Interestingly, the media has branded the Mizzou Intercollegiate Athletics Special Committee as the "Oversight" committee. It's largely semantics, but it's still interesting. Per the release, while the STL Post branded it as "oversight," it goes on to say the committee would monitor the Memorial Stadium Project, finances, NIL, and NCAA. At no other time in history has more money flowed from campus to athletics; in fact, it was largely the other way around for many years. From what I gather by reading the financial reports, I believe this committee is necessary now and into the future:
In the 2022 Report, the AD received "Direct Institutional Support" of $12mm plus $12.5mm in reduced debt service (AKA: having the debt forgiven by campus). Total Campus Support for 2022: $24.5mm. Compare that to the $15mm "surplus" claimed, and I see a $10mm loss for the year. (I have said it before and will say again, this is one of the most deceptive pieces of "journalism" I have seen and we should all note that the author now works for the department.)
In the 2023 Report, the AD received "Direct Institutional Support" of $22.8mm plus "Indirect Institutional Support" of $880k. Total Campus Support for 2023: $23.5mm. Compare that to the $1 "surplus" claimed, and I see a $23.5mm loss for the year. (Compared to the previous year's article, this is much more accurately reported on by Eli Hoff IMO)
Total support from campus to athletics over two years is almost $50 Million.
I understand the narrative that the "oversight" committee cramped DRF's style and forced her to look elsewhere. That might be part of it but is nowhere near the whole story. When you want and need that kind of support, it seems reasonable that there would be some oversight. I would find it troubling if there weren't something setup to monitor finances in the AD seeing as MU is on pace to invest hundreds of millions in facilities over the next ten years.
The BoC has meddled in the past and most likely will in the future; however, the narrative that oversight is bad is not in line with reality. Yes, they should let the Athletic Director lead, but they have earned the ability to have a finger on the pulse when they continue to invest this kind of money. As an employee of a publicly traded company, I see many parallels in how our board operates with the CEO and leadership team. We should all take a breather and ensure we have the facts before rushing to judgment. It's terrible for Mizzou if everyone thinks our board won't let the new AD do his or her job. and I agree. However, we should also rely on the board's judgment because they will always have more information than we do; I just hope they use it wisely. In this particular instance, I am happy that they stepped in. I believe it saved us. If you look at other universities, they have very similar processes in place. The University of Arizona Board is looking into athletics finances, as they have lost $65mm over the past two years.
In the 2022 Report, the AD received "Direct Institutional Support" of $12mm plus $12.5mm in reduced debt service (AKA: having the debt forgiven by campus). Total Campus Support for 2022: $24.5mm. Compare that to the $15mm "surplus" claimed, and I see a $10mm loss for the year. (I have said it before and will say again, this is one of the most deceptive pieces of "journalism" I have seen and we should all note that the author now works for the department.)
In the 2023 Report, the AD received "Direct Institutional Support" of $22.8mm plus "Indirect Institutional Support" of $880k. Total Campus Support for 2023: $23.5mm. Compare that to the $1 "surplus" claimed, and I see a $23.5mm loss for the year. (Compared to the previous year's article, this is much more accurately reported on by Eli Hoff IMO)
Total support from campus to athletics over two years is almost $50 Million.
I understand the narrative that the "oversight" committee cramped DRF's style and forced her to look elsewhere. That might be part of it but is nowhere near the whole story. When you want and need that kind of support, it seems reasonable that there would be some oversight. I would find it troubling if there weren't something setup to monitor finances in the AD seeing as MU is on pace to invest hundreds of millions in facilities over the next ten years.
The BoC has meddled in the past and most likely will in the future; however, the narrative that oversight is bad is not in line with reality. Yes, they should let the Athletic Director lead, but they have earned the ability to have a finger on the pulse when they continue to invest this kind of money. As an employee of a publicly traded company, I see many parallels in how our board operates with the CEO and leadership team. We should all take a breather and ensure we have the facts before rushing to judgment. It's terrible for Mizzou if everyone thinks our board won't let the new AD do his or her job. and I agree. However, we should also rely on the board's judgment because they will always have more information than we do; I just hope they use it wisely. In this particular instance, I am happy that they stepped in. I believe it saved us. If you look at other universities, they have very similar processes in place. The University of Arizona Board is looking into athletics finances, as they have lost $65mm over the past two years.
