Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 63

Thread: "Candidates" for next Chancellor: Athletics/Football friendly?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by packawana View Post
    My point is that top athletics and endowment are correlated but there's no proof of causation here. Sure, having a good football program might mean more donations. But that's a might. Having a top football program might be a result of a bunch of other factors as well, just as having a larger endowment might be the result of a lot of other factors, such as importance within the state or student population. Having a good football program might also mean less endowment. Look at LSU -- they've won a nattie in the last 10 years and their endowment is less than a quarter of ours.

    Having a good athletics program might get you more alumni engagement. But alumni engagement != moolah. While having good athletics is what draws Phil Knight to give to Oregon, it's also not what draws Mark Zuckerberg to give us or Stanford a crapton of money. None of this is to say that we shouldn't be investing in our athletics department in order to be competitive, or that we shouldn't be competitive in general. I just don't necessarily buy the "if we win more, the alumni will give more" argument because there are a million different reasons alumni could give money and simply being engaged with the university's athletic success isn't going to propel donations.
    It really depends on who you are targeting. You will never get stats to do your regression analysis (and any attempts same are BS) because of how fundraising actually occurs - behind closed doors. We initially donated to the school my wife went to a sport's team and next thing I know we are having lunch with Dean of Science and Humanities. How did that happen? Bottom line the Dean never gets his foot n the door unless it was for Furd's women's basketball team. Where does that show up on your stats?

  2. #32
    Loyal Bear barabbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Puerto Plata, DR
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    Sperling is dead but his companies name is on a stadium, so I assume he was a sports fan. Of the living, most of the guys don't live in the US, and I suspect don't follow college sports. Moore attends Cal games. Milken gives to Cal sports. Don't know about Schmidt or Stryker.
    Gordon Moore has not been generous to Cal athletics

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    Where does that show up on your stats?
    That's why you look at giving rate, which is about 30 percent lower than SC or Furd at the moment. Someone somewhere in the university bureacracy is recording that your wife donated once that money is received.
    Last edited by packawana; 02-10-2017 at 03:35 PM.

  4. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by barabbas View Post
    Gordon Moore has not been generous to Cal athletics
    He's been very generous to research at Cal.

  5. #35

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by packawana View Post
    That's why you look at giving rate, which is about 30 percent lower than SC or Furd at the moment. Someone somewhere in the university bureacracy is recording that your wife donated once that money is received.
    Its just not that simple I'm afraid.


    Having discussed this issue with two Chancellors, Jon Wilton (former Cal CFO) and various Cal development people, I can tell you that they all agree that sports helps donations for campus, and vice-versa as well. They also said there is no way to come up with a regression or correlation number, and they say they have tried. Sc and Furd could not be more different situations. They are number 1 and 2 in overall expeditures on athletics, though SC, which is a much larger school, provides a much smaller subsidy to its sports program that Furd.

    Let me give you an example why trying to compare giving rates doesnít work. Donors to Cal sports also donate a greater rate to Cal academics. But you donít really know if sports helped donations to academics or vice-versa. Or what about this scenario. Professor or administrator meets non-donating alum at game, develops relationship, and alum eventually only gives to academics. As a researcher, (1) how do you find this out and (2) what credit to give sports for the donation? 10%, 100%? Youíre talking about a synergetic process and trying to put exact numbers on it. That wonít work.

  7. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    Its just not that simple I'm afraid.


    Having discussed this issue with two Chancellors, Jon Wilton (former Cal CFO) and various Cal development people, I can tell you that they all agree that sports helps donations for campus, and vice-versa as well. They also said there is no way to come up with a regression or correlation number, and they say they have tried. Sc and Furd could not be more different situations. They are number 1 and 2 in overall expeditures on athletics, though SC, which is a much larger school, provides a much smaller subsidy to its sports program that Furd.

    Let me give you an example why trying to compare giving rates doesn’t work. Donors to Cal sports also donate a greater rate to Cal academics. But you don’t really know if sports helped donations to academics or vice-versa. Or what about this scenario. Professor or administrator meets non-donating alum at game, develops relationship, and alum eventually only gives to academics. As a researcher, (1) how do you find this out and (2) what credit to give sports for the donation? 10%, 100%? You’re talking about a synergetic process and trying to put exact numbers on it. That won’t work.
    SoCal's argument however was predicated on the idea that having a more successful athletic program would lead to wider alumni engagement which would lead to a diversified and increased alumni donation pool. Now I agree with you there are many problems with attributing a successful donation to sports or not sports when it isn't that black and white. However, if the aforementioned thesis was the case and more alumni are engaged and therefore also more inclined to give, would the giving rate not show a trendline increase assuming sustained athletic success over a period of 3-5 years? Basically I would be willing to bet that that trend line stays pretty horizontal.

  8. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by packawana View Post
    SoCal's argument however was predicated on the idea that having a more successful athletic program would lead to wider alumni engagement which would lead to a diversified and increased alumni donation pool. Now I agree with you there are many problems with attributing a successful donation to sports or not sports when it isn't that black and white. However, if the aforementioned thesis was the case and more alumni are engaged and therefore also more inclined to give, would the giving rate not show a trendline increase assuming sustained athletic success over a period of 3-5 years? Basically I would be willing to bet that that trend line stays pretty horizontal.
    The problem is timing. Large gifts often take years develop and then structure (if your giving assets, it may take years and involve accomadators since public schools insist you sell the assets first). That is why you see the top endowment schools that are not Ivies have been traditional powers for a long time in a revenue sport. Also, just because you may have the benefit of being a sports power doesn't mean you take advantage. You actually have to know what your doing and not alienate your donor base. I'm not sure Berkeley and Cal have figured that out.

