Who should have more influence with athletics, students or alumni?

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

An interesting question, since we all know that athletics were originally intended for students, but are funded in large part by alumni. Not a fair answer to say both should have equal, because both have different levels of involvement.

[johnsoniu 6,413]

I'm not sure what you mean by "influence". And by students, are we talking the student-athletes or the general student body?

[mdn82 25,510]

Alumni gets a lot in return for significant donations so not sure about the question.

[TrueHoosier62 1,593]

I vote for "C": Neither.

 

Collegiate Athletics are almost by definition, owned by the Universities that support them. Consequently, it should be the administrators who have the most influence, perhaps aided with input by the Alumni.

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

I'm not sure what you mean by "influence". And by students, are we talking the student-athletes or the general student body?

Coaches are hired, ticket allocations set, facility rehabs prioritized, etc,... There is a great deal of influence exerted over the athletic department at any given moment. For example, rehab of Assembly Hall, $40 mil to dress up a poorly designed arena. Who should have influence over rehab or demo? Who decides what sport gets the latest and greatest? These things are not decided by Glass alone.
Students or Alum? Who do you think sets the tone in athletics, and who do you think should be more influential in the decision making?

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

Alumni gets a lot in return for significant donations so not sure about the question.

What do they get? Tickets? Access? Influence?

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

I vote for "C": Neither.

Collegiate Athletics are almost by definition, owned by the Universities that support them. Consequently, it should be the administrators who have the most influence, perhaps aided with input by the Alumni.

Do you believe that the trustees decide on the path athletics takes? I'm just curious to see who people perceive as the leaders in IU athletics.

[mdn82 25,510]

What do they get? Tickets? Access? Influence?

Yes to all.

[johnsoniu 6,413]

As I see it now, the students only recourse for influence would be thru the SAB. And I would say that's a marginalized voice at that.

 

The board elects the President who appoints the AD. If the board was unhappy with the AD, a change would be made. Heck, we went through 5 in 8 yrs. Now how much influence the alumni has on the board is debatable. Only three are elected and only 7% voted in the last trustee election. My guess is that 7% is comprised of some very successful ( and ultimately influential) people.

 

The other 6 board members are appointed by the Governor and most could not care less what the athletic department is doing. Unless RMK is showing up on tapes "choking" people. Then they get pretty bent out of shape.

[TrueHoosier62 1,593]

Do you believe that the trustees decide on the path athletics takes? I'm just curious to see who people perceive as the leaders in IU athletics.

I'm not learned enough in the whole process to know for certain what is best, but my instinct tells me that yes, trustees, or those who's main interests are the University itself, should have the most influence over the Athletic department's direction.

[moyemayhem 1,287]

I disagree with the premise that athletics are largely funded by alumni.  According to IU's 2014 financial reports, 35% of their revenue comes from student fees and 3.5% comes from gifts.

 

http://vpcfo.iu.edu/doc/fy2014.pdf

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

I disagree with the premise that athletics are largely funded by alumni.  According to IU's 2014 financial reports, 35% of their revenue comes from student fees and 3.5% comes from gifts.

 

http://vpcfo.iu.edu/doc/fy2014.pdf

I HATE WHEN FACTS RUIN MY ARGUMENT

[johnsoniu 6,413]

I disagree with the premise that athletics are largely funded by alumni.  According to IU's 2014 financial reports, 35% of their revenue comes from student fees and 3.5% comes from gifts.

 

http://vpcfo.iu.edu/doc/fy2014.pdf

 

Are you looking at the pie chart on pg 13? Because that's the Universitiy's revenue, not the Athletic dept.

[KelleyHoosh 2,263]

I disagree with the premise that athletics are largely funded by alumni.  According to IU's 2014 financial reports, 35% of their revenue comes from student fees and 3.5% comes from gifts.

 

http://vpcfo.iu.edu/doc/fy2014.pdf

The difference in this specific argument is that the bulk of that 3.5% in all likelihood comes from a handful of individuals whereas 35% comes from 100% of students. For decision making purposes, its a lot more practical to consult the handful of people wealthy enough to donate large amounts to your athletic department than 40,000+ kids who don't know how the world works, how the NCAA and athletic departments work, etc

[Josh 12,625]

I'm not sure what you mean by "influence". And by students, are we talking the student-athletes or the general student body?

This is a good question since it seems the original post is so vague.

 

Student Athletes should have the most, the rest of the student body should be equal to the alumni.

[johnsoniu 6,413]

 

This is a good question since it seems the original post is so vague.

 

Student Athletes should have the most, the rest of the student body should be equal to the alumni.

 

 

It is interesting in regards to the student-athletes. The landscape is rapidly changing ( i.e. Glass's bill of rights, N'western players unionizing, etc.) What this whole model will look like in 20 years I have no idea. Might get better, might be worse.

 

I don't think I would  assign the student body the same level of influence as the alumni. As I said before, they have a voice, it is just marginalized. And I'm fine with that. The Athletics Dept is a $78 million a year entity. Entry level managers at corporations that size don't get a say  in major decisions. They may have a seat at the table, but that's about it.

 

 For example,if the SAB thinks renovating the Hall is stupid and want a new arena, I'm sure the Board would tell them to feel free drum up the capital to finance a new stadium.

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

I disagree with the premise that athletics are largely funded by alumni. According to IU's 2014 financial reports, 35% of their revenue comes from student fees and 3.5% comes from gifts.

http://vpcfo.iu.edu/doc/fy2014.pdf

how bout the other 61.5%. Scholarships are funded through Varsity Club.

[moyemayhem 1,287]

how bout the other 61.5%. Scholarships are funded through Varsity Club.

 

You are essentially talking about earmarks, which really is inconsequential in an organization as big as IU.  All that matters is who brings in the most money to the university, and it is current students BY FAR.

[87ashtonhoosier 150]

You are essentially talking about earmarks, which really is inconsequential in an organization as big as IU. All that matters is who brings in the most money to the university, and it is current students BY FAR.

I would disagree. Endowments are BY FAR the store of wealth at IU. The buildings being built are not funded by student fees when professors each cost $100000+ per year. Many current students don't even live on campus, use campus dining, etc..., I doubt your $8000 in tuition boosts the coffers.The big bucks come from alums, TV, the State of Indiana, and the sale of IU branded items. Athletics already budgets for each sport, and the numbers are hardly inconsequential. Volleyball, for example, has a $3 mil budget, and that's a minor.

[johnsoniu 6,413]

IUs Athletic Department is essentially self-sustaining. I know as recently as 2012 they received a 3% subsidy from the University to supplement the $66 million in revenue they produced themselves. But by and large, student fees account for little of the operating budget.