From the Daily Illini:
Despite a nationwide decrease in alumni donations to universities, the University of Illinois reported an increase of $18.8 million.
According to a report by the University of Illinois Foundation, alumni donated $57 million, a nine percent increase from last year.
However, a separate study by the Council for Aid to Education, a non-profit research group, found total gifts dipped nationwide by $130 million between 2006 and 2007.
Given the national anticipation of recession, and the local insistence that funding would be hurt by the removal of Chief Illiniwek, this is very positive news.
Probably because the Universtiy eliminated the Chief
Michael Fuerst
Probably has more to do with a more aggressive fundraising campaign than either pro- or anti-Chief sentiment, but it will make for interesting fodder for discussion.
There is a major push for new funds going on and some of those new funds were in the pipeline before the Chief left.
Didn't Seibel just donate $33 million? If so, then isn't the "real figure" only $24 million?
does this include the I fund donations? We now have a successful football team, and season tickets are being re-assigned, based largely on your donation level.
My understanding is that Tom Siebel gave $100m - but as a pledge. The way these things work is that he signs a pledge agreement, and they count that as if it were cash, since it's a clear intent to pay. They may discount it a bit since it's at least partly a bequest, and a lot can happen between now and then. Still, that's why the total isn't $57m (that's the amount to the foundation), but that *and* the $190.5m given to the university.
But yes, they absolutely are fundraising more agressively, with their capital campaign, and indeed these gifts were in the works for some time beforehand. Instead of taking in only the money that gets sent with the reply envelopes and given over the phone to the student callers, they are out agressively securing very large, multi-year gifts. That is why the article is a bit of a non-story. If you look at universities in campaigns, all of their giving should be up - if it's not, then their campaign is almost certain to fail, since it's an effort to raise more money, not less. And although giving to universities being down by $130m sounds like a lot, it's out of $28b total, or less than half a percentage point.
Proves what Foundation people have been saying for a dozen years: Chief Illiniwek has no impact on fundraising.
It really proves nothing. The only way for anyone to know if people have quit giving to the University because the Chief is gone is for some group to organize something to inform the public, who is going to do that? The University isn't going to tell anyone that some of the people that use to give no longer give because the Chief is gone.
It really proves nothing.
Oy, numbers and logic just aren't your thing, are they? :)
It proves that the argument "fundraising will dry up if you retire the chief" is not true (at least thus far) because fundraising HASN'T dried up, and in fact is doing the opposite. Had fundraising dipped, I'm sure the removal of the mascot would've been cited as the reason (ignoring all the other trends in national fundraising, of course). Since fundraising is up, it shows that there is no correlation between chief and money to the UI Foundation.
If any kind of donations are to suffer, I would say it'll probably be ones to the I-Fund, which I don't think the university cares all that much about in the grander scheme of things, being that their primary mission is research, not football.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
I-Fund donations will increase as long as the football team is winning, and in conjunction with the Memorial Stadium renovations. I doubt if the Chief will have any noticable affect on I-Fund donations.
So if group B quits giving money for one reason and group C gives more money a different reason then group B did. You may have gained more funds then group B would have gave but lost a potential greater amount of money if group B would have also given with group C. Go back to that simple math. The Stadium is 120 million dollars and is pushed by naming rights of parts of the Stadium and much of the other money is educational.
Oy, numbers and logic just aren't your thing, are they? :) Yeah your childish insults really concern me.
So if group B quits giving money for one reason and group C gives more money a different reason then group B did. You may have gained more funds then group B would have gave but lost a potential greater amount of money if group B would have also given with group C. Go back to that simple math. The Stadium is 120 million dollars and is pushed by naming rights of parts of the Stadium and much of the other money is educational.
What is the end result? More money given. The pro-chief crowd was claiming that UIUC would see less money, because people would be so upset. That hasn't happened. Therefore, "Chief Illiniwek has no impact on fundraising" is a correct statement based on the end result, which is in the face of a recession, the UIF has received more donations.. What is it about this issue that short-circuits logic?
Using the logic you've given about loss of potential money, refute this conclusion: If Group C was giving less money because of Chief Illiniwek, you previously not only had less money, but also less potential money. Therefore having the chief actually hurt fundraising efforts and by getting rid of the mascot, fundraising was improved. This is what your argument above leads to.
Yeah your childish insults really concern me.
Ok, now I really wanna know, since this is clearly pushing your buttons: What is it about the chief that short-circuits logic and reason?
I-Fund donations will increase as long as the football team is winning, and in conjunction with the Memorial Stadium renovations. I doubt if the Chief will have any noticable affect on I-Fund donations.
True, and that's going to really suck for the fund when they return to normalcy.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"True, and that's going to really suck for the fund when they return to normalcy."
Hopefully they don't return to normalcy for a while. :-)
A consistently successful football program might allow the entire DIA to operate without subsidies, while facilitating large capital projects.
Hahaha-Either you have not learned to read or you don't know math. The less part is if B and C were both giving at the same time that would be much greater then just C giving by itself like is happening now.
"What is it about the chief that short-circuits logic and reason?" I don't know you should ask yourself that question, as far as I am concerned you’re the advocating inflicting the will of the small minority on the majority.
We can only hope we end up with a Basketball program that follows the Football Program and starts winning. I hate to say we end up with a new Hall.
Hopefully they don't return to normalcy for a while. :-)
A consistently successful football program might allow the entire DIA to operate without subsidies, while facilitating large capital projects.
For the sake of non-revenue sports, I hope they do, too. Also, I do like seeing a good football game where I can go and drink in celebration instead of frustration.
Hahaha-Either you have not learned to read or you don't know math. The less part is if B and C were both giving at the same time that would be much greater then just C giving by itself like is happening now.
However, just C giving now is more than what B was giving before, therefore a net gain, and fundraising not impacted (at least, not like was claimed when the Honor the Chief Society proclaimed that "fundraising would dry up" and "this will really hurt the university"). If money talks, then it's obviously not as small of a minority as you think. It's so cute when you try, it really is, but the end result doesn't support your hypothesis.
But really, thanks for playing.
-----
"Another Anon with a worthless opinion" - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
"I guess I have little tolerance for people who just attack people just to do it and give no justification." - Run4cvrlib on 2/2/08
It's your world have fun in it.
Actually, I'm quite surprised by the result. I assumed fund raising would drop for a few years because of the Chief, then eventually return to its earlier levels -- which is basically what happened with most of the other schools that got rid of Indian sports mascots.