Tom Burman finally speaks out about $8M athletics match

[wyoskier24]

http://trib.com/sports/college/wyoming/ ... 23526.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ragtimejoe1]

I commend Burman for at least putting forth an effort, but, IMO, this letter is not what is needed. There are a few statistics in there to help clarify where the money goes, but he has to come up with a better justification for athletics than:

A reduction will mean we cannot properly feed, travel, recruit, develop, educate (scholarship), and provide the best health care possible,” Burman wrote. “This is a really big deal — the cost of (NCAA Division I athletics) has increased dramatically in last 24 months due to NCAA deregulation (of nutrition rules). Reducing more than the 20 (percent) will mean we have to decide about the future of our programs and what we should offer.

I think it is a point, but Burman is missing the boat. The argument against the money isn't questioning what is required to have athletics, it is questioning if we even need athletics. Burman's responses always revolve around the former but the punches are coming from the latter.

We need a full economic impact statement for UW athletics. I'm betting that the State/University money spent on athletics (somewhere around 14 million, right?) returns way more in value for advertising, recruitment, retention, alumni giving, etc. not to mention the direct impacts on local businesses and some tax revenue.

We need something that says, for $14 million (because the rest of the budget comes from conference, donations, licensing, etc.) the University makes _____ million. By generating this revenue, we save Wyoming taxpayers. In fact for every dollar the state puts into athletics, it returns ____ dollars.

I'm not just bashing Burman to bash Burman here, but someone at the University needs to respond with a dollar and cents approach.

[LanderPoke]

I commend Burman for at least putting forth an effort, but, IMO, this letter is not what is needed. There are a few statistics in there to help clarify where the money goes, but he has to come up with a better justification for athletics than:

A reduction will mean we cannot properly feed, travel, recruit, develop, educate (scholarship), and provide the best health care possible,” Burman wrote. “This is a really big deal — the cost of (NCAA Division I athletics) has increased dramatically in last 24 months due to NCAA deregulation (of nutrition rules). Reducing more than the 20 (percent) will mean we have to decide about the future of our programs and what we should offer.

I think it is a point, but Burman is missing the boat. The argument against the money isn't questioning what is required to have athletics, it is questioning if we even need athletics. Burman's responses always revolve around the former but the punches are coming from the latter.

We need a full economic impact statement for UW athletics. I'm betting that the State/University money spent on athletics (somewhere around 14 million, right?) returns way more in value for advertising, recruitment, retention, alumni giving, etc. not to mention the direct impacts on local businesses and some tax revenue.

We need something that says, for $14 million (because the rest of the budget comes from conference, donations, licensing, etc.) the University makes _____ million. By generating this revenue, we save Wyoming taxpayers. In fact for every dollar the state puts into athletics, it returns ____ dollars.

I'm not just bashing Burman to bash Burman here, but someone at the University needs to respond with a dollar and cents approach.

+1

[WestWYOPoke]

Absolutely agree, this is something I have been preaching to people bashing athletics for the last week or so. There is a lot that athletics brings to the university (as a whole), the city, county and state. All they see is a waste of money. In their minds, if we eliminated the athletics department, everything would be exactly the same except now they would have several million dollars to spend elsewhere. When in reality, eliminating athletics would cost millions of dollars to the university, city, etc. College athletics does cost some money, but it also yields far more than the average citizen realizes.

[SDPokeFan]

All the university needs if for the GD football team to start winning and people will see how big of a cash cow it can be. I'm telling you it's a sleeping giant just waiting, nay BEGGING to be woken up!

[Cowboy Junky]

I like the strategy of the A.D. and the coaches. They express appreciation and better explained why the increase is necessary. The letter from the coaches was smart.

I encourage those of you that support this to make your voices heard. There's a debate raging on facebook today. It's been a lot of fun educating people about why this isn't just necessary, it's way overdue. Our athletics department is under funded and has been for a long time.

[kdwrightuwyo]

I like the strategy of the A.D. and the coaches. They express appreciation and better explained why the increase is necessary. The letter from the coaches was smart.

I encourage those of you that support this to make your voices heard. There's a debate raging on facebook today. It's been a lot of fun educating people about why this isn't just necessary, it's way overdue. Our athletics department is under funded and has been for a long time.

Yeah, I could use some help on the FB from. Too many ignorant people don't know what an athletics program brings, and don't care that ours has been underfunded for years.

[stymeman]

if it doesn't come this way, imagine the prices of tickets, none of us would be able to afford to go to UW sporting events, slowly getting this way now

[calpoke25]

This response is a day late and a dollar short when you read all the negative press and letters to the editor across the state. ragtime already pointed out what needs to be done.

[ragtimejoe1]

I like the strategy of the A.D. and the coaches. They express appreciation and better explained why the increase is necessary. The letter from the coaches was smart.

I encourage those of you that support this to make your voices heard. There's a debate raging on facebook today. It's been a lot of fun educating people about why this isn't just necessary, it's way overdue. Our athletics department is under funded and has been for a long time.

I get it Junky, but I still think that is not addressing the question(s) being asked. Burman et al. are responding under the assumption that everyone agrees UW needs competitive athletics.

The opposition is asking "Why do we need athletics much less competitive athletics?" "If we don't really care about or we can't compete, why do we throw good money after bad at the expense of the majority of the student body?"

You and I know these questions are hogwash and know the benefits of athletics, but these people don't. If not Burman and UW, who is going to get the message out about the economic benefits of athletics? Whose job is it to explain how athletics helps a University, helps the average student, and helps decrease the tax burden required to keep the University going? Who?

Here is what I'm afraid of: 1) Burman and UW largely ignore this. 2) Economic conditions in the State worsen. 3) People associate athletic spending as a symbol of waste regardless of how much is spent (this is already starting) 4) Bball and football struggle.

Maybe I'm too worried about something I shouldn't be?

[WestWYOPoke]

I absolutely agree Ragtime. Apparently the state of Wyoming is filled with thousands and thousands of experts on accounting, budgetary and higher education administration. As you said, they all seem to equate athletics spending with throwing money down a toilet. None of them realize the fiscal benefits that having a high-level athletics department can bring. I've been doing my best to educate people on Facebook as well, but most of them are too ignorant to listen. Because apparently they all know more than I do with my Masters Degree in Ed. Admin.