LFN: More (Patriot League) Credit Crunchiness

[Lehigh Football Nation]

http://lehighfootballnation.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-patriot-league-credit-crunchiness.html


Summer blockbuster season is already here, and it's a time for sequels like the new Star Trek and Night at the Museum movies. But here at LFN there's also a sequel about something no college sports fan wants to contemplate: the credit crunch around the Patriot League, which I talked about quite a bit last month.

Interesting stuff around the Patriot League - while Lafayette and Lehigh are engaging in austerity measures, Fordham and Holy Cross seem to be going full speed ahead on at least some areas of increased spending.

[Libertine]

Forgive me, LFN, but that picture really put me in the mood for a Crunch bar.

[CrusaderBob]

Not sure where you get the impression that things at HC are full speed ahead or even unchanged.

Sure they announced new athletic scholarships, but that's been percolating for a few years. It would have been akin to stopping a construction project that already started. I don't think it's come to that anywhere.

The increase in Alumni giving you cite was based on the year that ended June 30, 2008 – well before the real economic troubles hit. Note in the article you link to, the vice president for development and alumni relations said that so far this year giving is down.

Also the connection you make between giving and the new athletic scholarships is not correct. The increase in giving was talking about increasing participation – to 55% alumni participation. This increase was largely attributable to 2 separate challenge gifts in 2 consecutive years. In the last two years alumni were challenged to give anything in order to exceed the participation thresholds - first to 53% then 55%. By achieving those goals, each challenge donor made a substantial individual gift to the college. In FY ’08 actual dollars given were essentially flat - up only about 1% vs. FY07 - $6.1M vs $6.03M.

Here are several links to provide additional evidence to the contrary of your assertion. Maybe not as bad a Lafayette or Lehigh, but definitely not full speed ahead.

1. A thread started on Crossports by a member of the faculty about an update the faculty received from the President at the end of March:

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=32945&threadid=2037196

2. a link to a message from the president to the greater HC community regarding the college’s finances:

http://www.holycross.edu/president/economic_conditions/message_president_feb09/

3. a link to an FAQ page on the finances at HC:

http://www.holycross.edu/president/economic_conditions/faq/

4. a link to a Blog entry by HC BB coach Ralph Willard on scheduling where he talks about the impact the economic downturn is having on the way he schedules this year including scheduling 3 – 4 guarantee games and more games closer to home to help with the budget. (Scroll down to day 10)

http://www.coachralphwillard.com/12days.html

[Fordham]

In some ways it seems like Fordham (and, to a lesser extent, Holy Cross) is forging forward with pretty big plans while seemingly ignoring the financial realities being talked about in coffee shops all around the country. If they can do it (and, possibly, fully fund 63 scholarships for their football team and play football as an FCS independent), bully for them - but you can't help but raise an eyebrow at how much this is going to require in fundraising

Similar to how carney constantly refers to it as a Fordham tantrum instead of a well considered plan, you always refer to the whopping additional cost that scholarships are going to bring Fordham. As we've gone back and forth at every time - at Fordham there are zero plans to increase funding for football. We are perfectly fine with our 58 equivalencies turning into scholarships and not spending a dime more on the program.

Part of the argument internally is that you get both a better potential student and better potential athlete since the recruiting pool is widened (and as we've gone over here ad nauseum). Thus, it's considered a much more responsible way to spend our budget money instead of hanging our hat on some faux-principle that is clearly a complete sham overall. When times are tough you not only look to cut $$ but you also look for ways to drive efficiencies without increasing budgets. Overall, I don't think we've escaped the downturn as bullishly as you've claimed. However, this is still considered a no brainer way to get more for our money by those I've spoken to internally at Fordham.

If a PL team is going to face a budget cut v. last year I would think a much easier way to rationalize it would be to cut 10% but switch to scholarships. You'd have a great shot to field a better team than you would with the additional 10% in equivalencies imo.

[bison137]

at Fordham there are zero plans to increase funding for football. We are perfectly fine with our 58 equivalencies turning into scholarships and not spending a dime more on the program.





However, even without spending a dime more on football, there may still be Title IX implications that require more spending on women's sports. When spending is solely need-based, it does not necessarily have to be matched on the women's side. If it is merit-based, without a needs test, the Title IX requirements change.

[DFW HOYA]

If a PL team is going to face a budget cut v. last year I would think a much easier way to rationalize it would be to cut 10% but switch to scholarships. You'd have a great shot to field a better team than you would with the additional 10% in equivalencies imo.

I think Georgetown needs equivalencies first. A 18 scholarship team, for example, isn't going to win any more games than a 20 equivalency team.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Similar to how carney constantly refers to it as a Fordham tantrum instead of a well considered plan, you always refer to the whopping additional cost that scholarships are going to bring Fordham. As we've gone back and forth at every time - at Fordham there are zero plans to increase funding for football. We are perfectly fine with our 58 equivalencies turning into scholarships and not spending a dime more on the program.

