Page 1 of 1
New Info
PostPosted:Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:01 pm
by Sad Din
Thanks to the Borch's for donating another $5M to Dins track! Thats great
The article that announced it has some new news over Sports finances at FU
Inspired by the Borch gift, Furman has embarked on a campaign to grow the University's endowment for athletic scholarships to $100 million.
Apparently, track already has $20M saved up. FU wants to get to $100M as sports endowment. That means that $80M is still left to be raised although probably some other sports have some already
What does his have to do with baseball? Well, remember the word from FU was that if baseball were to stay around, it would have to raise $20M for an endowment
That would be 20% of the total $100M and 25% if the target was $80M. With the number of scolies used by baseball compared to total FU scholies that would seem to be a little high. Probably $5-10M would have been more realistic target.
Its ova, we know... but its just interesting
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:23 pm
by apaladin
That’s all well and good but why does a cross country team need that much money? Shorts and tank tops can’t be that expensive.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 22, 2021 7:56 am
by Affirm
apaladin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:23 pm
That’s all well and good but why does a cross country team need that much money? Shorts and tank tops can’t be that expensive.
Scholarships to attract as many good and smart runners as we can to Furman. Winning in any athletics competition and attracting good students are both good things for Furman. Yes, I realize you said what you did tongue in cheek, and it was good for a laugh. Track + cross country are fine sports.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 22, 2021 12:42 pm
by Roundball
apaladin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:23 pm
That’s all well and good but why does a cross country team need that much money? Shorts and tank tops can’t be that expensive.
Surely you are not asking a serious question.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:13 pm
by Affirm
Sad Din wrote: ↑Fri Nov 19, 2021 6:01 pm
Thanks to the Borch's for donating another $5M to Dins track! Thats great
The article that announced it has some new news over Sports finances at FU
Inspired by the Borch gift, Furman has embarked on a campaign to grow the University's endowment for athletic scholarships to $100 million.
Apparently, track already has $20M saved up. FU wants to get to $100M as sports endowment. That means that $80M is still left to be raised although probably some other sports have some already
What does his have to do with baseball? Well, remember the word from FU was that if baseball were to stay around, it would have to raise $20M for an endowment
That would be 20% of the total $100M and 25% if the target was $80M. With the number of scolies used by baseball compared to total FU scholies that would seem to be a little high. Probably $5-10M would have been more realistic target.
Its ova, we know... but its just interesting
Nothing is ever ova or over. Nothing in athletics is ever permanent. We just think it is.
It's never too late for the baseball alumni and all the baseball supporters to start giving their $20 million designated for endowed scholarships for the future return of Furman baseball. Furman would not reject any large gift even if it is not the total needed. Some people giving large amounts would eventually encourage others to give large and larger amounts until $20 million is finally achieved (although inflation would probably require the need to increase, the earnings on the principle would cause the fund to increase also). But I believe that the baseball supporters want to demand some impossible definite promise that their donation is going to be used by X date. I believe also that they like to complain and like to continue to express anger, rather than wanting to seek the greater good for Furman University or even for only Furman University athletics.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 22, 2021 5:18 pm
by Affirm
apaladin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 11:23 pm
That’s all well and good but why does a cross country team need that much money? Shorts and tank tops can’t be that expensive.
The donor or donor couple (Furman track & cross country alumnus) gave $5 million.
There is NOTHING keeping the alumni of any and all other Furman sports from giving their $5 million, or more, or less, at any time, for the support of their preferred sport(s). I'm paying attention to see who will break the record for "largest donation" and especially to see what sport it would be supporting. (It could be for baseball, even if Furman does not presently have baseball.)
Or maybe the best would be if someone with a lot of money would give a record-breaking donation designated for the strategic study and planning - reporting to the Furman University Board of Trustees and President, and working in consultation with other university officials as appropriate, with regard to the question of what is the best long-range future of Furman athletics overall (looking at least 20 years into the future and looking at what should be done between the present and then to get there). "Office of the Director of Strategic Planning for Athletics." $8 million given to create an endowment to provide staff salary and operational expenses for that department would be good.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Tue Nov 23, 2021 12:59 pm
by FUpaladin08
The loss of baseball still seems more related to Title IX over funding. When golf was on the chopping block they were given the opportunity to raise money, baseball was not afforded that same opportunity. It feels like the $20 mil figure was thrown out there as an unattainable goal until 2 ppl dropped this gift in the lap of XC/track. Ultimately Furman was told they had too many sports to support. The smaller ones (XC, Track, golf, and tennis) we’re dropped by other schools in the same situation but these are the most competitive sports at Furman. It just seems the only way for baseball to return is to add more women sports or increase the male enrollment. I don’t see those things happen right now.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:13 pm
by apaladin
Its not a title 9 issue. Its an ED problem.
