DavidsonCats.com

Remember this? It was released last fall. http://www.davidsonwildcats.com/documen ... utward.pdf

The part that gives the most hope for the future is the part about strategies.

"Strategies
Recruit, enroll and educate the best scholar athletes in the country.
Lead an aggressive fundraising campaign that brings the number of scholarship equivalencies at Davidson to the A-10 Conference average in each sport.
Strengthen partnership between Admission and Athletics to maximize opportunity for yielding the best scholar athletes.
Strengthen the bridge between faculty and scholar athletes, and between career development and scholar athletes.
Recruit and retain high-performing coaches and athletic administrators.
Create professional development opportunities for coaches.
Develop shared annual goals and a structure of accountability for the athletics department.
Build a sense of community and collective identity among scholar athletes, coaches, athletic administrators, alumni and supporters.
Maintain facilities comparable to peer institutions.
Generate knowledge of Davidson’s distinctive values, unparalleled educational environment, and athletic programs.
Prioritize sports where success will help our entire athletics program recruit more effectively and gain national recognition."

You have to love the goal that we fund scholarships at a level equal to the A10 average in each sport. Has anyone heard a timeline for this lofty goal of reaching the average?

An article from November 2015 on the Game Changers campaign said that over $120 million had already been raised for scholarships. It did not specify how many of those scholarships were athletic, or need based, or based on academic merit, or based on some other skill/talent like music, debate, dance, acting, etc.

Have any of our teams received any additional money yet?

This plan should have been submitted prior to our move to the A-10, not a couple of years after the move was announced.

The GameChangers campaign was announced in November 2014. Behind the scenes work had been going on for some time. It includes funding more scholarships than any other campaign in school history. So it did begin before we made the move to the A-10.

50% of the $425 million fundraising goal is earmarked for scholarships. I'm guessing athletics' share of the new schollies will be the number needed to reach the A-10 average in each sport. Funds donated for athletic scholarships will be divided 80%-20% for 5 years. 80% is the amount to be used to endow scholarships. 20% is the amount to be spent immediately. Therefore additional scholarships should be available for athletes being recruited now.

Bill Cobb wrote:Have any of our teams received any additional money yet?

This plan should have been submitted prior to our move to the A-10, not a couple of years after the move was announced.

So Mr. Cobb's question remains.

Also, at one time I heard that there was a specified number of $ millions earmarked for athletic endowed scholarships. I heard this week, they now no longer have a specific amount set for athletics. That creates some concern for me.

http://www.mooresvilletribune.com/sport ... ge&photo=0


If Davidson is really going to "maintain facilities comparable to peer institutions," we have a whole lot of catching up to do.

I have heard from several sources that the Davidson Trust has created a very severe financial drain. If that is indeed the case, then athletics may be thrown a very small bone, if any at all. When it comes to athletics I believe smoke and mirrors is the admin catch phrase. Instead of broad stokes, show the fine print. Transparency will never happen but it should not deter those who question.

i77cat wrote:http://www.mooresvilletribune.com/sport ... ge&photo=0


If Davidson is really going to "maintain facilities comparable to peer institutions," we have a whole lot of catching up to do.

SandyCarnegie wrote:I have heard from several sources that the Davidson Trust has created a very severe financial drain. If that is indeed the case, then athletics may be thrown a very small bone, if any at all. When it comes to athletics I believe smoke and mirrors is the admin catch phrase. Instead of broad stokes, show the fine print. Transparency will never happen but it should not deter those who question.

I am honestly starting to wonder if it is possible to maintain excellence in both *edit: academics AND athletics ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF OFFERED DI teams... (I don't doubt that individual programs can and will thrive or improve)*. i77's post (to my mind) is an indication of the shift from what was happening at the college level 20 years ago to the high school level (and younger) today, i.e., plush facilities and equipment.

Could Davidson use an upgrade? Sure! But... in the grand scheme of human excellence, not relatively speaking, but merely... on a human level?... are our facilities not pretty darn plush?

But now, yes, compared to our "peers," as well as to many of the high schools our targeted recruits emerge from, our facilities look Bush League.

But we're not corporate. Isn't that what we love (or loved) about Davidson? We can't subsidize our sports on the coat tails of a 20,000+ enrollment and state tax funding. Isn't that (or wasn't that) part of the charm?

More and more, as the broader landscape changes, I'm struggling to see how we can do both. Especially as you consider Carnegie's post above alongside i77's. The goalposts are shifting in each realm (academic, financial, athletic, expectations of families and recruits). Just my 2-cents musings...

I would like to know if the situation with the Davidson Trust is in fact a drain on College resources

While I would contend that I am among the most devoted Wildcat fans-- for example, I would prefer a goal of funding athletic scholarships to the maximum number allowable not just to the A10 average-- I would hope that Davidson always gives first priority for funding to general student aid. I have to assume that the Davidson Trust is a very real financial challenge, but I love Davidson's commitment to it. There are a growing number of institutions with larger endowments than Davidson which have backed away from similar commitments. I hope that our current campaign secures the future of the Davidson Trust in addition to supporting athletic aid. I, however, can see other scenarios with all the demands for funding. We could maintain the commitment to aid without need-based loans (The Trust) but no longer be need-blind, if the funding required to do both proves to be unsustainable. Or we might continue to be need-blind but have to offer need-based loan, perhaps setting an attractive cap on how much need-based loan a student would be asked to assume.

In regards to the charge that we should have been prepared to fund athletics at a competitive A10 level when we joined I have always assumed that the opportunity to join the A10 presented itself, and it was an opportunity that we had to seize, despite knowing that we had some catching up to do. These things do not happen overnight. I frankly have been impressed with the progress which we have made in facilities, personnel, and scholarships in a relatively short span of time. The campaign is designed to help us take a leap forward. It will be a meaningful leap. Let's hope it might become a giant leap. Let's all do our part, big or small.

I'm looking for leadership from the administration before I commit a dime.

I haven't seen any yet.

"...are our facilities not pretty darn plush?"

Nope.

Corpulent Cat wrote:I'm looking for leadership from the administration before I commit a dime.

I haven't seen any yet.

You haven't "seen leadership"? Can you be more specific about what you mean by that?

catborn'bred, the alums have always stepped up so shouldn't the college do the same? An example is football. If my figures are correct, outside of salaries, the college contributed $210,000+/- to the operating expenses and the alums contributed $600,000+/-. would you expect the institution to contribute at least a half of the operating expenses? I feel fairly confident it is that way across the board. The alums paid a large part for the addition to Baker.
My perspective is a little tainted because I love athletics and what they provide to the individuals who participate.
It is simply a matter of allocating dollars you have. We have money but we chose to allocate it so that athletics is always on the short end. If I am wrong then show me the last 10 years budget, income, including endowments, expenses and expenditures to refute my belief. If the college would allow for athletic campaigns to run separate but alongside the other campaigns, it might be helpful for athletics but the college will never let it happen

SandyCarnegie wrote:If the college would allow for athletic campaigns to run separate but alongside the other campaigns, it might be helpful for athletics but the college will never let it happen

I don't follow. The Game Changers campaign lets one designate gifts, right? I was able to contribute twice to the Maloy scholarship campaign. I got a recent email about contributing to baseball, to which I have not yet responded, but plan to. I'll pay this year's installment on my Vance Center pledge soon, and give to other things next month. Now some of the recent things will count toward the GC total, so maybe not "separate but alongside" in that sense. But I have sensed no lack of solicitation for athletics. So please clarify.