Part of the argument internally is that you get both a better potential student and better potential athlete since the recruiting pool is widened (and as we've gone over here ad nauseum). Thus, it's considered a much more responsible way to spend our budget money instead of hanging our hat on some faux-principle that is clearly a complete sham overall. When times are tough you not only look to cut $$ but you also look for ways to drive efficiencies without increasing budgets. Overall, I don't think we've escaped the downturn as bullishly as you've claimed. However, this is still considered a no brainer way to get more for our money by those I've spoken to internally at Fordham.

All this is fair re: football scholarships. But I did find it odd that Fordham chose now to announce their $500 million initiative to raise money to improve the university. When Harvard and Yale are stopping construction on projects, is now a good time to announce a giving campaign of half a billion dollars? It may be; I don't know. But it certainly is a rarity in this environment.

To me it looks like Fordham isn't only being a "contrarian" on FB scholarships - they're going against the flow in higher education, too. I brought it up more to make a point that FB scholarships are just a part of what seems to me to be the institutional goals of Fordham. Not that that's bad: not at all, if they think they can do it. But to me (who, admittedly, knows nothing about running a university) it seems risky.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

Not sure where you get the impression that things at HC are full speed ahead or even unchanged. ...

Fair points CB. I didn't see those posts in my original research. I'll fix my original blog posting.

[RichH2]

I wonder with the Market rebounding sonewhat whether endowments are recouping some of their losses. Overall economic downturn at least thru mid 2010 will lower funds for everyone including state schools. Q arises whether many schools will start dropping sportsother than rifle or field hockey or wrestling ? Football? very expensive and not a money maker at our level for all but a vey few.

[LUHawker]

I wonder with the Market rebounding sonewhat whether endowments are recouping some of their losses. Overall economic downturn at least thru mid 2010 will lower funds for everyone including state schools. Q arises whether many schools will start dropping sportsother than rifle or field hockey or wrestling ? Football? very expensive and not a money maker at our level for all but a vey few.

RichH2 - From a purely operational level, football at our level and at Lehigh, specifically, probably doesn't make money. HOWEVER, football acts as a huge source of school pride, provides a "social glue" for alums and the community and gives the school a tangible presence. I believe that football acts as a reminder and ultimately a magnet for alumni donations unlike any other single activity. I have no numbers, but I don't know of any other activity that draws 60-70k visitors to campus each year.

[Fordham]

All this is fair re: football scholarships. But I did find it odd that Fordham chose now to announce their $500 million initiative to raise money to improve the university. When Harvard and Yale are stopping construction on projects, is now a good time to announce a giving campaign of half a billion dollars? It may be; I don't know. But it certainly is a rarity in this environment.

To me it looks like Fordham isn't only being a "contrarian" on FB scholarships - they're going against the flow in higher education, too. I brought it up more to make a point that FB scholarships are just a part of what seems to me to be the institutional goals of Fordham. Not that that's bad: not at all, if they think they can do it. But to me (who, admittedly, knows nothing about running a university) it seems risky.

It's a little odd with timing but your comments make it sound as though the market crashed and then Fordham decided to start raising a huge amount of $$. That's just not how it works. This campaign has been worked on for years - pretty soon after Fr. McShane's arrival as President. The norm simply is that the silent phase takes you up until 1/2 or at least a very significant portion of the overall goal is reached. After that point, you announce the campaign publicly. What you're referring to as us seemingly thumbing our nose at the marketplace is just admitting that we've reached the public portion of a years-in-the-making campaign.

[Fordham]

However, even without spending a dime more on football, there may still be Title IX implications that require more spending on women's sports. When spending is solely need-based, it does not necessarily have to be matched on the women's side. If it is merit-based, without a needs test, the Title IX requirements change.

How so? I've never had that explained to me well enough that a) I could understand it and b) I had the feeling that the person explaining it understood it.

And Fordham doesn't meet Title IX requirements via the one-to-one ratio and we've always considered the dollars spent on equivalencies to count towards our Title IX calculations. I was told there is no additional hit to our budget for Title IX reasons.

[danefan]

How so? I've never had that explained to me well enough that a) I could understand it and b) I had the feeling that the person explaining it understood it.

And Fordham doesn't meet Title IX requirements via the one-to-one ratio and we've always considered the dollars spent on equivalencies to count towards our Title IX calculations. I was told there is no additional hit to our budget for Title IX reasons.

I am in the same boat as you. Its all about dollars spent. An equivalency or a scholarship - both are awarded to football players because of their athletic ability, thus not offered to the general student body and therefore equal in the eyes of the NCAA and Title IX.

[Franks Tanks]

I am in the same boat as you. Its all about dollars spent. An equivalency or a scholarship - both are awarded to football players because of their athletic ability, thus not offered to the general student body and therefore equal in the eyes of the NCAA and Title IX.

Your logic is impeccable. However, there seems to be uncertainity regarding the way the NCAA stands on this issue.

One would think the PL need based aid is viewed the same way a straight up athletic scholarship, but really who knows?

[Seawolf97]

I wonder with the Market rebounding sonewhat whether endowments are recouping some of their losses. Overall economic downturn at least thru mid 2010 will lower funds for everyone including state schools. Q arises whether many schools will start dropping sportsother than rifle or field hockey or wrestling ? Football? very expensive and not a money maker at our level for all but a vey few.

