The CheckerBoard

Hey DCVOL, fellow JHU alum!!

Just my two cents, but this all seems pretty standard.

- When things were going well, the UTAD did what most profitable programs do and gave money to the school. Common practice.
- When things were going bad, the school gave the UTAD a three year break from making payments. This makes sense, because it would be a disaster for the AD to drop below the reserves and have to take money from academics.
- The above got bad press, because the academics side is losing money due to the struggles of the AD. This looks bad to non-sports fans.
- In a response to the bad academic press, the school released a statement clarifying how the the school will not be giving anything additional to the AD. They had to deliver the message strongly, or else naitonal UT looks like a joke academically. You can't layoff teachers to hire a WR coach.

I hear you TnBear. I did run across one article that hinted that there was a little feud between the President and the Chancellor. It did not expound on the details.

When I was looking for information on this stuff, I saw where Cheek was hired in 2009. Not sure if that's enough time for one man to screw things up, if you know what I mean. I do remember tidbits of information from the late 1990's that suggested there was a riff between the academics and athletics. I guess the most questionalbe thing for me right now is that you hear there's a problem, but not one reporter has actually done a story on it. It just doesn't pass the smell test...... at least to me.

Thanks - Always good to hear from JHU folks. I understand the exchange of funds scenario. It is just that the university is not "giving" money to the AD. They simply are temporarily not taking as much $$$ from AD. So - the vice chancellor is not telling the truth (to my knowledge - to be fair) when he says that the academic side is not "giving" the AD anymore money. They never were giving the AD money (to my knowledge). Also, if reports are true, the AD (including the historically good football team) is struggling because of academic requirements placed on them that are over and above NCAA reqs and apaprently more than at least some other SEC schools (true or not - I don't know). In other words, they helped create the present situation. If prospective coaches are asking about this in interviews, it is likely a pretty big deal. Don't get me wrong, I am all for academics. what you learn in school helps in life. However, I also think that - if the football program slides a whole lot further - fewer students will want to come to UT - and you will end up laying off more teachers (if any have been laid off). I think it is a valid point that a great many students choose to come to UT based, in part, on the atmosphere of going to UT athletic events (particularly football games). Remove that attraction, or lessen it greatly, and UT becomes just another (much smaller) choice of (good) schools among many. Hope all is well.

And knowing you, I bet you enjoyed every second of it.

That's an understatement

You took the words out of my mouth Ma, but that probably is no surprise to you! UT is one of VERY few schools where the athletic department is not subsidized in some way. That doesn't mean a change is needed. The UT budget and AD budget are separate, but intertwined nonetheless. One can argue how it ought to be -- either way -- but that doesn't change what it IS. The university giving up the $6 million per year was a MAJOR concession, and I think the Vice Chancellor is saying that's as far as they plan to go. The AD needs to be accountable to that budget level in their plans. If athletic revenues continue to go south, look for the university to pick up costs such as parking garage payments rather than cutting a check to the AD to cover a loss. Much more palatable, and would raise very few eyebrows. However, the AD will have to make cuts as well. Neither side can ignore the other, and they will have to find a way to make it work.

I don't think people are saying that athletic departments everywhere should raise enough revenue to cover expenses, clearly they can't. The issue is that UT is the first, to my knowledge, school that was independent and giving money to the school, and then not only stopped giving money but is also in RISK of running over budget and having insufficient reserves to cover the tab.

Tnoak - maybe I am reading the article wrong, but I don't think Cimino is saying that. He is just clarifying that despite the budget problems of the AD, we have enough money in other accounts where the school will not be forced to step in to bail out the AD.

Also, there is clearly an academic advantage to the AD being strong and putting out good teams. 100% agree. The problem is that for all of the expenditure in athletics, there has not been an ROI.

@Chartervol +1
I agree with you on the language being really important here.

I am just saying from a PR perspective, UT could never give back any of the money they have received from UTAD because it would be seen as academics being sacrificed for athletics.

There's an axiom that bad times don't kill businesses, it's good times that kill businesses. When business is good, costs can be added with no worries, underperforming personnel can be carried , and so forth. Then when business dips, those mistakes become apparent and often doom the whole enterprise.

And that's what happened at UT. In the 1990s and early 2000s Tennessee football was at its peak and flush with cash. This coincided with a decline in state appropriations and a presidential leadership crisis that affected private giving. Among other things, many of UT's aspirational peers were well into billion-dollar endowment campaigns while UT was operating a revolving door in Andy Holt Tower.

Simply stated, UT was broke and UTAD was comparatively rich. And so the raid on UTAD's resources began.

And here we are.

++++++++++++...

This!