck with how people CLAIM their athletic facilites were 100% paid for via PRIVATE funds and donations...but they hide or try to deceive about the fact, that even if that's the case (and I seriously doubt that it is) then once built the facilities are immensely expensive to maintain and that's often paid for by taxpayer funds and tuition fees taken from the educational funds of the university.

Note this quote in that article--
"The audit said MSU transferred about $8.9 million in private gifts from its foundation to the athletic department in the two-year period"
..this is money that average people gave out of their own generosity or willed to the university -- and likely MOST of them did it with the idea in mind that their money was going to educate the average kids on campus...
had those people been told in advance that a HUGE hunk of their gifts to the University's charitable FOUNDATION that's billed as helping academic causes, was being transferred to the athletic department just to pay the bills of bloated, inefficient, money losing sports programs and near-million dollar salaries of coaches, then those people might have thought differently....so in the end, people will now know this and it'll hurt the giving I'm sure.

Here is the mission of the "Foundation"..
"to fulfill Missouri State University's mission as a comprehensive university ..with a significant interest in higher education ...that encourages private financial support for Missouri State University and manages an endowment on behalf of the University.
...to ..seek, receive, manage and distribute resources in a manner appropriate to support programs of instruction, research and public service of the University"
No place in all of the Foundation's literature or mission statement does it mention even one time - athletics or sports programs..

http://www.missouristatefoundation.org/292.htm

http://www.missouristatefoundation.org/363.htm

[tornado]

BTW -- a year and a half ago -- a local writer down in Springfield, MO wrote an expose on all the waste, inefficiency, dishonesty, and how it was going to lead to a crisis...
that writer should get a Pulitzer -- although unfortunately his efforts to avoid this disaster fell on deaf ears!

http://bradleyfans.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12443

Here's more on how those in charge are not doing their jobs..

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101019/BREAKING01/101019020/Audit-MSU-not-watching-overall-budget-picture

[TNMSUFAN]

Not sure about the private schools but we are the only public school in the Valley that doesn't use "student fees" to support our athletic programs. Here are the dollar amounts of student fees generated.

Student fees for Valley Teams

MO State - $0
IL State - $7.2 million
IN State - $5.2 million
S. Illinois - $8.9 million
Wichita St - $2.9 million

Even with those fees the other 4 still had to get some direct institutional support

Direct institutional support

IL State - $2.2 million
IN State - $2.0 million
S. Illinois - $3.5 million
Wichita St - $1.8 million

Even with all that WSU was the only school that made money

[PTTB]

Thanks for the clarification tornado. I was just a little confused by that this AM.

As for the first part of the questions, can you or someone else help me regarding private schools and getting institutional support (or lack thereof)? Thanks!

[PTTB]

bump for understanding...

[amckillip]

bump for understanding...

Direct institutional support is exactly the same for private schools, but T suggests that shouldn't matter because a private school's general fund is not supported by the state or taxpayers. It is however supported by tuition from the students, and I am pretty sure schools like BU and Drake lose money on athletics. I'm not saying I do or do not agree, just putting the info out there.

[tornado]

I would beg to differ - but of course wouldn't be able to show the numbers -- but as a matter of directive -- this is why BU needed such a big fund rising effort for athletics, because they don't sap off students funds

[SFP]

Our basketball program becomes a money maker for the University because without it our endowment would be very average. Without the extra support it is doubtful that the University could afford the nice student facilities it has built the last few years. Why do you think the Prez. is all over the program. She knows that the basketball program is the straw the stirs the drink. Call her what you like but she's not dumb.

BTW...I like her even though I do not agree with all her moves. She has the University heading in the right direction.

[Braves4Life]

Our basketball program becomes a money maker for the University because without it our endowment would be very average. Without the extra support it is doubtful that the University could afford the nice student facilities it has built the last few years. Why do you think the Prez. is all over the program. She knows that the basketball program is the straw the stirs the drink. Call her what you like but she's not dumb.

BTW...I like her even though I do not agree with all her moves. She has the University heading in the right direction.

I agree with every word you wrote Pete.

[PTTB]

OK, I think I get it (correct me if I'm wrong). Bradley (or substitute any private school) gets money from the university, but it's from the overall endowment which is separate from tuition dollars. Dang...that's a serious endowment.

So, pretty much, Bradley makes big $$$ off of basketball, which supports not only that program, but a couple of the others as well, and the endowment covers the rest of the athletic department deficit. The endowment grows on a yearly basis as basketball success continues (ideally, with some ups/downs, but generally at a good place). B/c the endowment grows, the school can improve on campus facilities/academic buildings.

Does BU get any federal or state $$$? A couple decades ago, in Iowa, when the economy was down, there were several private schools in the state on the verge of not making it. They started to allow some state $$$ to help those schools, as they didn't think UNI/Iowa/ISU and the community colleges could absorb the increased enrollment in such a short time span. They continue receiving some support to this day. Does any of that occur at BU?

Thanks for helping me understand the ins/outs of private school financing!

Also, would BU improve their athletic finances if they added non-scholy football? 75 paying student-athletes at a nice $ clip. Just a thought, and has BU ever considered it?

[amckillip]

Our basketball program becomes a money maker for the University because without it our endowment would be very average. Without the extra support it is doubtful that the University could afford the nice student facilities it has built the last few years. Why do you think the Prez. is all over the program. She knows that the basketball program is the straw the stirs the drink. Call her what you like but she's not dumb.

BTW...I like her even though I do not agree with all her moves. She has the University heading in the right direction.

This assumption is overblown by so many it's crazy to me. I can't even fault people for it because it's literally just a general assumption. I worked in development for 3 years at BU and actually ran the call center for two of them and the vast majority of alum don't have a clue what's going on with the basketball team. Even after the Sweet 16 year people were ignorant of what was going on with the team. Things like the mascot and the enrollment are of far more interest than men's basketball. Many of the top donors are interested, but even that correlation is overplayed and not actually causation, as the top donors are interested in anything BU related.

As each one of us are among the most die-hard BU Basketball fans this is hard to fathom, but undoubtedly true. Very few small private schools have any success in athletics but still have great endowments - Northwestern, WashU, Drake, even schools like Grennel, Coe, John Carrol, Drury, Elmhurst, Baldwin-Wallace, or Bethel. Athletics tends to be far more important for public schools endowments than private, as the alumni giving rate is already much higher for private universities than it is for publics, so you don't have the upswell that comes with a good sports run. Not too mention that almost all donations that arise from having a decent basketball team go towards it's upkeep. BU's biggest construction project ever went towards creating a new practice facility and arena, a good portion of that money come from the general 'Campaign for a Bradley Renaissance' rather than directed towards the athletic department or BU Basketball, all funds that could have been used elsewhere if such a facility was not needed.

For BU, I'd say straight dollar-wise basketball is probably a wash for BU, but it keeps the BU name out there and really helps the 'Brand.' Which in and of itself is very important and beneficial.