(09-21-2010 09:32 AM)panama Wrote:  Not sure why but NACUBO lists them twice.

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research...Values.pdf

Look at Page 10 of their last honor roll:

http://www.southalabama.edu/development/hrod09.pdf

If you click the link and do a search they are on their twice. I do not know why but they are on their once as University of South Alabama and again as University of South Alabama Foundation. I have no idea what the distinction is.

(09-21-2010 10:02 AM)galojah Wrote:  

(09-21-2010 09:32 AM)panama Wrote:  Not sure why but NACUBO lists them twice.

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research...Values.pdf

My source they are not listed twice.... I can say with pretty strong confidence that USA does not have $250M endowment... that would rival Denver, I private that we all know would have the highest endowment.

Being found in the 60s, USA doesn't have the Alumni to have a $250M endowment.

Looks like a grudge match shaping up between S. Alabama and Georgia St. later in the year.

Who knew that South would be playing important games so early in their development.

http://www.usafoundation.org/

(09-21-2010 10:11 AM)panama Wrote:  If you click the link and do a search they are on their twice. I do not know why but they are on their once as University of South Alabama and again as University of South Alabama Foundation. I have no idea what the distinction is.

(09-21-2010 10:02 AM)galojah Wrote:  

(09-21-2010 09:32 AM)panama Wrote:  Not sure why but NACUBO lists them twice.

http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/research...Values.pdf

My source they are not listed twice.... I can say with pretty strong confidence that USA does not have $250M endowment... that would rival Denver, I private that we all know would have the highest endowment.

Being found in the 60s, USA doesn't have the Alumni to have a $250M endowment.

Net Assets are not the same as endowment.... there are lots of non-endowed, operating, dollars in a Foundation.

Look at http://www.southalabama.edu/development/hrod09.pdf - page 10

And, the number they self-report to CAE was $95,037,000 for 2009. But who knows, could be something quirky.

(09-21-2010 10:17 AM)galojah Wrote:  Net Assets are not the same as endowment.... there are lots of non-endowed, operating, dollars in a Foundation.

Look at http://www.southalabama.edu/development/hrod09.pdf - page 10

And, the number they self-report to CAE was $95,037,000 for 2009. But who knows, could be something quirky.

I believe the confusion comes from the fact that we have two supporting funds for the University. The first, oldest and largest is the USA Foundation with assets in excess of $250 million dollars. There was a feud between the Foundation and USA a few years ago when USA's founding president was forced to step down and he used his control of the Foundation to limit support to the school. USA then formed another fund. I'm not sure if it is a foundation or structured differently, and began to grow it. The old president passed away several years ago and the relationship with the Foundation has thawed so that USA now is getting their needed funding again and still has the other fund as well. I'm not sure of the size of the second, but the last number I remember hearing was $17 million.

As someone who has a retired USA administrator in the family, I can vouch that there are still some strange leftovers from the Whiddon-era foundation.

The University of South Alabama did not rely on Alumni to raise money for most of its short life. In fact beyond alumni association membership, USA Alumni were asked to take part in raising money for the first time in about 2005. Thus the smaller number in the University's coffers.

250 mil in the foundation sounds about right.
It did it the old fashion way... Medicine. The University owned 3 hospitals which served the community. Note the old Pres loved owning hospitals.
One of these hospitals was the primary health provider for the poor. In addition it was the regional trauma center, burn center and birthing center with a neonatal ICU. For years the Hospital system fed off the University.
When the medicare /Medicad repayment money came in from the feds the cash went into the foundation. The foundation is one of the largest land owners in the county.

As far as USA football goes I think we are on schedule. We have great expectations and hopes but they are grounded in reality.

If you could create a perfect place to create a FBS football team Mobile might be it.
Fairly large city with good TV Market
Good sized airport
Major east west interstate crossing
Destination area
General Football support ( add in GMAC Bowl and SENIOR Bowl)
Better economy than most
Free OK Stadium for a while
NO MAJOR PRO SPORTS
Insulation by distance from other State Football programs

That said we might still screw it up..Time will tell.
I think we have good people, a good plan and are working the plan.

Lastly USA has one thing which many schools would die for...LAND
The campus was built on 1200 acres to which another about 500 has been added. When the University decided to build a football complex with 2 practice fields we did not have to look for land to buy, just mark it off and build. When we build a stadium it will not be a question of having a place but which place. Not every campus has that resource.
And the resource is located in the above described city.. not in the middle of no where.

This could be the Sun Belt's future?

East: Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, South Alabama, Troy, Western Kentucky
West: Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, North Texas, Texas-San Antonio, Texas State

(09-26-2010 01:53 AM)David Krysakowski Wrote:  This could be the Sun Belt's future?

East: Florida Atlantic, Florida International, Middle Tennessee, South Alabama, Troy, Western Kentucky
West: Arkansas State, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisiana-Monroe, North Texas, Texas-San Antonio, Texas State

As unlikely as it is, it's a scenario that a lot of Bobcat fans would love to see. However, the WAC is likely to be our home as it is in turmoil and needs the stability a couple of good Texas schools would bring. Though I think the Sunbelt would benefit from having Texas State as a member, they really don't need to expand at this time. Anyway, good luck to the Belt on the rest of the season and congrats to UNT for pulling one off this week despite all the adversity they've suffered.

The WAC is more likely to add Idaho State, Montana, Montana State, Portland State, and Sacramento State than Texas-San Antonio and Texas State.

All the buzz seems to have UTSA as a lock for the WAC and they want Texas State to make it a pair. I doubt Benson would meet with UTSA for a presentation and then say they need to make changes to re-present unless they were serious about offering an invite. The WAC isnt going to ignore 30,000 students and a 65,000 seat domed stadium in a major media market.

I read on another board that Lamar attended the recently held WAC meeting. And, get this, the WAC is making a big push/offer to get UNT. I hope not.

(09-27-2010 06:34 PM)Green Menace Wrote:  I read on another board that Lamar attended the recently held WAC meeting. And, get this, the WAC is making a big push/offer to get UNT. I hope not.

I'm with you Menace. UNT needs to stand firm and continue to say "no thanks" to the WAC.:odie: