True. But probably not as much as you’d think. Eight-figure donors don’t usually appear out of the blue, and the accepted time period from “identification” to “solicitation” can be up to 24 months for a donor of that capacity. It’s during that 24 months that the gift officer has to suggest potential funding opportunities. If that gift officer is tied to a particular school, as is the case with a lot of institutions, “unrestricted giving” will not be an option: If a gift officer works for the Business School, they will be judged on how well they raise money for the Business School. So they’ll try to steer donors away from non-Business School projects.
Sound like a conflict of interest? Sure. That’s why the school I work for, for example, has done away with “school-related” fund-raising officers. And, yes, there always will be people who want to give their $10 million to the Business School. That’s why it’s doubly important to push the “undecideds” towards unrestricted funds.
Yes, because that’s an accurate description of the few thousand thousand or so NCAA coaches in the country, or even the 500 or so NCAA Division I football and basketball coaches.
Counter-anecdote: My sister and brother each went to Michigan State University in the 1970s while MSU was suffering a serious drought of champion teams–until Magic Johnson showed up. My brother reported that once Johnson was a nationally recognized phenomenon, MSU was able to invest in a construction spree that exceeded that of the 1950s and most of the money came from sports fans.
Now, this may be atypical. It may also be the result of any number of coincidences or simply poor post hoc, ergo propter hoc logic: long-term construction planning coming to fruition, the sudden success of the Class of '57 with a desire to pay back their alma mater, or any number of other possibilities.
However, the clear perception (that was not missed by the administrations of other schools–who could, of course, be subject to the same inability to see past the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy), was that success in sports equals success in securing grants and endowment.
Even if it is not true, I strongly suspect that many administrations believe that it is true and act on that assumption. (And if the president does not believe it, but all the members of the board do, then a president who wishes to stay employed will act as if he believes it.)
I didn’t use a broad brush you idiot, it’s called a joke, and you interpreted it incorrectly. I’m not about to start adding disclaimers to my posts to point out what is obvious to everyone except you.
I’m afraid **Sauron has it precisely right. According to the skinny I’ve heard from the aforementioned close friend (who, in fairness, has moved on from the U of A, but was one of the financial officers up through perhaps two years ago,) the university gets stacks, tons, scads, beaucoup money every year in donations, and most of it is unsolicited donations from alumni. She told me it wasn’t unusual at all to receive $10 million from the Blounts, or the Trotmans, or the Weils, or any of a thousand other multimillionaire or billionaire Old Money families throughout the state.
They still nickel-and-dime all the Alabama alums for contributions to the Alumni Society, and I’m sure that money goes into the unrestricted fund, but the big money comes from the rich kids…and goes precisely where they want it to: the Law School, the Engineering School, and the Business School.
Not intended that away. It was more of a “don’t paint everyone with that great big wide brush.” The statement I was referring to was that “everyone” is interested in sports. No where near true. I do not consider my self “better” because I’m not interested in sports - I just don’t understand those who are. That’s also my reason for reading this thread.
Yes, I am also fully aware of how pro and college level sports are and how much influence it has on the economy. I just don’t get it, though. Playing sports, yes. Watching and shelling out big bucks for merchandise, no.
First of all, TaxGuy you changed my quote, which isn’t real kosher. Second, I’d like to see an analysis of the marginal return from a coach hired at, say, $1.0 millon vs. one at $1.2 million.
If you read my post you’ll notice I didn’t dismiss the idea that a good coach will help a university. I simply share RickJay’s skepticism that there is a direct correlation between coaching salary and revenues. Since you are a fancy economics-talkin’ guy I’m sure you can find something to prove me wrong. I’ll be waiting.
Duke, I bow to your fundraising expertise, but as an alum of ND it sure seems like they ALWAYS have a special fundraising campaign going on. The CSC Religious Order that runs the school (nicknamed the Congregation of the Sacred Currency) CAN get blood out of stones.