FYi most schools have 1 more womens sports than mens. FU has 2 more.
For comparison:
Furman has 16 sports: 7 mens, 9 womens
Wofford has 19 sports: 9 mens 10 womens.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:06 am
by JohnKX512
apaladin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:13 pm
Its not a title 9 issue. Its an ED problem.
FYi most schools have 1 more womens sports than mens. FU has 2 more.
For comparison:
Furman has 16 sports: 7 mens, 9 womens
Wofford has 19 sports: 9 mens 10 womens.
Furman is 39% male
Wofford is 46% male
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:59 am
by Affirm
JohnKX512 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:06 am
apaladin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:13 pm
Its not a title 9 issue. Its an ED problem.
FYi most schools have 1 more womens sports than mens. FU has 2 more.
For comparison:
Furman has 16 sports: 7 mens, 9 womens
Wofford has 19 sports: 9 mens 10 womens.
Furman is 39% male
Wofford is 46% male
If Furman is 39% male, Furman is 61% female. I would think that Title IX’s requirement would be approximately equal number of participation opportunities for each gender proportionate to number of students of that gender, therefore translating into number of member “slots”, rather than number of teams. Maybe football gets some kind of waiver, not sure; but a football team at any school provides males an inordinate number of member “slots” that would typically necessitate numerous female teams to give an approximate balance to the football numbers. As I recall, Clemson started it’s women’s rowing team about 20 years ago. In addition to being an obvious choice for a school on Lake Hartwell (“Auburn with a lake”) women’s rowing gave Clemson a very large number of member “slots” which helped Clemson greatly with Title IX at that time.
AGAIN, MY POINT IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE NUMBER OF “TEAMS”FOR EACH GENDER IS NOT SO RELEVANT AS THE PROPORTIONATE NUMBER Of PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES. And I believe that is true even if football and/or men’s basketball account for many times more revenue being brought into the school than any or all women’s teams; and even if women’s teams receive many times more financial support/subsidization from the school than all men’s teams (which I highly doubt ever being the case).
I do not purport to be a TITLE IX expert, nor even a lawyer. Perhaps someone who know much more about TITLE IX requirements will kindly correct and clarify my understanding.
Re: New Info
PostPosted:Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:40 pm
by JohnKX512
affirm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:59 am
JohnKX512 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:06 am
apaladin wrote: ↑Tue Nov 23, 2021 8:13 pm
Its not a title 9 issue. Its an ED problem.
FYi most schools have 1 more womens sports than mens. FU has 2 more.
For comparison:
Furman has 16 sports: 7 mens, 9 womens
Wofford has 19 sports: 9 mens 10 womens.
Furman is 39% male
Wofford is 46% male
If Furman is 39% male, Furman is 61% female. I would think that Title IX’s requirement would be approximately equal number of participation opportunities for each gender proportionate to number of students of that gender, therefore translating into number of member “slots”, rather than number of teams. Maybe football gets some kind of waiver, not sure; but a football team at any school provides males an inordinate number of member “slots” that would typically necessitate numerous female teams to give an approximate balance to the football numbers. As I recall, Clemson started it’s women’s rowing team about 20 years ago. In addition to being an obvious choice for a school on Lake Hartwell (“Auburn with a lake”) women’s rowing gave Clemson a very large number of member “slots” which helped Clemson greatly with Title IX at that time.
AGAIN, MY POINT IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE NUMBER OF “TEAMS”FOR EACH GENDER IS NOT SO RELEVANT AS THE PROPORTIONATE NUMBER Of PARTICIPATION OPPORTUNITIES. And I believe that is true even if football and/or men’s basketball account for many times more revenue being brought into the school than any or all women’s teams; and even if women’s teams receive many times more financial support/subsidization from the school than all men’s teams (which I highly doubt ever being the case).
I do not purport to be a TITLE IX expert, nor even a lawyer. Perhaps someone who know much more about TITLE IX requirements will kindly correct and clarify my understanding.
(1) To the extent that a recipient awards athletic scholarship or
grants-in-aid, it must provide reasonable opportunities for such
award for members of each sex in proportion to the number of
students of each sex participating in interscholastic or intercollegiate athletics.
(2) Separate athletic scholarships or grants-in-aid for members of
each sex may be provided as part of separate athletic teams for
members of each sex to the extent consistent with this paragraph
and § 106.41.11
-We either need more men on campus or we need more women's sports.
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/c ... =sportslaw
