There’s no mystery to the economic status of Tennessee higher education facilities. The well’s just dry.
Officials are left scrounging for spare bucks, searching for corners to cut — and somewhere between the woes, University of Memphis President Shirley Raines presses for optimism.
Now, the trickle-down economy takes effect. From the state to The University, and in turn, from The University to its departments, the key words in all of this are “bare bones.”
Raines’ plan to throw athletics into a state of self-support, apart from The U of M’s already lacking dollars, should free up millions yearly in the near future — an idea that had faculty in uproarious approval last month.
“They ought to be self-supporting,” said Raymond Pipkin, interim vice president of Business and Finance.
Ralph Faudree, U of M provost, said this move has been desired by everyone from the beginning.
There was a time, six to eight years ago, when athletics could survive alone — but travel expenses, scholarship cost increases and reserve depletion thrust the department into a needy state, Faudree said.
It took those six years to drain the department’s reserves, calling for general funding assistance all the while. Reserves were wiped out in June 1999.
Athletic deficits topped out at around $3 million in June 2000. The U of M was forced to dip into general operations funds again, this time for the entire amount of the loss, and has had to every year since.
However, to offer a slight glimmer of hope, deficits have continued to diminish yearly. Since the 1999-00 year, deficits have dropped 50 percent, from $3 million in 2000 to $1.5 million last year — and projections have at least a $500,000 drop per year for the next three years, according to Pipkin.
“In terms of a $200 million general budget, a million and a half (dollars) isn’t much,” Pipkin said. “But when you’re scratching for $500,000, it makes a difference. In 10 years you’re talking $15 million.”
From the athletic exclusion, 100 percent of future secured funds will go directly toward academic priorities, according to Faudree.
As for the athletic department itself, Pipkin said they can only work with their one resource — sporting event revenues. But expected takes from the 2001 football season are still uncertain.
“We constantly look at expenditures, but our main problem is the need for increased revenue,” said R.C. Johnson, athletic director.
An unattractive home schedule, without teams like Tennessee and Ole Miss, is likely to affect attendance returns, Pipkin said.
“We need to sell more tickets and win more games,” Johnson said.
Indeed, hiked event revenues may hasten the parting, but the timetable is undetermined.
“There is no definite date,” Johnson said. “A lot depends on continuing cost increases and the success of the football program.”
According to Faudree, there are three keys to balancing athletic deficits now.
Private funding is necessary, and encouragingly enough, 3,000 Tiger Club members and $3.5 million in funds are both record numbers.
Marketing of actual events must improve for ticket sales to go up. The increase in basketball ticket sales last season heightened revenues, which actually lent to the year’s $900,000 savings from the formulated athletic budget.
These are the numbers which feed into Raines’ optimism. She’s counting on three years to zero out the deficit, if not sooner.
“We have them (athletic department) moving in the right direction,” Pipkin said, but the university can’t afford to continue subsidizing. “If they want to be big time, they have to be big time enough to support themselves.”
