Subsidy for UT athletics detailed

Report at odds with reputation that program pays for itself

Based strictly on the numbers presented in a USA Today report Tuesday, the University of Tennessee athletic department - when compared to other schools in the elite group of Bowl Championship Series automatic qualifiers - required the fifth-greatest amount of subsidized funds to balance its 2009-10 budget.

For a department that prides itself so much on its self-sufficiency that it dedicates an entire page of its website to all that it gives back to the university, those numbers simply didn't add up.

Of the $13.552 million claimed to have been subsidized to the UT athletic department- through student fees, direct and indirect institution support, and direct state support - only $1 million was actual cash that it used to fund all that goes into the 20 varsity sports it supports. The rest came from "indirect facilities and administrative support," a category on the NCAA-submitted financial report that UT and its team of auditors interpreted differently than the majority of its peers.

Subsidies are calculated using revenue categories from the school’s NCAA financial reports: student fees, direct and indirect institution support, and direct state support. The top five recipients among BCS automatic qualifying schools:

School 2010 Subsidy

1. Rutgers $26,867,679

2. Connecticut $14,578,029

3. South Florida $14,185,037

4. Maryland $13,749,781

5. Tennessee $13,552,020

According to a report in Tuesday's USA Today, the University of Tennessee athletic department derived 12 percent ($13.552 million) of its revenue from subsidies. That's a misleading figure, though, UT officials say, as the majority of it is money that has never actually existed.

- $8.36 million: "Depreciation"

Example: Thompson-Boling Arena is one year older, therefore it is worth less than it was the previous year.

- $3.16 million: "Central support units"

Example: UT athletics, like most departments at the university, gets usage out of the chancellor's office. Though it's not charged anything for those services, it is designated a dollar worth of its usage for accounting purposes.

- $1 million: "Indirect facility support"

Example: UT athletics is hypothetically allotted a percentage of the school's utilities, security and other basic infrastructure. When it actually utilizes the campus' facility services, it covers the cost out of its own budget.

- $1 million: "Student fees"

Example: This is the only actual revenue that the UT athletic department generates outside of its walls. Because the department typically gives much more than $1 million annually back to the university, it can still claim to be entirely self-sufficient.

*Source: Bill Myers, UT senior associate athletic director and chief financial officer

No matter what way it's broken down, the UT athletic department continues to be one of the few in the nation that is not only self-sufficient, but also gives back to its university.

UT was one of just 15 public schools in the 65-team group of BCS automatic qualifiers to report any funds derived from "indirect facilities and administrative support." The $12.552 million reported by the Vols was more than twice the second-most reported in that category by the University of Minnesota.

All public Southeastern Conference schools except UT reported zero dollars for "indirect facilities and administrative support."

"They just don't report it," said Bill Myers, UT's senior associate athletic director and chief financial officer.

"You can't tell me that the other schools are not structured the same way we are."

Myers said UT and its external auditors broke down the ambiguous category of the report into three groups.

The bulk of the $12.552 million came from depreciation, which the athletic department reports on a "paper only" basis, Myers said. While companies in the private sector often put away that allotted money for future building and equipment purchases, all UT had to do was simply report the estimated $8.36 million worth of depreciation it racked up during the 2009-10 fiscal year, but not factor it in to its spending plans.

More than $3 million of the total was derived from "central support units," Myers said. Like depreciation, the funds generated from this area are hypothetical.

Buildings such as the chancellor's office and president's office are used by all facets of the university, athletics included. Only during recent budget cutbacks did the university start charging departments like Housing and Parking Services an annual fee to cover basic overhead charges. The athletics department was never charged because it annually gives back millions of dollars to the university, Myers said.

Typically, and currently, the cost is simply absorbed centrally by the university. For reporting purposes, though, a figure is needed to represent each department's respective use of the facilities, which is how the $3.15 million was added to the athletic department's "indirect facilities and administrative support" total.

A similar line of thinking was used to come up with the $1 million from indirect facility support.

Because UT's athletic buildings take up 7.5 percent of the UT campus' square footage, it is hypothetically charged 7.5 percent of the cost for campus utilities, security and other services. No specific wing of the university pays for those pre-ordained charges, Myers said, but the athletic department handles all of the costs it incurs from those services.

"There's not anything they provide for us that we aren't charged for," Myers said.

The only true subsidy UT's athletic department receives is from student athletic fees, and that could go away in the coming years, Myers said.

To fulfill Title IX responsibilities, the athletic department annually collects $1 million from the student body. It's a gesture that is "political by nature," Myers said, and there are talks of eliminating the seemingly unnecessary transaction.

"I think there's some internal questions about how the money comes and where it goes," Myers said. "I do think you'll see in the future that that money will be netted."

Without the $1 million it received from student fees during the 2009-10 fiscal year, the athletic department would simply have given back $5.84 million to the university instead of $6.84 million.

Myers said there is no category on the report to note how much the athletic department gives back to its university because "it's geared to show how athletics is taking away from campus."

"Very few of us do that," Myers said. "So why build a system to report it when most people don't do it?"

Andrew Gribble may be reached at 865-342-6327. Follow him at http://twitter.com/Andrew_Gribble and http://blogs.knoxnews.com/gribble.

Get Copyright Permissions © 2011, Knoxville News Sentinel Co.
Want to use this article? Click here for options!

© 2011 govolsxtra.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 43

stevefrommemphis writes:

The $12.5 million is a non-event. Here are some other questions: Are contributions to the Tennessee Fund included as a source of athletic dept revenue, which would make up all or a large portion of that $6.84 million UTAD gave to the school? A lot of that money was already going to the school prior to creation of the Tennessee Fund. What departments did the school decide to subsidize with that $6.84 million? Once again, in the past, pre Tennessee Fund, contributors to academics who wanted sports tickets got to choose which department would receive their contribution. Now the school chooses for us. Also, are tutoring services provided to UT athletes included as an expense of running the athletic department?

lafollette37766 writes:

This is news? Earth shattering this is not.

Classof72 writes:

The real question is: What is the athletic department used for? The real answer is 'coporate entertainment'. The facilities used to comprise seats for the public to view the teams. Now, the money revolves around the creation of 'luxury suites' for the edification of the corporate aristocracy. It's now 'football under glass', a status symbol for the corporate elite. The regular fans in the stands (what's left of them) are just window dressing that don't really matter. Hence, the dearly departed Mike Hamilton's emphasis on 'facilities development.'

budd#207344 writes:

in response to MOUNTAINofOKEMO:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Depreciation is a recognized way to show the declining value of an asset. There is no money involved it simply provides a dollar figure to show that the asset's value has declined like the fact that a car decreases in value as it ages. There is no money going into anyone's pocket.

AHoffman writes:

Another myth busted.

mac_b_from_tn writes:

in response to MOUNTAINofOKEMO:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Depreciation is a paper only exercise because there's really not much a tax exempt organization can do with it. Private businesses can write that off in the form of tax credit or towards future capital investments but a tax exempt company does not.

VOL1972 writes:

There is such a thing as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). If everyone's numbers were presented in accordance with GAAP, you wouldn't have these questions.

And yes! Depreciation is a real expense.

drwut70 writes:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

88volgrad writes:

in response to MOUNTAINofOKEMO:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Yes, by all means, since we don't understand what we are reading, let's assume some vast conspiracy. Reminds me of the evolution thread.

ShelleyFlyGirl writes:

This is a typically moronic KNS article, written by a sportswriter--so he calls himself--with no understanding of accounting.

The "subsidies" are nothing more than accounting entries for internal use. The fact is that the UTAD makes more money than it spends--so much more that it gives $5 million back to the University's academic programs, OVER AND ABOVE what it already pays to the University for tuition for scholar athletes.

Funny, too, that Gribble's article is basically a localized version of a USA Today article.

Bottom line is that John Adams' laziness (he's written and recycled the same cloumn for 3 months now) has now infected other members of the KNS staff.

Jeez, people, try to work a little, will ya, on putting out a half way decent newspaper?

VolWalker writes:

in response to ShelleyFlyGirl:

This is a typically moronic KNS article, written by a sportswriter--so he calls himself--with no understanding of accounting.

The "subsidies" are nothing more than accounting entries for internal use. The fact is that the UTAD makes more money than it spends--so much more that it gives $5 million back to the University's academic programs, OVER AND ABOVE what it already pays to the University for tuition for scholar athletes.

Funny, too, that Gribble's article is basically a localized version of a USA Today article.

Bottom line is that John Adams' laziness (he's written and recycled the same cloumn for 3 months now) has now infected other members of the KNS staff.

Jeez, people, try to work a little, will ya, on putting out a half way decent newspaper?

What is it exactly you are complaining about? Settle down Fly Girl.

mac_b_from_tn writes:

in response to slaw_way:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Look around the athletic facilities. All of their capital expenditures depreciate. That's computers, cars, equipment, gym facilities, office furniture, and pretty much everything else they wrote a check for. Hell That Jumbotron is probably worth half of what they paid for it the second they installed it.

SpiritOfTheHill writes:

in response to ShelleyFlyGirl:

This is a typically moronic KNS article, written by a sportswriter--so he calls himself--with no understanding of accounting.

The "subsidies" are nothing more than accounting entries for internal use. The fact is that the UTAD makes more money than it spends--so much more that it gives $5 million back to the University's academic programs, OVER AND ABOVE what it already pays to the University for tuition for scholar athletes.

Funny, too, that Gribble's article is basically a localized version of a USA Today article.

Bottom line is that John Adams' laziness (he's written and recycled the same cloumn for 3 months now) has now infected other members of the KNS staff.

Jeez, people, try to work a little, will ya, on putting out a half way decent newspaper?

Shelley, you clearly didn't understand the point of the article. It isn't a localized version of the USA Today article, it is REFUTING the USA Today article, presenting UT's point of view on what USA Today had claimed were massive subsidies to the UTAD from the University at large.

The point of the article is exactly what you wrote in your second paragraph.

catknox writes:

Vol1972 Writes: "There is such a thing as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). If everyone's numbers were presented in accordance with GAAP, you wouldn't have these questions.

And yes! Depreciation is a real expense."
___________________________________
I think they use the GASB standards (Governmental Accounting Standards Board) rather than GAAP. That does make for some considerable differences on how things are reported. It is a significant matter in understanding these numbers. At the end of the day however, the University of Tennessee's Athletic Department numbers are impressive and in a very positive way.

As to some "grand conspiracy" as to people "lining their pockets", well that is just an ignorant rant.

VolAlum03ISBACK (Inactive) writes:

in response to Whatthehellsgoingonoutthere:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

You either can't understand it or won't take the time, so you just make some statement about how numbers can be made to say anything (which they can't) and feel like a hillbilly accounting expert. What the hell is going on out here? Why don't you take the time to look and maybe you and yours wouldn't be taken to the cleaners by those who pick up a book and read every once in a while.

VolzsFan writes:

Just another shell game in the broke world of college athletics. The other big secret is that they are all non profit and therefore do not pay taxes like a real business would. If they paid taxes they could go ahead and take another 25%-30% off the top.

Merv writes:

The article's not as clear as it might be. But all this seems to be about the difference between cash flows and accrual accounting. UTAD and KNS seem to prefer focusing on cash flows. ...

But accounting items like depreciation have real-world significance. For instance, for UTAD to say it's self-sufficient is not quite right, if it's not taking into account the athletic facilities that it's using. Which is what the depreciation charge is trying to do. ...

UTAD hands out lots of scholarships. Although no cash flows, in effect UTAD gets UT to waive the tuition that athletes would otherwise have to pay. That's a cost that UTAD imposes on UT. UTAD's presentation takes this into account, right?

bigdisbig writes:

UT should have tons of money because they are too tight to hire a big name coach who can bring in great prospects. UT has become a mediocrity school with mediocre or below coaches with exception of Pat Summitt. Look what Bama has done. They stepped up to the plate and hit a home run with Saban. They know that you get what you pay for.....nothing against Dooley for the jury is still out on him but baseball, basketball and football have struggled long enough (well, basketball has been good under Pearl but they run him off).

As long as Jimmy Cheeks is in charge of anything UT will struggle. Mike Hamilton all but bent UT over in the sports world with his cheap hires (with exception of Pearl and he was a no name when they hired him as well).

Now UT is looking up at all the other schools when they used to look down. Get used to mediocrity people. Until there is a total shakeup in the Athletic Dept. management UT will always be in the middle of the pack.

mac_b_from_tn writes:

in response to Merv:

The article's not as clear as it might be. But all this seems to be about the difference between cash flows and accrual accounting. UTAD and KNS seem to prefer focusing on cash flows. ...

But accounting items like depreciation have real-world significance. For instance, for UTAD to say it's self-sufficient is not quite right, if it's not taking into account the athletic facilities that it's using. Which is what the depreciation charge is trying to do. ...

UTAD hands out lots of scholarships. Although no cash flows, in effect UTAD gets UT to waive the tuition that athletes would otherwise have to pay. That's a cost that UTAD imposes on UT. UTAD's presentation takes this into account, right?

Actually, UT's disclosure to the NCAA does account for tuition and it is listed as an expense to the student athletes. UT's athletic department pays $10,638,233 for Athletic Student aid.

silentmajority writes:

in response to AHoffman:

Another myth busted.

How true! First there was the Stock market Bubble, which burst. Then there was the Housing Bubble, which burst. Next comes the UT Bubble, which, like June, "Is bustin' out all over".

I predict that this event is just the tip of the iceberg, with more chaos to come.

Thanks, KNOXNEWs, for the informative article. It would help if you would put such important stuff on the main knoxnews.com website, since not everyone knows about govols. (At least, consider cross-linking the two sites.) Anyway, keep up your search. There is much more to come.

I have suggested it before, and I will suggest it again: Formally and thoroughly audit UT by an objective auditor (if such exists). (See if Richard Walls is tied up.) And audit UT sports separately. Those fatcat jocks (and wannabe jocks) have had free rein long enough! Some of them should probably be jailbirds, rather than permanently roosting in the luxury suites.

mac_b_from_tn writes:

in response to silentmajority:

How true! First there was the Stock market Bubble, which burst. Then there was the Housing Bubble, which burst. Next comes the UT Bubble, which, like June, "Is bustin' out all over".

I predict that this event is just the tip of the iceberg, with more chaos to come.

Thanks, KNOXNEWs, for the informative article. It would help if you would put such important stuff on the main knoxnews.com website, since not everyone knows about govols. (At least, consider cross-linking the two sites.) Anyway, keep up your search. There is much more to come.

I have suggested it before, and I will suggest it again: Formally and thoroughly audit UT by an objective auditor (if such exists). (See if Richard Walls is tied up.) And audit UT sports separately. Those fatcat jocks (and wannabe jocks) have had free rein long enough! Some of them should probably be jailbirds, rather than permanently roosting in the luxury suites.

What article did you read and what iceberg is it the tip of? This affirms UT's position that athletics is self supporting and financially healthy as opposed to the portrait painted by USA today as receiving subsidies from the government / university.

FWIW, This story is on the front page of the actual paper.

silentmajority writes:

in response to mac_b_from_tn:

What article did you read and what iceberg is it the tip of? This affirms UT's position that athletics is self supporting and financially healthy as opposed to the portrait painted by USA today as receiving subsidies from the government / university.

FWIW, This story is on the front page of the actual paper.

1. I read the article called "Subsidy for UT Atletics detailed"
2. In my elementary mind, it casts more doubt as to the efficacy of UT as an institution (ca article statement "those numbers simply dont add up). I KNOW the article is on the front page of the hardcopy - I'm complaining that it isn't listed on the main webpage knoxnews.com. I seldom check on govols, but routinely check knoxnews. There should be cross-linhage between the two sites, as not everyone in Knox County is a sports fan. If something is worthy of a front-page seat, its worthy of inclusion on the front-page site.

FWIW, see above.

FWIW2, thanks for the "correction".

CoverOrange writes:

in response to mac_b_from_tn:

Actually, UT's disclosure to the NCAA does account for tuition and it is listed as an expense to the student athletes. UT's athletic department pays $10,638,233 for Athletic Student aid.

$10M? Seriously? Just exactly how many student athletes are there on campus? I don't know exactly how much tuition is these days but I have a hard time believing there are on the order of 2,000 student athletes on full or partial scholarships. Football and basketball (men and women) have only slightly more than a hundred and all other sports are penny ante.

mac_b_from_tn writes:

in response to silentmajority:

1. I read the article called "Subsidy for UT Atletics detailed"
2. In my elementary mind, it casts more doubt as to the efficacy of UT as an institution (ca article statement "those numbers simply dont add up). I KNOW the article is on the front page of the hardcopy - I'm complaining that it isn't listed on the main webpage knoxnews.com. I seldom check on govols, but routinely check knoxnews. There should be cross-linhage between the two sites, as not everyone in Knox County is a sports fan. If something is worthy of a front-page seat, its worthy of inclusion on the front-page site.