  9. #39
    Loyal Bear barabbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Puerto Plata, DR
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by GoCal80 View Post
    He's been very generous to research at Cal.
    He(Moore)has been more generous to other schools
    Last edited by barabbas; 02-11-2017 at 08:36 AM.

  10. #40
    Real Bear Number 031343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    North of the Golden Gate Bridge
    Posts
    603
    When we talk about donors, are we talking about all donors or only a subset consisting of big ticket "donors who matter" ( a term quoted on this board, presumably six figure donors, no definition has been provided for this subset)? This distinction has been mentioned in as though small donors have no collective impact that matters, and therefore their opinions need not be measured. Has there ever been a survey of all donors at all levels, as to the value of athletics encouraging (or not) their contributions? I personally know may who contribute to Cal (four figures or less) for whom athletic success is not a determinant, the value of their degree and the appreciation of what they were required to do to earn, the opportunities it opened to them, fuels their desire to contribute. They even fund entire fields of study, exceeding a million dollars, a notable example is within the Goldman School of public Policy. I am at all not suggesting that athletics is not, or can't be a factor for many, but I would be curious to know what a general survey of all donors reveals in terms of attitudes.

    Speaking only from my experience in donations to academic departments (I am a four figure or less guy), there can be a difference in both outreach and appreciation for contributions shown by the schools.

  11. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Number 031343 View Post
    When we talk about donors, are we talking about all donors or only a subset consisting of big ticket "donors who matter" ( a term quoted on this board, presumably six figure donors, no definition has been provided for this subset)? This distinction has been mentioned in as though small donors have no collective impact that matters, and therefore their opinions need not be measured. Has there ever been a survey of all donors at all levels, as to the value of athletics encouraging (or not) their contributions? I personally know may who contribute to Cal (four figures or less) for whom athletic success is not a determinant, the value of their degree and the appreciation of what they were required to do to earn, the opportunities it opened to them, fuels their desire to contribute. They even fund entire fields of study, exceeding a million dollars, a notable example is within the Goldman School of public Policy. I am at all not suggesting that athletics is not, or can't be a factor for many, but I would be curious to know what a general survey of all donors reveals in terms of attitudes.

    Speaking only from my experience in donations to academic departments (I am a four figure or less guy), there can be a difference in both outreach and appreciation for contributions shown by the schools.
    I think the problem is we all view this through our own personal prism. I had always been a modest donor, but when I became engaged by the sports program on a more substantive basis, I significantly increased my academic donations. Sports makes me think about Cal (I guess in this case I mean UC Berkeley) more than I ever would have without it.

    It's like the great and successful religions of the world. You are continuously reminded that you are a member as you walk through life by what you can eat, drink, smoke, etc. These religions continuously connect with you. I check this forum every day - and God help me a whole lot more than that when something is going down. I don't check in on what is happening with my academic school every month, much less every day. Cal is continuously present in my life because of sports. I spend money in the same places I spend my time.

  12. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by barabbas View Post
    He(Moore)has been more generous to other schools
    One has to be careful making such assumptions because sometimes major donors give anonymous gifts. Moore has given to our research mission through the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, but also more quietly outside of the foundation.

  13. #43
    Loyal Bear barabbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Puerto Plata, DR
    Posts
    3,724
    Quote Originally Posted by GoCal80 View Post
    One has to be careful making such assumptions because sometimes major donors give anonymous gifts. Moore has given to our research mission through the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, but also more quietly outside of the foundation.
    Yea, I guess their foundation gives publicly to Cal Tech and secretly to Cal

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by packawana View Post
    Let's look at the top 10 by endowment:
    1. Texas A&M
    2. Michigan
    3. UVa
    4. Ohio State
    5. Pitt
    6. Texas
    7. Wiscy
    8. Minn
    9. UDub
    10. UNC

    Of those I'd say 6 have been consistently good or above-average FB programs. UNC and UVa you might be able to make a case for basketball support. But Pitt and Minnesota? There's some history but not a lot.

    And there's a lot of other variables to take away from this -- UM is undoubtedly the flagship university for Michigan while Berkeley is a flagship for the UC but its standing is much more equal to the other branches than the relationship between say UM and Eastern Michigan or MSU. College football also carries greater cultural significance in these parts of the country than the Bay Area. UT Austin has 12,000 more students than we do, etc.

    If we had more data about alumni engagement and giving during the Tedford years I'd find the good sports-higher donations-higher income thing to be true if we could see a visible uptick in giving, but as far as I know giving rates from those years and now aren't that far apart.
    Comparing endowments is always tricky because universities with medical schools skew much higher than those schools that don't. I've often wondered what Cal's financial muscle would be if UCSF hadn't seceded. sigh. tAm and UT are outliers and highly volatile because the main source of their money is oil and gas revenues derived from Permian Basin land leases.

  15. #45
    Looks like it's Carol Christ.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •