(03-22-2015 02:40 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 03:18 AM)Knightbengal Wrote:  It's not just main campus either. The medical school is in a pricey area and the downtown campus and 10 regional campuses eat that as well. We just celebrated 50 years of existence and it is growing so I feel we will be in a good spot soon.

KB - the state paid for you new medical school not your endowment fund. In fact, your endowment dollars likely grew b/c of the money raised to graduate your first medical school class debt free.

Ditto for regional campuses. These satellites facilities grow b/c of state funding not b/c of benevolent community donors/patrons.

Not my understanding of it. Athletic facilities yes but buildings etc don't come from the state budget. They do help but debt service was the key. Research dollars were not a focus for profs until about 4 years ago. Now they have to bring in grant money or go to the community to bring in projects. That doesn't mean we weren't researching we just did it via coops

(03-22-2015 02:37 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 12:09 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I prefer to think of our small endowment as evidence of our investment into the campus. Anyone who has visited would be hard pressed to disagree

While UCF has certainly developed a nice campus, you can't really directly correlate your low endowment fund with your campus's growth.

That is,

Academic buildings and related infrastructure: were paid for by the state

Athletic facilities: by law you can't use state funding so you had to resort to some creative financing to build a new basketball arena and football stadium. Specifically, UCF didn't pay for a significant percentage of it's new arena based on a unique partnership with commercial investor where they paid for the arena district in exchange for future earnings. It was a brilliant move...but the point is that this project didn't require much UCF dollars or dollars from donors that could have potentially gone to your endowment fund. Similarly, your ~$50-million football stadium was built with less than 20% of the money raised from donations and instead from corporate naming rights, increase in student fees and good old-fashioned debt service.

The main thing to realize is that people that make big dollar donations to a university are very specific and targeted with their money b/c that is how these donations are usually setup. So consequently, it is doubtful that the money raised for athletics through donations would have gone to the academic side of the house.

UCF has a low endowment fund primarily b/c it's a young institution....AND...it hasn't been an institutional priority yet. With infrastructure now set, I can see UCF doubling their dollars within the next 10-15 years and will likely be a TOP priority of your new President with Hitt's imminent retirement. With that said, your new president will have some big shoes to fill as Hitt has been the classic definition of transformational for UCF.

Youth has got to be the primary factor. It takes time to build up massive dollars.

Cincinnati spent over a billion dollars revamping its campus, and did so with a lot of debt. Correct me if I'm wrong but little if any came from endowment.

(03-23-2015 02:20 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 02:37 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 12:09 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I prefer to think of our small endowment as evidence of our investment into the campus. Anyone who has visited would be hard pressed to disagree

While UCF has certainly developed a nice campus, you can't really directly correlate your low endowment fund with your campus's growth.

That is,

Academic buildings and related infrastructure: were paid for by the state

Athletic facilities: by law you can't use state funding so you had to resort to some creative financing to build a new basketball arena and football stadium. Specifically, UCF didn't pay for a significant percentage of it's new arena based on a unique partnership with commercial investor where they paid for the arena district in exchange for future earnings. It was a brilliant move...but the point is that this project didn't require much UCF dollars or dollars from donors that could have potentially gone to your endowment fund. Similarly, your ~$50-million football stadium was built with less than 20% of the money raised from donations and instead from corporate naming rights, increase in student fees and good old-fashioned debt service.

The main thing to realize is that people that make big dollar donations to a university are very specific and targeted with their money b/c that is how these donations are usually setup. So consequently, it is doubtful that the money raised for athletics through donations would have gone to the academic side of the house.

UCF has a low endowment fund primarily b/c it's a young institution....AND...it hasn't been an institutional priority yet. With infrastructure now set, I can see UCF doubling their dollars within the next 10-15 years and will likely be a TOP priority of your new President with Hitt's imminent retirement. With that said, your new president will have some big shoes to fill as Hitt has been the classic definition of transformational for UCF.

Youth has got to be the primary factor. It takes time to build up massive dollars.

Cincinnati spent over a billion dollars revamping its campus, and did so with a lot of debt. Correct me if I'm wrong but little if any came from endowment.

I'm assuming your right. I could be wrong but I've never heard of any school taking $ out of their endowment to fund athletics. Can you imagine the athletic beast a Rice would be if they pulled funds out of their endowment?

This seems more important to me about what UCF brings to the table.

http://www.today.com/money/robert-downey...2D80544012

(03-23-2015 06:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 02:20 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 02:37 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 12:09 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I prefer to think of our small endowment as evidence of our investment into the campus. Anyone who has visited would be hard pressed to disagree

While UCF has certainly developed a nice campus, you can't really directly correlate your low endowment fund with your campus's growth.

That is,

Academic buildings and related infrastructure: were paid for by the state

Athletic facilities: by law you can't use state funding so you had to resort to some creative financing to build a new basketball arena and football stadium. Specifically, UCF didn't pay for a significant percentage of it's new arena based on a unique partnership with commercial investor where they paid for the arena district in exchange for future earnings. It was a brilliant move...but the point is that this project didn't require much UCF dollars or dollars from donors that could have potentially gone to your endowment fund. Similarly, your ~$50-million football stadium was built with less than 20% of the money raised from donations and instead from corporate naming rights, increase in student fees and good old-fashioned debt service.