FWIW, see above.

FWIW2, thanks for the "correction".

"those numbers simply don't add up" is referencing the USA today article, not UT's accounting. The rest of this article is explaining where they got those numbers from in UT's disclosure. Though it doesn't spell it out, the gist is that the athletic department is not being subsidized by the University as was the claim of the USA Today piece.

mac_b_from_tn writes:

in response to CoverOrange:

$10M? Seriously? Just exactly how many student athletes are there on campus? I don't know exactly how much tuition is these days but I have a hard time believing there are on the order of 2,000 student athletes on full or partial scholarships. Football and basketball (men and women) have only slightly more than a hundred and all other sports are penny ante.

From UT sports.com "Provide 260.2 scholarships to more than 500 male and female student-athletes". I have no idea what they use to account for that number, but's what the NCAA has from them. One thing to remember is that many student athletes are from out of state, so they are probably accounting that at full tuition rates. While I don't know this for a fact, I'd imagine this number also includes books, boarding, and tuition for former student athletes who return to get their degrees.

CoverOrange writes:

What this shows is that UTAD over answered the question. The question was "how much money do universities give athletic departments through various means?" UTAD answered with theoretical, non-existant money (depreciation, non-existant fees for occupation of real estate). Apparently, everybody else answered straight forward real money.

Can anyone tell what is so special about the chancellor's and president's office that they (notionally) charge $3M/yr for it?

AHoffman writes:

Bernie Madoff would be proud of the UT Athletic Department's accounting procedures.

SpiritOfTheHill writes:

It is absolutely mindblowing to see just how many people cannot grasp what the foregoing article is about.

Burl writes:

in response to 88volgrad:

Yes, by all means, since we don't understand what we are reading, let's assume some vast conspiracy. Reminds me of the evolution thread.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

jjhvols writes:

Well what makes me upset is my tuition went up 12% this year so regardless of what this article means all UT wants is my money.

FarmerVol writes:

in response to ShelleyFlyGirl:

This is a typically moronic KNS article, written by a sportswriter--so he calls himself--with no understanding of accounting.

The "subsidies" are nothing more than accounting entries for internal use. The fact is that the UTAD makes more money than it spends--so much more that it gives $5 million back to the University's academic programs, OVER AND ABOVE what it already pays to the University for tuition for scholar athletes.

Funny, too, that Gribble's article is basically a localized version of a USA Today article.

Bottom line is that John Adams' laziness (he's written and recycled the same cloumn for 3 months now) has now infected other members of the KNS staff.

Jeez, people, try to work a little, will ya, on putting out a half way decent newspaper?

Attagirl Shel, and don't forget bout them "charity donations" we give away everytime we let Candy and Tiger High play us at our place and leave with a wad o cash. Must be goodwill on the balance sheet or somethin like that.

budd#207344 writes:

Every student athlete at UT should be required to read the comments sections in the KNS. Perhaps then they will grasp how important an education truly is.

Witch_Doctors writes:

in response to 88volgrad:

Yes, by all means, since we don't understand what we are reading, let's assume some vast conspiracy. Reminds me of the evolution thread.

Witch Doctor say jungle science has proven we all come from coconuts.
Bones never lie.

CoverOrange writes:

in response to bartlett79:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Dang funny!

Add:
Vanderbilt - $1,000 to print maps for fans to find way to stadium
South Carolina - $400 to launder soil from visors
Mississippi St - $8,000 for miniature recording equipment
Arkansas - $50,000 to keep Petrino away from the airport.

silentmajority writes:

in response to mac_b_from_tn:

"those numbers simply don't add up" is referencing the USA today article, not UT's accounting. The rest of this article is explaining where they got those numbers from in UT's disclosure. Though it doesn't spell it out, the gist is that the athletic department is not being subsidized by the University as was the claim of the USA Today piece.

Thanks for the additional correction. As near my eighth decade mark, I find that I need more and more correction daily. No, I dont yet have ASlzheimer's, I just look deeper than before, and try to connect logic to everything I see. Its getting tougher to do, and I make mistakes. Sometimes I find that what other, younger logicians find credible, is in reality incredible. That Ut is efficiently run is one of those illogical stands.

BTW, you show unusually high knowledge of UT. I'll bet you bleed orange (not that I wish you harm to prove it)!

agentorange writes:

in response to jjhvols:

Well what makes me upset is my tuition went up 12% this year so regardless of what this article means all UT wants is my money.

The Big Orange Screw was what we called it in 90s.

Colliervol writes:

Anybody else hear a report that UT is talking to Heath Shuler about the AD job? Might not be a bad idea to have a politician in that position. They all (Republican or Democrat) know how to raise (aka steal) money.

Colliervol writes:

in response to silentmajority:

1. I read the article called "Subsidy for UT Atletics detailed"
2. In my elementary mind, it casts more doubt as to the efficacy of UT as an institution (ca article statement "those numbers simply dont add up). I KNOW the article is on the front page of the hardcopy - I'm complaining that it isn't listed on the main webpage knoxnews.com. I seldom check on govols, but routinely check knoxnews. There should be cross-linhage between the two sites, as not everyone in Knox County is a sports fan. If something is worthy of a front-page seat, its worthy of inclusion on the front-page site.

FWIW, see above.

FWIW2, thanks for the "correction".

Sounds like it "casts more doubt" because you want it to and it sounds to me you aren't much of a fan of UT. The gist of the article to me is that, yes, they accept subsidies (like most athletic programs do). And if they didn't, the donation back to the university just wouldn't be as much as it is. Bottom line (and, yes, accountants can make the bottom line look any way you want it to), the program operates in the black and donates back to the university. And, until proven otherwise, that's all I need to know.

crockett1836 writes:

in response to lafollette37766:

This is news? Earth shattering this is not.

For June 29th, yes this is news. Unless you want to listen to the 76th Braves game of the season which amounts to, well ok it's meaningless. This is a pretty good report, very detailed. You should be very concerned with this, more than recruiting or coaching hirings. This report explains what allows us to get 'recruits' and 'coaches' to come here. Can't build practice facilities with a roll of quarters.

One especially important bit of info was that we choose to 'report' our depreciable assets while other schools apparently don't. Shows integrity to do this, considering the non-requirement.

My last thought is why the hell does this need to be reported to the NCAA? Everyday, they seem closer and closer to the mob.

tovolny writes:

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? There cannot possibly be enough facts presented in a few paragraphs to explain the accounting practices of the University of Tennesee. Can we really read this article and then try to explain it to the fiscal uninformed by posting our views. I am still trying to figure out if this is a BLURB or a BASH.

volcraze writes:

My Goodness!!! I thought I was a fairly dedicated UT fan but most of you have taken it to a new level. I guess this is where I draw my line_____UT Accounting.

Kelly8 writes:

in response to stevefrommemphis:

The $12.5 million is a non-event. Here are some other questions: Are contributions to the Tennessee Fund included as a source of athletic dept revenue, which would make up all or a large portion of that $6.84 million UTAD gave to the school? A lot of that money was already going to the school prior to creation of the Tennessee Fund. What departments did the school decide to subsidize with that $6.84 million? Once again, in the past, pre Tennessee Fund, contributors to academics who wanted sports tickets got to choose which department would receive their contribution. Now the school chooses for us. Also, are tutoring services provided to UT athletes included as an expense of running the athletic department?

Amen! This is one of the most heinous things done during the Hamilton administration, and yet is hardly ever talked about. When things were divided between VASF and the Alumni Association, a person could contribute to either one and in return receive athletic benefits (home/away/bowl tickets, parking). Contributions to VASF were directly to the athletic department, however a person could contribute directly to an academic department (determined by the contributor) through Alumni. Initially the amount of season, road, and bowl tickets was somewhere around 50% VASF/50% Alumni. Of course the Athletic Department has the ultimate authority over tickets, and as Alumni donors either died/forfeited/gave up tickets those seats became VASF donor seats. My numbers may be a little off, but I think I remember hearing that when the combined Tennessee Fund was created the ticket distribution in Neyland was something like 70/30 in favor of VASF. This was a power play by the Athletic Department. If the AD is the only organization to which you can give and receive athletic benefits, then they control 100% of donations = more power on campus, in addition to obvious distribution controls. Before the Tennessee Fund, I could give money directly to the department of which I am an alumnus and receive football and men's basketball tickets (build up priority points, etc.). Now my only option is to give to the Athletic Department directly. This, of course, assumes one of my primary motivations for giving is athletic benefits. Which, of course, it is. But still...BS!

eVOLved writes:

Never would have happened under Hamilton's watch.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features