Budget Figures are NOT disturbing!!!

[DoctorB]

This thread brings up so many issues that I cannot resist responding. I do so as an insider, a faculty member. . . .

--Every comment seems to ignore the fact that these decisions must all be made within the context of a university. As far as the faculty goes, almost nobody supports the arena--just ask around. Ever wonder why? Is it in the best interests of the university? ARE THERE BETTER USES FOR $35 million?? Most SLU professors, who probably know more about universities than almost anyone on this list, believe it is not. In my everyday world, how can we justify this expense? it only makes sense if we view it as wild-eyed, fanatic basketball zealots who really do not care about the rest of the university!

--Every unit of the university, including my department, is screaming for more money. good luck! (even with yearly rises in tuition)

--College sports has become such an idolatrous phenomenon that fans can be tricked into supporting things they really do not want to support. Such as the above. The pressure to win, to gain "prestige"--not for academics, but for basketball! I am thankful SLU has not completely sold its soul to recruit certain kinds of basketballers. The guys they get generally are good kids and work hard, and keep it relatively clean. There have been some exceptions.

--College sports does not fill anyone's coffers, as one poster said. Nobody is getting rich, because with almost no exceptions, College sports ends up losing money for virtually exvery school but Notre Dame with its huge TV contract for football. Athletics is a non-profit enterprise, just like universities in general. So the budgets are set within the entire athletic department. It must by law be shared with women's sports, and so on.Try reading one of Murray Sperber's books on these topics, by the way--like Beer and Circuses, or College Sports, Inc.

--Thus it is wrong to compare our basketball budget with schools with much larger athletic budgets, for instance--because Division I football is a cash cow that SLU does not have available. I like the post showing we spend about as much as Stanford, and more than Creighton. But so what? Again, I can name so many other things at SLU that need massive influx of dollars that it is not even funny.

--The big trick is to operate quality athletics in the context of a quality university--no easy trick, but some do it. In such a context, win-loss records are not nearly as all-important as many fans think.

Folks; that is enough for now--I get a kick out of playing devil's advocate, but somebody has to say this sort of thing, right?

just thought you might like hearing from a slightly different perspective!

[DoctorB]

PS:

I should have mentioned this--but,

OF COURSE WE CAN BE LIKE GONZAGA-- if, by that, you mean we can have a wildly successful basketball program while lots of other areas of that school are left to fall apart.

I know what I am speaking of here, since I have worked closely with members of the Gonzaga faculty!

blessing,

[davidnark]

That was an articulate, much-needed post. However, I have two issues with your arguments.

First, you assume that fundraising is a zero-sum game (i.e., that if SLU can raise $35 million for an arena, then it can raise an equal sum for any other purpose). I cannot cite you specific evidence, but I speculate that a significant portion of the over $20 millions that has been pledged to-date would not have been pledged for other uses. We can debate the merits of financially supporting a college basketball program, but such debate will not alter the fact that millions of dollars have been donated specifically for the basketball program/arena project. Who knows if that money would have otherwise been donated? Thankfully, the university has not limited its fundraising efforts to the arena. As I recall, the university is seeking to raise over $200 million, with the bulk of the money being targeted for academic and research programs.

Second, you ignore and/or downplay the significant goodwill and indirect economic benefit a successful college basketball program can have on a university. I recall the number of applications for admission at Marquette increasing significantly the year after their final four appearance. This increase in applications leads to better quality students, better academic rankings, and in turn more long-term money for the university. I am not suggesting that a university cannot have enormous academic success without high-profile athletics--Wash U., University of Chicago, and the Ivy League schools have clearly proven otherwise. I am also not suggesting that success on the field automatically equates with academic success--there are some successful football programs in the south that have yet to make corresponding academic strides. However, for a relatively low-national profile private universities such as SLU or Gonzaga, success on the court can bring invaluable and immeasurable goodwill. Twenty years ago, would kids from the west coast be familiar with Georgetown or Marquette had it not been for college basketball success? In my opinion, the marketing and goodwill benefit of a successful college basketball program should be the primary motivating factor for our administrators.

[ACE]

Also, name another event/activity that would bring 8 - 10,000 people to campus. That's got to have some value.

[Box and Won]

I think that the arena, coupled with a winning basketball program, will help a great deal with fundraising down the road. The excitement of winning basketball helps create positive memories for students, increasing the chances that they will contribute to the university in the future (currently, only 14% of our alumni base give back to the university - pathetic!). Success in athletics also instills pride in alums - you'll notice more SLU grads talking about the school and the basketball program during winning seasons.

The arena is a big investment, but from a marketing and fundraising standpoint, it should pay dividends.

[knight_rider]

I am all for education being the number one priority. However, sitting in Psychology 101 does not teach the student-athlete the significance and IMPORTANCE of competition in today's society. Simply put, you win or lose in everyday life. Developing athletic programs that consistently produce championship seasons not only benefit the University financially, but develop individuals who succeed in the real world. (What better way to advertise the quality of the University's education?) This can be done in a first-class manner without breaking rules if you get people with the right vision!

[billiken_roy]

not saying i agree or not. i dont have enough insight to feel confident enough to take a stand either way. however you make the point about football being a cash cow.

except for notre dame with their tv contract to consider, i have always questioned how football is a revenue sport at but a handful of schools. once you factor in scholarship and tuition issues (remember football creates title IX hurdles due to the number of scholarships and money being spent there as well) additional coaches (what other sport involves as many coaches and support people), insurance (gotta believe there is a kick in insurance for the school just because they participate in the sport), upkeep of likely two fields (one for practice one for games), and all is supposedly paid for and more by maybe 6 games a year? sure the likes of michigan and a usc attract a half million ticket holders per game, but what about the typical college school that probably gets less than a few thousand a game? i contend football is just a loss leader as well to intice the reputation and try to create enrollment.

[kshoe]

that of the money I spent for my arena brick and Billiken Club membership, etc. I would have spent less than 10% of that on general contributions to SLU. David is absolutely right.

[kwyjibo]

You make two valid points but neither of which are particularly persuasive in arguing that SLU should spend a lot of money on an on-campus arena. In fact, if this was about athletic dept. operating budgets we would be on the same side--I think SLU should spend more and I would think they would get a good return on that money.

But when the argument turns to arenas, you continue using the "logical fallacies of boosterism" (that is, you want something first and then any reason that helps you get what you want is considered while larger perspective is lost).

Yes, some percentage of money that is raised for a specific project would not be donated for some alternate project. Considering we are talking about 10s of millions of dollars, it is "significant". But you are missing the point, the opportunity cost of the arena project is the money that WOULD go to other projects (that is also "significant") not the money that wouldn't. Also, other projects would have built in constituencies that would also come with "specific millions". Also, the money IS a zero sum in a larger social sense, are you arguing the best thing people can do with their money is to help SLU build an arena? Really?

This "goodwill"/"attention" that athletics brings is true but not particularly strong reason to build an arena. First, and it should be obvious, the decision on where to go to college is a complex one with multiple reasons (perceived quality of education, specific programs, location, friends, etc.). Athletics is a smallish part of that. Second, SLU would have to be somehow constrained in its current ability to bring in students in order for some "higher" order of student to magically appear because of an arena. It is my understanding that SLU already is at its capacity and attracts good students. The additional student benefit would be miniscule. Finally, the arena would have to bring in this goodwill and reputation all on its own. We already have an athletics program that brings in some smallish goodwill so the "additional goodwill" that a particular arena brings in would have to be weighed against its costs.

So lets say that 50% of the money that goes to the arena project is only available to that project. That still means that 10s of millions of dollars are being lost to an alernative project. That alternative project may be able to bring MORE student excitement, more goodwill, more national attention, more life experience, a fatter future revenue stream, etc. and cost less money.

I know that people on this board can come with even more exciting projects than I but how about ANOTHER ARCH on SLU's campus! We can put one base on the arena project site. I am sure SLU could raise 10s of millions specifically for this project (just think about putting the donor's name on a large slab on the side--maybe all the segments could be corporate sponsored) and we could get the 10s of millions that would come with the "nonspecific" part of arena fundraising.

