Please tell me what budget issues that ISU are facing, that aren't any different from Iowa or any other BCS level colleges.
Should the Iowa Athletic Dept Fund UNI?
- Thread starter OldAlum
- Start date
Please tell me what budget issues that ISU are facing, that aren't any different from Iowa or any other BCS level colleges.
This is why you don't have non-academics weighing in on academics. Gartner, the guy who ran off David Skorton and gave us Sally, is indicative of the wrong-headedness of our move toward privatizing our public education systems.
This move involves reducing state funding of higher education and starting to view state universities as possible revenue streams. What you get is cheaper online delivery systems, more adjunct faculty without research backgrounds in the fields they teach, more reliance on corporate research partners, more "professionals" without academic or scholarly/research experience in highly paid administrative positions, and yes FAR MORE FOCUS ON ATHLETICS as a revenue creating system.
The head of the University of Oregon said it appropriately, "We started as a state funded university, then we became a state supported university, now we are a state located university."
But it is worse than that. State universities are starting to become like the USPS, who are sinking because they are required to be self-supporting, but still have their policies dictated to them from people who have no idea what their business is about.
This move involves reducing state funding of higher education and starting to view state universities as possible revenue streams. What you get is cheaper online delivery systems, more adjunct faculty without research backgrounds in the fields they teach, more reliance on corporate research partners, more "professionals" without academic or scholarly/research experience in highly paid administrative positions, and yes FAR MORE FOCUS ON ATHLETICS as a revenue creating system.
The head of the University of Oregon said it appropriately, "We started as a state funded university, then we became a state supported university, now we are a state located university."
But it is worse than that. State universities are starting to become like the USPS, who are sinking because they are required to be self-supporting, but still have their policies dictated to them from people who have no idea what their business is about.
I awould have to agree with you in theory. However at times an entity realises there bussiness is strengthened by belonging to a group and shareing revenue as done in the B1G. Or in the case of insurance. In insurance we all cover the cost for those using the system through our policies. It is not necessarily liberlism to suggest helping someone or entity to succeed unless you are asking/receiving nothing in return and/or are forced to by a governmental entity. I don't think IA shoulod be forced to give/loan UNI money, but if they find it to be in there overall best interest they just might.
hogeye
Well-Known Member
You've alluded to this before and I forgot to follow up. I don't see where you are getting that from. Is there a different set of accounting for the State of Iowa differing from what they publish in the annual report?
I am not a bean counter, but it looks like they make the books show that it nets out to zero.
Not to sidetrack the conversation too much...Iowa and Iowa State both fund UNI every time they play.
Hawk2thDoc
Active Member
Actually there are 5 regent schools, but 2 of the 5 are k-12 schools (the schools for the deaf and blind).
PJHawk
Well-Known Member
I certainly agree with some of the points Gartner makes in his article but the one thing I would point out as an obstacle to this happening (among other things) is that full-cost scholarships are on their way and the Big Ten will approve them because they have more money than anyone in this arms race of college athletcs. That 2.5 million Gartner wants Iowa to fund UNI is probably the equivalent of what the additional cost will be for the full-cost scholarships.
azhawkphan
Well-Known Member
This is the correct answer. But if UNI athletics were stronger financially and by extension competitively, is that in the best interest of U of I? I am not so sure. This could be analogous to giving your competition a gun to shoot you with.
hogeye
Well-Known Member
then why do we pay teams like Tennessee tech?
DodgerHawki
Well-Known Member
Gartner's issue....
as it is with many of the politicians who agree with his ideas, is that they can't get their hands on the athletic revenue produced at the University of Iowa. And it bothers them a great deal.
He is proposing $2.8 million annually to go to UNI. OK, so if that is agreed upon, where does it end? What happens the next year when Gartner and his minions decide that instead of $2.8 million, Iowa should transfer $10 million? Or when Gartner determines that really, the UI should be forced to divert funds to some special "Legislative Committee on Education"? Following his line of logic, the entire management of the athletic departments at Iowa State and Univ. of Iowa should be turned over to a central body who determines how it should be managed.