The main thing to realize is that people that make big dollar donations to a university are very specific and targeted with their money b/c that is how these donations are usually setup. So consequently, it is doubtful that the money raised for athletics through donations would have gone to the academic side of the house.

UCF has a low endowment fund primarily b/c it's a young institution....AND...it hasn't been an institutional priority yet. With infrastructure now set, I can see UCF doubling their dollars within the next 10-15 years and will likely be a TOP priority of your new President with Hitt's imminent retirement. With that said, your new president will have some big shoes to fill as Hitt has been the classic definition of transformational for UCF.

Youth has got to be the primary factor. It takes time to build up massive dollars.

Cincinnati spent over a billion dollars revamping its campus, and did so with a lot of debt. Correct me if I'm wrong but little if any came from endowment.

I'm assuming your right. I could be wrong but I've never heard of any school taking $ out of their endowment to fund athletics. Can you imagine the athletic beast a Rice would be if they pulled funds out of their endowment?

Most endowments are benefit-specific and thus many/most universities maintain endowments that are athletic program specific. Stanford, for instance, has a +/-$500 million athletic endowment that they draw about 5.5% (+/-$25 million) from each year.

I believe that it's fair to ask the OP to change the title of this thread; or at least eliminate "issues" from the title. Based on the age of the university, I believe that we have established that there is no "issue" with UCF endowments.

(03-23-2015 10:22 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 06:28 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 02:20 PM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 02:37 PM)CyberBull Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 12:09 AM)Kruciff Wrote:  I prefer to think of our small endowment as evidence of our investment into the campus. Anyone who has visited would be hard pressed to disagree

While UCF has certainly developed a nice campus, you can't really directly correlate your low endowment fund with your campus's growth.

That is,

Academic buildings and related infrastructure: were paid for by the state

Athletic facilities: by law you can't use state funding so you had to resort to some creative financing to build a new basketball arena and football stadium. Specifically, UCF didn't pay for a significant percentage of it's new arena based on a unique partnership with commercial investor where they paid for the arena district in exchange for future earnings. It was a brilliant move...but the point is that this project didn't require much UCF dollars or dollars from donors that could have potentially gone to your endowment fund. Similarly, your ~$50-million football stadium was built with less than 20% of the money raised from donations and instead from corporate naming rights, increase in student fees and good old-fashioned debt service.

The main thing to realize is that people that make big dollar donations to a university are very specific and targeted with their money b/c that is how these donations are usually setup. So consequently, it is doubtful that the money raised for athletics through donations would have gone to the academic side of the house.

UCF has a low endowment fund primarily b/c it's a young institution....AND...it hasn't been an institutional priority yet. With infrastructure now set, I can see UCF doubling their dollars within the next 10-15 years and will likely be a TOP priority of your new President with Hitt's imminent retirement. With that said, your new president will have some big shoes to fill as Hitt has been the classic definition of transformational for UCF.

Youth has got to be the primary factor. It takes time to build up massive dollars.

Cincinnati spent over a billion dollars revamping its campus, and did so with a lot of debt. Correct me if I'm wrong but little if any came from endowment.

I'm assuming your right. I could be wrong but I've never heard of any school taking $ out of their endowment to fund athletics. Can you imagine the athletic beast a Rice would be if they pulled funds out of their endowment?

Most endowments are benefit-specific and thus many/most universities maintain endowments that are athletic program specific. Stanford, for instance, has a +/-$500 million athletic endowment that they draw about 5.5% (+/-$25 million) from each year.

I believe that it's fair to ask the OP to change the title of this thread; or at least eliminate "issues" from the title. Based on the age of the university, I believe that we have established that there is no "issue" with UCF endowments.

makes sense old tiger. Thanks.

(03-23-2015 08:23 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

That is awful...and really funny.

(03-23-2015 09:45 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  This seems more important to me about what UCF brings to the table.

http://www.today.com/money/robert-downey...2D80544012

I saw that a few days ago. Wonderful story, great video, glad the UCF guy got some recognition. Sounds like a stellar individual, Knights should be proud.

Stony Brook is a bad example with over $180-million, which is nearly a third more in their endowment than UCF. Plus, the SUNY school is only 6 years older, but has less than half the student population and less alumni than UCF.

Don't understand the purpose of this thread...

UCF Athletic budget and facilities are competitive with everyone in the AAC. Like I can understand if it was an issue if we were lacking in some area... but we aren't. Worst case scenario we are middle of the pack as far as budget and facilities go

(03-25-2015 03:00 PM)IceJus10 Wrote:  Stony Brook is a bad example with over $180-million, which is nearly a third more in their endowment than UCF. Plus, the SUNY school is only 6 years older, but has less than half the student population and less alumni than UCF.

I bet Stony Brook gets more financial support from their state than UCF gets from ours