Look at all these advantages:

--we could scale it to funds available and offices/classrooms could be built in the base

--the first Arch is really cool and all but as it isn't on campus it doesn't have the same level of enthusiasm the current arch does. Students just don't go to the current arch enough, so we need our own arch.

--if the Feds ever sell their Arch it could go to professional concerns that would exclude SLU people

--the current arch is used by other people at times we want to use it. Sometimes lines are long and federal security measures are excessive. Having our own Arch would mean being able to use it at the times we want to use it they way we want to use(imagine late night weekend Arch visits).

--When visitors attend the current Arch, they get a lot of mumbo jumbo about westward expansion. Our Arch would have SLU hall of notables for a real home arch advantage. Billikens everywhere!

--we already know visitors to St. Louis like arches. I am sure they would appreciate two even more.

--we could keep out people we don't like and major supporters could get special Arch priveleges (special plush glondolas with trained porters for the bigshots).

--large academic events at the Arch!

--Bungie-Boxing!!!! (Major revenue idea!)

--could be used for physics, architecture, financing instruction

--much larger notoriety and goodwill than any athletic department success could muster

--the first Arch had a lot of federal dollars so hopefully we could pull a bunch of bucks

[kwyjibo]

Are you saying you are a representive Alum?

[kwyjibo]

Is the only source of pride through arena's? Wouldn't build an on-campus arch or 100 foot Billiken instill some pride? How about a top education, any pride in that anywhere?

Is the only way to win through an on-campus arena? Are teams that win (and presumably have pride in that) while playing in civic arenas really just ready for a huge fall?

Do people who go to UMass-Dartmouth (or Harvard for that matter) where the arena is a dump without pride? or are they delusional and only people with shiny (and don't forget on-campus) arenas truly experiencing pride?

[slufanskip]

Well that is one hell of an idea ... count me in as the first one to donate. You can put me down for $.35

Lets go everyone make a donation and lets build an Arch, we can do the Arena later.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[kwyjibo]

> Developing athletic programs that

>consistently produce championship seasons not only benefit

>the University financially, but develop individuals who

>succeed in the real world.

Really? When a firm or agency is looking to hire someone should they just check the win-loss records of the athletic teams during the years they attended? Are there no lessons to be learned from losing?

[kshoe]

are Shannahan and his $1 donation or the "mystery" donor that is matching millions or the corporate sponsor that will may some amount of millions to put its name on the building. In all likelihood none of those donations would have been made for anything BUT the arena.

[DoctorB]

I anticipated certain kinds of responses, and got them already. Here are a few of my own right back:

1) Of course donations are not zero-sum. That $35 million is dedicated funds. However think of all the energy put into that project--we may not get as much money for, say, scholarship drives for inner city black kids in city high schools, but we would get some of it.

2) Also, think of how much it will cost us in the foreseeable future to operate that arena. Will it be profitable? HA! No way. It will continue to cost money and drain the university as long as it is around.

3) Some believe that winning basketball teams will overall improve giving to schools. I believe htere is little evidence for that. It sounds logical but actually much giving to universities has absolutely nothing to do with sports. It might be a factor in enrollment, as one person pointed out. Again, even if that is true--so what? That claim makes sense only if enrollment, at any cost, is desirable. Is it? Frankly, SLU seems big enough to me. Our enrollment has been about2-3% over or under the target in recent years anyway.

4) I also think the post about football programs being cash cows is a bit more complicated. In fact, football is extremely expensive sport to run. Many bowl teams actually lose money going to the bowls, for instance. You hear so much about these big payouts of millions of dollars-HA! Think about transportation, housing, meals, and so on. Think about some half-assed 6-5 team forced to take 120 people to florida or Arizona for some lame bowl.