Both Vermont and Maine in the America East have announced dropping two sports starting in September 2009. Sadly I suspect we will see more of this . It is my guess once a school drops a sport it may never return due to start up costs, recruiting , new coaching staffs etc.

[danefan]

Both Vermont and Maine in the America East have announced dropping two sports starting in September 2009. Sadly I suspect we will see more of this . It is my guess once a school drops a sport it may never return due to start up costs, recruiting , new coaching staffs etc.


I suspect that SBU will have to drop some men's sports for Title IX reasons anyway. I wonder if the SUNY budget cuts (~14%) will be the catalyst:

Men
Football
Baseball
Basketball
Lacrosse
Soccer
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track & Field
X-Country

Women
Basketball
Lacrosse
Soccer
Softball
Swimming and Diving
Tennis
Track & Field
X-Country
Volleyball

There is no real counterpart for full scholarship football. I think they'll end up dropping Men's swimming and diving and perhaps tennis (like most schools have done).

Any thoughts from the SBU perspective?

[bison137]

I am in the same boat as you. Its all about dollars spent. An equivalency or a scholarship - both are awarded to football players because of their athletic ability, thus not offered to the general student body and therefore equal in the eyes of the NCAA and Title IX.



That is not necessarily the case. If a school gives out need-based aid only and follows identical procedures for men and women, then it will not create a Title IX issue if more money happens to be given to one gender than the other.

If money is given out based solely on athletic ability with no regard to need, then the expenditures for men and women need to be approximately the same (or more rarely meet one of the other Title IX tests).

[danefan]

That is not necessarily the case. If a school gives out need-based aid only and follows identical procedures for men and women, then it will not create a Title IX issue if more money happens to be given to one gender than the other.

If money is given out based solely on athletic ability with no regard to need, then the expenditures for men and women need to be approximately the same (or more rarely meet one of the other Title IX tests).

But PL schools do not still have need-based aid for sports other than football do they? I thought that changed when American joined the league.

If I am correct, you aren't offsetting football equivalencies with women's equivalencies. You are offsetting them with the funding of scholarships and women's programs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

But PL schools do not still have need-based aid for sports other than football do they? I thought that changed when American joined the league.

If I am correct, you aren't offsetting football equivalencies with women's equivalencies. You are offsetting them with the funding of scholarships and women's programs.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Any school can choose to give only need-based aid in any sport should they choose. Schools sponsoring a PL sport have the option of offering scholarships in any sport besides football. If scholarships are offered, they have to adhere to Ttile IX, etc. Also, need-based aid also requires some Title IX balancing too if I understand correctly (i.e., you can't just offer 100% need-based aid to men and only offer women that have no financial need).

[danefan]

Any school can choose to give only need-based aid in any sport should they choose. Schools sponsoring a PL sport have the option of offering scholarships in any sport besides football. If scholarships are offered, they have to adhere to Ttile IX, etc. Also, need-based aid also requires some Title IX balancing too if I understand correctly (i.e., you can't just offer 100% need-based aid to men and only offer women that have no financial need).


But are there schools giving need-based aid in other sports?

[Fordham]

That is not necessarily the case. If a school gives out need-based aid only and follows identical procedures for men and women, then it will not create a Title IX issue if more money happens to be given to one gender than the other.

If money is given out based solely on athletic ability with no regard to need, then the expenditures for men and women need to be approximately the same (or more rarely meet one of the other Title IX tests).

Per my previous post above, please explain this in more detail. I know Fordham treats the dollars spent on equivalencies as athletic aid and it goes directly into Title IX calculations. Are you saying that Bucknell does not do that?

Are you saying it's possible that need-based aid for football players is a quick run around Title IX?

[bison137]

Per my previous post above, please explain this in more detail. I know Fordham treats the dollars spent on equivalencies as athletic aid and it goes directly into Title IX calculations. Are you saying that Bucknell does not do that?

Are you saying it's possible that need-based aid for football players is a quick run around Title IX?



Yes, the equivalencies go into the Title IX calculations. However, it may be possible to give out differing amounts of money to men and women if all the money is granted by the same need-based rules. If male recruits and female recruits happen to fall into different socio-economic groups, then it is possible that males will receive more aid without being out of Title IX compliance. However, once the money is given out solely due to athletic ability, then it must be given out relatively evenly.

Note that I am not saying that this is the situation with Fordham - just that it might be.


This is an issue that has been discussed by Lafayette fans. Some quotes from their board:

"Here is the issue. Equality in aid is budgeted equally, but the women never spend it. Nearly 700 K is returned every year. If there are scholarships for football mandating scholarships for women then you must spend it!! That is the fiscal reality, we budget for equality but the women have less need."

"The problem for us is we budget for equivilencies BUT DON"T SPEND IT. Under scholarships we would be obligated to spend it. Title IX is all about opportunity, if you give 58 or 63 men aid without regard to need you must do the same for the women. If you do that for the women it will mandate money we don't actually spend today ( I hear that number is about 700-800k per year). "