I think that's a smart idea, and it makes a lot more sense than expecting Athletics to fill the arena and bring in sponsors on a shoestring budget.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart

I'm talking about the University's overall marketing budget. Have the University allocate a percentage of its overall marketing budget to support the athletic department on the theory that athletics is a marketing tool for the entire university, not just the athletic program itself.

gotcha, i misread that one.

There are very few schools where the athletics division is self-supporting or brings in a small profit, and most don't even come close. Think how much it costs to staff and travel with sports that bring in little or nothing in revenue, like soccer, softball, golf, baseball, track, cross country, and tennis. Only schools like Michigan, filling the football stadium eight times a year and making some revenue from men's baskeball, get close to making enough revenue aside from fundraising to pay for expenses for all of athletics. And I'm not counting facilities, medical, and other line items that rightfully should be part of the athletics department.

Even our men's volleyball team, with three coaches and 15 players making fewer trips than a typical year and winning the national championship probably didn't break even in its own right in 2014. Total home attendance for the year was a little over 20,000-- including the two NCAA matches-- but a lot of that number was students who paid for admittance through an activities fee that goes throughout athletics.

Athletics has tremendous value as a student amenity, a marketing tool, and other returns on investments, so it's worth it to pay a few million dollars for it. Schools like NAIA Robert Morris use athletics heavily as a marketing, recruiting and retention tool. Roosevelt University a few years ago re-started their athletics in Division III for that same reason.

the last report I read showed only six schools that showed a profit. if that's not a broken system i don't know what is. why would you follow that path if change was in the air and there was a golden opportunity to change.
I do feel there are a lot of accounting tricks going on with those numbers. You can also see how bloated departments have become.
I do know that Kelly feels athletics aren't needed to attract students, after all there's a waiting list at Loyola. (I don't even know what to say about that statement.) This is the person who's in charge of athletics.
on a side note: all of Loyola's athletics are funded by the students. We don't charge a line item but the funds do come from tuition. where else would they come from. that 's between 1600 and 1700 per student.

I thought Rob Kelly left when Calhoun did and was replaced by an interim VP for Student Development, Jane Neufeld, who was the Dean of Students. Did I - once again - miss something?

True, but Garanzini has said he is dedicated to the basketball program. Now, maybe he is blowing smoke, but I don't think so.

_________________
Cigarboy sucks!

Rob Kelly left. Tom Kelly is still there.

_________________
Cigarboy sucks!

OK, thanks. But doesn't the AD report to VP for Student Development who reports to the President? Or is Tom Kelly in that chain? More important, who does the search committee report to?

Tom Kelly is in charge of athletics. Father Mike will give a thumbs up or down on the decision of the search committee that's completely controlled by Kelly. Since the AD reports to Kelly I would be surprised if he doesn't get who he decides he wants.