Again, I am a sports nut, and love the Bills. I have high hopes for our program and would love nothing better than great success. Just not at any price. Do we want to be more like a Princeton or a Cincinnati? More like a Stanford or a Missouri???

best, Dr.B

[cheeseman]

Kjimbo - whether you support the arena or not is really not the point - the decision has been made to build it so now what everyone has to do is figure out how to get it built and how to make sure that it benefits the university to the greatest degree possible. I personally support the arena and have for a number of years. I really do feel that the arena will provide a better strategic impact for the bb program and since we know that the AD dept is dependent on the bb program's revenue then there will be a trickle down effect throughout the university.

Dr. B - I understand that none of the faculty - although I bet I could find some who do support the arena - supports the arena. I am not surprised to hear that since you can go to any college in the country and hear the same complaints being echoed. There will always be a division between the academics and the athletic department - I am pleased to hear that for the most part SLU has done a good job of admitting good athletes. I heard these same discussions when I was an educational administrator - the problem is the AD dept. does provide a certain level of PR that is unmatched in the other depts of any school.

The point I am trying to make is that the arena is a good thing for the AD dept but it does not have to be a bad thing for the rest of the school if everyone keeps a proper focus.

[Billiken Rich]

You seem to arugue against having an athletic department at all. After all those uniforms cost money.... Maybe we could rent out the West Pine gym and take the money and do whatever the heck your dept. would like with the money.

Count me among the group that wouldn't give you a plug nickle but will support the Basketball team.

[davidnark]

>claim makes sense only if enrollment, at any cost, is

>desirable. Is it? Frankly, SLU seems big enough to me.

>Our enrollment has been about2-3% over or under the target

>in recent years anyway.

If you look at the statistics, you will find that first time final four participant's next year admission applications increase by at least 25% (and sometimes much, much more). The goal is not to increase the incoming class size, but rather to increase the quality of the incoming class. Presumably, with a greater applicant pool, the school can increase its selectivity and thereby increase the quality of the academic institution.

[TheA_Bomb]

Box and Won has it right going to college is about getting an education but it is also about the experience that is unique throughout your lifetime. An on campus arena adds to that uniqely college experience. As an alumn we like to return to campus for events particularly sporting events and try to relive those moments even if only for a few hours. That all adds to the love of the University and helps rekindle those memories when those donation letters come around.

[Box and Won]

Good questions. Here is my take:

Is an on-campus arena the only means of generating school spirit? No, definitely not. We have to win. I would say that school spirit was high when I was at SLU, during the Spoon years, but we weren't able to sustain that spirit because we couldn't sustain the winning. Some kind of on-campus facility should help us win, and the rest should take care of itself.

Is the only way to win through having an on-campus arena? No, but I truly believe that it will help a great deal. I'm more of a left-brain thinker, so I probably would have a hard time computing what expenditures would provide us with the most bang for our buck, but I do think that the arena will help. I also like Marquette's idea of providing a first-class on-campus practice facility while continuing to play off campus. I also like how schools like Gonzaga that currently have outstanding fan support are building arenas that are smaller than the one we're trying to build. I don't know if we're spending our money in the most efficient manner possible, but I think we're on the right track. We may not need an on-campus arena - maybe Marquette has the right idea - but in order for us to be competitive and win the type of recruits that we all want to get, something has to be done in the way of upgrading our facilities. The Savvis-West Pine combo just won't cut it if we truly want to be a top 50 program.

And no, I don't think that people who go to Dartmouth or Harvard are delusional. When you're Ivy League, it doesn't matter how bad your sports teams are. Northwestern, Carnegie Mellon, Johns Hopkins, Emory, Wash U., Case Western, MIT - they're all schools with superior academic reputations than SLU. Students and alumni from those schools can all take pride in the fact that they go to/went to one of the top schools in the country. Even when their basketball team sucks, they can still chant, "That's alright, that's okay, you'll all work for us someday." SLU is a great school, but we're certainly not in that league. I'm proud that I went to SLU, and I'm sure that we all are to some degree, regardless of the performance of our athletic teams...

However...

Athletics are the most identifyable aspect of any university - particularly with a Division I school like SLU. For people like me who grew up in St. Louis, Billiken basketball was our first introduction to SLU. I had been going to Billiken games as a kid for years without even knowing where SLU was, much less what kind of academic programs it had. And athletics can be the most unifying factor for alums. It's a lot easier for me to talk with my co-workers about how the Billikens signed Kevin Lisch than to just casually bring up in conversation "Hey Bob, did you know that SLU has one of the top entrepreneurship programs and the top healthcare law program, according to U.S. News?"

Like I said earlier, I'm not the person to make any kind of cost-benefit analysis on the new arena, but I think that athletic success and academic success can go hand in hand. Athletic success will expose the university to kids who may have never considered it otherwise. The more kids we're exposed to, the more will apply - and hopefully we will get a higher class of student - a win-win situation for everyone.

[Billikenbooster]

My son was a frosh at Northwestern the year they went to the Rose Bowl. His sophomore year he said he would not have been admitted if he had to apply that year, as the number of applications increased 20% over the previous year. This is at an outstanding academic institution.

I'm sure the University is looking to increase its applications from the eastern part of the US as a result of SLUs participation in the A10. There is no way one can put a dollar tag on the marketing implications of getting SLU talked about. I have heard more about GWU since our A10 link for sure.

It is definitely worth the price...institutional pride, on campus activities speakers, concerts, graduation will be held there, hopefully district and sectional bball games and my most favorite topic on this...women's bball and volleyball. These all are opportunities to have the general public see the beauty of the campus and develop a greater comfort level with the school.

It is a definite do.

mhg

[AlumniFan]

My donation to the arena was about 25 times what I normally give to the University. I think that IS representative of a lot of people that I talk to. Additionally, the arena project is bringing back alumni and non-alumni, in a development sense, that otherwise have NOT been active contributors to the University. That is not an opinion; it is a fact.

Additionally, there definitely are faculty and staff that are very much behind the arena project.

Lastly, I am not exactly what you would call a member of the "wild-eyed, fanatic basketball zealots" club, but from a purely business perspective, I view my contribution to the arena project as a wise investment in the University. I believe that it is important to the long term growth of the University in the context of a very competitive industry.

You know, when I think back to the good old days of living on 2C (aka 2nd floor of Clemons Hall) it was fun, but money was TIGHT. But now that I live in a much nicer home and drive a much nicer car and can afford much better meals than Naugles (that's Del Taco for you youngsters) or the cafeteria in Griese, I find that it hasn't corrupted me. I have not become decadent. I am not a burden to society. Quite the contrary in all respects. Why can it not be the same for continuing to improve Saint Louis University even if that improvement is an on campus arena?

[AlumniFan]

You make very good points (even for a guy who went to the wrong high school ;-)), especially the part about the additional goodwill. I hope that people really take a moment to think about what that means in the big and long-term picture.

[AlumniFan]

The main problem that I have with your argument is that it is subjective with respect to how money is spent. Using your logic, could you not say that the aesthetic improvements to campus were a waste? What about the library expansion? It was fine the way it was when I was a student. How about the Simon Recreation Center? Do we really need all of that fancy equipment? Couldn't people just run outside for exercise?

There is a financial continuum with respect to expenditures on the physical improvements on campus with having a single, one room building to teach in on one end and gold plating all of the toilets across campus on the other end. Several seem to argue that the arena is closer to the gold plated toilets while several others argue that the arena is probably somewhere in the middle.

The point is that it will be impossible to build a consensus on what is the appropriate expenditures because human beings have different tastes, desires, tolerances, etc. Although, I think we can all rationally agree that the arch idea demonstrates how largely non-functional elements of any entity can gain favor with the right amount of spin. You need to get a job in marketing ;-).

[AlumniFan]

I know that one of the things active alumni have been discussing is the quality of students coming to the University and graduating from the University. Their performance has a huge impact on the University's reputation. The easiest way to produce high quality, highly desirable students is to START with high quality students. Yes, we are hitting many (not all) enrollment goals, but higher quality applicants definitely moves us in the right direction.

Now, let's be intelligent about this. I am not saying that if we have an arena, smarter kids will apply. However, if we have a much larger pool of applicants we can be more selective in admissions thereby elevating the average SAT/ACT and academic accomplishments of incoming students. That is VERY good for the University is many, many ways.