 |
|
WADR
Posted on: December 30, 2016 at 00:08:04 CT
ScottsdaleTiger MU
Posts:
12757
Member For:
26.28 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Mizzou's athletic budget is in the 7th to 9th range in the SEC. SEC distributions are equal. Therefore, if Mizzou's SEC distribution goes up 5 or 10 million, every other school's distribution goes up the same amount. The Tiger AD has more money, but so does every other school and the Tiger AD's relative position in the SEC is not significantly improved, if improved at all.
Until the South End Zone fund raising campaign, Mizzou fans were not particularly generous. Donations were running about 21-22 million a year, roughly 25% of the total revenue.
The Tiger AD has approximately 66 million in debt that has to be repaid, both principal and interest. The South End Zone project reportedly includes an additional 20 million of debt financing.
Mizzou's enrollment arguably needs to be reduced. The major increase in enrollment began roughly 20 years ago. Prior to that time there had been a gradual but continuous increase in the average test score for entering freshmen. With the increase in enrollment, the average test score has leveled off. Mizzou's academic reputation has eroded over the same time period. At one time it was ranked about 70 to 75 in the US News rankings of national universities. Currently, the ranking is roughly 105th. (Admittedly the US News ranking is not definitive, but it is certainly a rough proxy for a school's academic reputation.
The State of Missouri does not have an elite public university, I.e. A Cal-Berkeley, a Michigan, a Texas, a Washington, etc. Mizzou's role in the state's scheme is to offer a "good (as distinguished from "great") education". There are a lot of schools in the state that can offer a "good" college education, I.e. UMSL, UMKC, Missouri State, the six "directional" schools. Mizzou is best positioned to become an elite public university.
The bottom line is ur assertion that the Tiger AD has and can generate substantial funds excess to its needs is not correct and your proses use of those funds if it could generate them is not their highest and best use.
Until the South End Zone fund raising campaign, Mizzou fans were not particularly generous. Donations were running about 21-22 million a year, roughly 25% of the total revenue.
The Tiger AD has approximately 66 million in debt that has to be repaid, both principal and interest. The South End Zone project reportedly includes an additional 20 million of debt financing.
Mizzou's enrollment arguably needs to be reduced. The major increase in enrollment began roughly 20 years ago. Prior to that time there had been a gradual but continuous increase in the average test score for entering freshmen. With the increase in enrollment, the average test score has leveled off. Mizzou's academic reputation has eroded over the same time period. At one time it was ranked about 70 to 75 in the US News rankings of national universities. Currently, the ranking is roughly 105th. (Admittedly the US News ranking is not definitive, but it is certainly a rough proxy for a school's academic reputation.
The State of Missouri does not have an elite public university, I.e. A Cal-Berkeley, a Michigan, a Texas, a Washington, etc. Mizzou's role in the state's scheme is to offer a "good (as distinguished from "great") education". There are a lot of schools in the state that can offer a "good" college education, I.e. UMSL, UMKC, Missouri State, the six "directional" schools. Mizzou is best positioned to become an elite public university.
The bottom line is ur assertion that the Tiger AD has and can generate substantial funds excess to its needs is not correct and your proses use of those funds if it could generate them is not their highest and best use.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
WADR - ScottsdaleTiger MU - 12/30 00:08:04