Porgyman post=456885 said:
L J S A post=456878 said:
Porgyman post=456876 said:
L J S A post=456874 said:
Piggybacking on AJ Hidell's post, Stanford has this:
https://gostanford.com/news/2017/9/18/athletics-home-of-champions.aspx
The bells and whistles really do attract attention.
St. John’s University endowment $719.7 million
Stanford University endowment $37.8
billion
Need I say more?
Yes, I am well aware of Stanford's endowment. (Endowment also didn't fund this, though.)
But that shouldn't preclude us from at least trying to look like a premier destination.
Agree with you. More needs to be done. However my point was if Stanford needs a new weight room or other training facility, they simply call donors that help to make that huge endowment possible. The money is wired within the hour.
You are absolutely right to identify that the schools with the most resources have an unfair advantage in building a better university. My wife taught at a public hs where in a single year as many as 50 students have been accepted to Ivy League schools, as well as many other elite or near elite programs. It's why many of their parents would help finance their children's education at an elite school like Stanford, because they see the high value in a great school with virtually unlimited resources.
The top 10 schools have endowments that range from $12 billion to about $42 billion. It's not only the size of the endowment, but those schools can spend much more because they raise much more. I'm not sure the exact numbers, but a very high percentage of those school's alumni donate to the school.
Our $700 million endowment, which I believe was published to be 2nd or 3rd in the Big East, does not compare to say a Villanova, whose endowment is in the same range, but raise $100 million per year in donations without a capital giving campaign.
Excellence costs money. Duke's AD received a published $1.7 million per year. Their coach is paid more than $7 million as a base, plus incentives. Patrick Ewing is paid $4 million from Georgetown, a very well endowed school. Obviously the salary you pay a coach doesn't guarantee success on the court, but much deeper pockets allow a school to invest however they want.
When you flip the endowment list, you are likely to find some schools with low endowments that are achieving athletic success in a particular revenue producing sport. They will be few and far between, and while some schools may attain anecdotal success, it is virtually impossible to achieve sustained success without a considerable donor base. St. John's achieve tremendous success in an era where college coaches were largely compensated as faculty. Looie was well paid in that era, in range with our university President. His 2 year replacement was paid $17,000.
A big reason we have been left behind as college athletics became another near professional sport is our inability to remain competitive in the area of giving. Our fans don't want to hear it, and will point to all sorts of things, such as our Fox TV contract. But in my opinion, the single most addressable item that our fans can help fix is giving.
It's a broken record, and the fundraisers are much better trained to deliver that message in a more eloquent and palatable way. But it's very very simple - more money means better facilties, better compensated faculty and administrators, better arenas, and overall a larger amount invested in winning. For our basketball fans, the story stops at winning. For the university community, winning means more applicants, more revenue, and more investments in the university in the form of donations. Winning brands us, and is a catalyst for growth in all revenue producing areas.