The reality of the situation is that the general public likes supporting athletics at ISU and UI through donations. And both schools - because of their membership in big-time conferences - get additional revenue from TV deals. This should be viewed as a good thing, that both ISU and Iowa can offer a number of opportunities to fund Olympic sports in addition to the revenue-producers football and men's basketball. All without general fund monies. But all that Gartner can focus on is that he and his ilk don't have access to the dollars.
The day that Gartner is removed from any and all power (either perceived or real) with any of the state universities will be a very good day.
as it is with many of the politicians who agree with his ideas, is that they can't get their hands on the athletic revenue produced at the University of Iowa. And it bothers them a great deal.
He is proposing $2.8 million annually to go to UNI. OK, so if that is agreed upon, where does it end? What happens the next year when Gartner and his minions decide that instead of $2.8 million, Iowa should transfer $10 million? Or when Gartner determines that really, the UI should be forced to divert funds to some special "Legislative Committee on Education"? Following his line of logic, the entire management of the athletic departments at Iowa State and Univ. of Iowa should be turned over to a central body who determines how it should be managed.
The reality of the situation is that the general public likes supporting athletics at ISU and UI through donations. And both schools - because of their membership in big-time conferences - get additional revenue from TV deals. This should be viewed as a good thing, that both ISU and Iowa can offer a number of opportunities to fund Olympic sports in addition to the revenue-producers football and men's basketball. All without general fund monies. But all that Gartner can focus on is that he and his ilk don't have access to the dollars.
The day that Gartner is removed from any and all power (either perceived or real) with any of the state universities will be a very good day.
ColoradoHAWKEYE
Well-Known Member
Would this lead to the demise of the eventual UofI hockey team? Maybe UofI should cut out some of their other non-revenue generating sports just to give UNI some added cash to increase theirs. (thats sarcasm for those literal types).
So was this silly idea created by Gartner or was it proposed to BOR
by UNI?
So was this silly idea created by Gartner or was it proposed to BOR
by UNI?
The funny thing is that the conservatives here are arguing that the plan is socialism, but the problem really comes from the objective of reduced funding for public institutions and also increased focus on athletics as revenue streams.
So, it is a free market trend in higher education that has led to this socialist idea of revenue sharing.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
My suggestion is to get rid of all athletic scholarships, institute a standardized general education program across all D1 programs to insure that all athletes are actually STUDENT athletes. If the student does not pass the exam, they lose their eligibility. Make freshmen ineligible so only dedicated students can play.
See, we can all come up with silly ideas.
So, it is a free market trend in higher education that has led to this socialist idea of revenue sharing.
Strange bedfellows indeed.
My suggestion is to get rid of all athletic scholarships, institute a standardized general education program across all D1 programs to insure that all athletes are actually STUDENT athletes. If the student does not pass the exam, they lose their eligibility. Make freshmen ineligible so only dedicated students can play.
See, we can all come up with silly ideas.
hogeye
Well-Known Member
No, because if that were true you'd be blaming the success of the athletics programs at Iowa and ISU for the shortfall in revenue to fund the education system at UNI, and we all know that is false.
Nice spin though, you almost made it out to be the fault of market capitalism.
No, you don't get it. The issue is that public schools are quickly becoming no longer being publicly funded. They are going to a US Postal service model of being self-supporting, while having to adhere to legislative control. Really, the worst of both worlds.
For instance, the liberal University of California gets only 9 percent of their budget from the state. I bet oil companies do better than that via subsidies. This defunding of public higher ed is a push to free market privatization, in which the cost is shifted from the tax payer to the user.
Here is a quote from a Gazette article:
"In 2001, state funding was about 64 percent of the education budgets at the UI, ISU and UNI, while tuition was 31 percent. Those numbers basically have swapped in the past decade, with tuition at 58.3 percent of the funding and state appropriations at 35.7 percent in the current fiscal year. Iowa also had the largest five-year decline on average when compared with neighboring Midwest states. Iowa's public institutions received $4,481 per full-time student in fiscal 2011, a 25.3 percent decline since 2006, according to the report."
UNI wouldn't be in this situation if they weren't seeing their state support evaporating.
Last edited:
