In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1351
Online now 1821 Record: 6475 (12/7/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
No academic funding or state money will be used to bail out the University of Tennessee athletics department should sagging ticket sales and the cost of a multimillion-dollar coaching change cause another budget deficit, officials said Wednesday.
"We've made a strong statement that we're not using state funds to backfill athletics," said Chris Cimino, vice chancellor of finance. "We've done all we're going to do."
This is not outrageous at all. Academics does not need to support athletics at UT, especially now that athletics is not supporting academics.
The AD needs to pay its own way and if Jones can win some games, it will.
I understand where the two sides are coming from.
Is there a history of the UTAD taking money from the academic side? Seems like sour grapes stemming from rescinding the year gift from the AD to the school. Sometimes you have to give to get. If the Cheek administration is unable to realize that a strong athletic program is exceptionally beneficial to the university then it is time for him to move on.
Agree. Cheek seems to have all the earmarks of an incompetent.
The idea itself is not outrageous, but I don't see the benefit in publicly pronouncing it during a time when the relationship is very fragile. A public university should not have to use state funds to frequently bail out athletics; however, why did UT go out of its way to announce a complete cutoff during a very tenuous time? That's poor PR.
Forgive my ignorance here as I just have an accounting finance degree from UT and a MBA from the other UT system, but I do not recall seeing our Athletics Department taking money from the academic side whatsoever. My understanding has been that the UTAD has provided supplemental funding to academics for quite some time. The 18 million is simply a reprieve in the transfers from UTAD to the academic side.
Having said this, the Vice Chancellor for Finance comments seem a bit disingenuous and political.
My two cents based on what I know.
I agree. He is also being disingenuous because he knows the Athletic Department is about to reap extra money from the soon to be announced new TV deals. The statement appeases the academic side and gets a pound of flesh back for Maisel's statement (an obvious plant) but really is unnecessary BS. In truth, he'll do what the BoT and big money will tell him to do.
The school is 100% right on this. State funds should not be used for the athletics program.
State funds haven't been used, they just aren't getting 18 million handed to them over the next three years like they always have and obviously some don't like it but athletics brings in that money. The more successful athletics are equals more money for academics, stupid argument.
This! I don't remember the athletics department taking money from academics, but I sure have seen it the other way around.
Frankly, I don't want one penny of academic money going toward athletics. The primary mission of the University is to educate, despite what some seem to think around here. Having said that, I think its time for athletics to stop funding the academic side while they are at a financial disadvantage relative to the other SEC schools. If we had strong leadership at the top levels of University management they would step in and get everyone on the same page and end this bickering. Unfortunately for our University, that is not happening.
The question in all of this is what do our competitors in the SEC do. Do those relationships place our AD at a financial disadvantage?
No need for name calling. If I know bavw he is pointing out the obvious. No funds from academics for athletics. The counterpoint being it cuts both ways. However, he is capable of clarifying for himself, if he feels it's necessary.
let me ask you guy's something would fulmer be a man could replace cheek?
if so why in the world dont they run him back to florida.
tenn having some 1 bleeds orange would run the job with more passion
fulmer being on the other side of the field understands what the football
program needs..and needs for players.
i dont have a clue how things get ran down there..but fulmer makes more since
its shame also beloved pat sum had to go out like she did..she would be another
good face and voice for our program..going to miss her..seen her at the bristol race
this august night race..she had never done anything like that.and she said its shame
she missed out on the racing..so what do you guys think about grandfather fulmer?
Fulmer does not have the academic qualifications to be Chancellor. Cheek has the academic qualifications but he has close to zero leadership skills. We would be the laughing stock of the country if we named a former coach as the Chancellor.
I lived in Tennessee for 6 years, and I believe I am right in saying that a couple years the athletic department gave money to the school. If someone could confirm that I would appreciate it.
