Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
Murphy's Legacy
PUBLISHED OCTOBER 24, 2007
With the fall proving to be another season of mediocrity for Columbia’s sports teams, it seems strange that the athletic department would choose this time to launch an ambitious capital campaign. Some may feel frustrated that funds are being targeted toward an underperforming part of the University, but as the effort goes public, it is important to remember that a capital campaign is not merely a reward for excellence. Instead, it can foster improvement in areas where funding is critical to success. With only one true chance at such a campaign, the athletic department seems to have both a practical and carefully planned approach that could have a meaningful impact for years to come.
Going into her fourth year as athletic director, M. Dianne Murphy has little forward progress she can point to. During her tenure, the department has moved sideways, and highly visible clashes with students have limited her overall popularity and effectiveness. Nonetheless, she has taken a very pragmatic approach to the campaign, helping to determine a fundraising goal that is reasonable in the scope of Columbia’s athletic success and overall endowment. She should be applauded for courting major donors and for setting a plan for development that focuses around Baker Field instead of an unattainable new complex. In contrast, past plans alluded to new developments that Columbia could not reasonably afford.
Murphy has said that funding is the single biggest issue her department has faced and has a strong conviction that it will lead to the department’s long-awaited turnaround. In many regards this is true—compared to its rivals, Columbia’s facilities leave much to be desired, and better facilities will attract better athletes. Endowing coaches and administrators will ensure competitive salaries to keep talent at Columbia.
But while funding should help bridge the gap with other schools, it is not a panacea. There are two major challenges still facing Murphy. The campaign must not lose momentum even as Columbia teams lose, and once the capital is raised, it must be deployed where it is most needed and a clear spending plan must be laid out. Specific plans for facilities have not been laid out, and there are many teams that require upgrades. More importantly, large donations carry demands for accountability with them, and Murphy will be the target in this fundraising effort. In the same way that Columbia’s University capital campaign and expansion plans will determine University President Lee Bollinger’s legacy, this campaign will decide Murphy’s. She must continue with her seemingly careful vision for Columbia, while withstanding the pressures that donations will bring. So far, so good.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 12)
Post a Comment
$50,000 a game to the referees, in basketball and football, would amount to an outflow of only about 2 milliion a year for undefeated seasons and ivy titles - for 50+ years if we have 100 mil to work with. Don't forget accrued interest. Or, would it be smarter to not have this in a traceable account? Stash it in plain sight on the racks of the Library of Congress, a place no congressman has yet to visit.
Let's schedule Notre Dame quickly, before they get a newly recruited team. I don't know if we can handle Sarah Lawrence. They're still undefeated, untied, and unscored upon.
How about some serious soul searching by Columbia athletes into the commitment factor of excellence both on and off the field and in season / out of season. Maybe then others would be less inclined to post unfavorable comments such as the one below.
columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/28017
"Next, scale a bunch of men’s sports programs from varsity back to intramural—we could start with football and basketball. Get jocks to stop applying to Columbia in the first place. Don’t get me wrong—I know a few football players and I like them, but the things I could tell you about them when they drink will make you want to lock up daughters you may not even have,..."
Forget about all this artificial turf and whatnot. For 40 million, we can bring Michael Jordan out of retirement and beat Princeton! For another 40 million, we can get Jeremy Shockey and beat Yale! That leaves ten million for booze and parties. It doesn't get any smoother than that! What?
I think it is still too early to access Murphy's tenure of 4 years in terms of a legacy. I definitely think she has brought a positive vibe and energy to the building of the athletic dept. After years of downtrodden performance the toughest thing to do is to talk top athletes of Ivy caliber into picking Columbia over other Ivy schools competing in the same talent pool. I think she is bringing in the type of coaches who can overcome this but only time will tell.
Capital campaigns are planned far in advance, and the public start date of the athletics phase of this campaign was likely decided at a year or more ago. It has nothing to do with the present status of Columbia's teams.
Besides, if the purpose of fundraising is to help stengthen the teams it makes no sense to say it should be delayed until the teams have become stronger by other means. Would Spec say Columbia shouldn't raise money for a weak academic department until it becomes stronger? How would withholding such financial support help the department improve?
Murphy can only do so much given the resources -- in terms of both facilities and money -- available to her. She has essentially no more to work with today than she did four years ago, so it is unfair to fault her for not making dramatic improvements. The campaign will help increase her resources and, hopefully, will lead to better performance by the teams. Keep in mind, though, that such improvements will not be instantaneous even when the funds and facilities are available. Those milestones will enable Murphy to pursue these goals; they will not accomplish the goals by themselves.
Were you and I reading the same editorial? It clearly says that a capital campaign isn't a reward for excellence—it's there to fix what's broke. In other words, I think you agree with each other.
Right. In other words, forget about it.
In other words, forget about it.
Some of the points addressed in this article are valid. Some are not. What glaringly sticks out is that she has had 4 years -- 4 years! -- and progress has not been that substantial. I compare her to a CEO of a company. If a Company was in dire condition and hired a new CEO to turn it around and that CEO did not produce in 3 years let alone 4 years -- they would be out. Just something to consider.
Post new comment