That's not the point though Rockytop... The point is that the title of this article alone suggests that the university is "bailing" out our AD when in fact they are not giving the AD any of its own money, they are simply foregoing the annual donation that they REQUIRED in the past. I think Cimino's comments try to paint this situation in a false light.
I agree that our university should not subsidize our AD with state funding. But that's the whole point, it's not and never has and this article tries to suggest that it has in the past.
"UT: No More Funding Aid for Sports" "More" is the key word there. As if to suggest that the university has funded the athletic department before and no longer will and that is completely and utterly FALSE. The university is simply allowing the AD to keep what is rightfully theirs for the next 3 years to try and stop the bleeding. I would hardly consider that to be "the university is funding the AD." It's not.
And Cimino's pompous, arrogant statement of "We have done all we are going to do" just illustrates the inherent disconnect between the two parties involved and shows no signs of things improving in the near future. It kills me why these academia's seem to think that the success of the university and the success of the AD are and/or HAVE TO BE mutually exclusive.
This article frustrates me to no end.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by jcoope16 16 months ago
I agree with this to a point, but does that indignation also warrant that the athletic department should stop the payments to academics (like they have been doing for some time). The primary reason that Alabama and other school's athletic departments have big $$$ reserves is because they are Not giving any significant $$$ to the academic side of the school.
A couple years? More like every year. The misnomer here is that the school is giving funds to the UTAD. When in reality, the school has been using the UTAD like a college freshman using daddy's ATM card at 1am on a Saturday night. This recent $18 million is just what the UTAD has "given" to the university the last 3 years. There's no telling what else the UTAD has "gifted" over the last 15 years.
It's an asinine notion for the university to even hint that state funds have ever gone to the UTAD.
Amen and keep preaching it. It's not that Cimino's comments are wrong. It's that they imply that something has happened in the past that simply hasn't.
I think you may want to re-read the original article. My comment has nothing at all to do with the AD paying 6 mil per year to the school or temporarily stopping those payments.
I am not a UT alum (lifelong UT football fan - Knoxville native - MTSU, Johns Hopkins alum), so I don't know that it is my place to call for the firing of Cheek, but this seems like an unnecessary fight to pick and potentially BS in terms of the facts. I am sure that the finance guy would know better than I how much (if any) $$$ that the academic side has given the athletic program, but I would wager that any $$$ going from academics to the AD (particularly to Football) probably changed hands a very long time ago (and was likely confined to non-revenue sports). My understanding is that the UT athletic program gives more money to academics than many of their SEC competitor institutions and that this is a primary reason that there is so little $$ on hand in athletics (compared to AL, LSU, UF, etc.). Cheek is increasingly being seen as a primary reason for the (hopefully temporary) demise of UT football. That can't be good for job security. I would not weep at hearing the news that he has been fired.
This post was edited by DCVOL 16 months ago
No I agree Academics should not fund athletics but they don't, it's the other way around so for this statement to even be made by someone with UT is crazy. They've done all they're going to do and what is that give money back that wasn't theirs. That's what I meant was stupid, makes no sense
Here's a question for you guys. I see where Chancelor Cheek is getting a lot of heat from this board and it may be justified. I tried to research the financial situation and I'm not having a lot of success. However, I do see that Cheek took the Chancellor in 2009 after the previous Chancellor resigned over a dispute with the UT President at that time. I forget who the President was, but it was not DiPietro.
I'm not saying that Cheek isn't part of the problem, but I don't think that this problem was created over a 3 year period. That's a short time-frame to cause such a big discrepancy.
Does anyone know why the previous Chancellor resigned? I just think that there is more to the story here and I would like to find out what the heck happened. Why hasn't there been a story on this?
Reports at the time were that the Presidents wife spouted off to or about someone in authority and he resigned shortly thereafter. I may not be remembering this in a completely accurate manner but I think it's close. The bottom line is the leadership at our Flagship University is a laughing stock. Where's Andy Holt when you need him?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports