umterps.com
You do realize that’s your theory and not a proven fact. I seriously doubt the person who dropped $10MM on Maryland was a $25 a month guy in prior years.
It’s not exactly a reach to say a decent portion of major donors didn’t start out paycheck to paycheck. That said if someone isn’t giving $25 a month now it’s pretty unlikely that someone on this board is going to convince them to at this point. Rutgers has a lowbrow and notoriously cheap fanbase that rationalizes things by thinking money/support is not the problem.
I would have a better understanding of that than you. Big money people are not coming if they don't feel everyone is all in and yes SOME big money people started decades ago giving small amounts and gradually increased as their earnings increased.
Yes agree in this case .
I literally sit on a fundraising board at Rutgers. We talk about this stuff every time and go over really interesting data. The key is to get people to give to RU, no matter the amount. Very few people stop giving to the same cause each year and its much easier to get them to give more once it's a habit.
All fair points but it’s also not a reach to feel whales can come out of nowhere after deciding enough is enough.
Also it’s what you do with the resources you have. The current eye for talent is lacking. We need a GM to raise money and to make business decisions.
I’m sure you do, being on the univ fundraising board, but sometimes if something isn’t working you have to shake it up. Are you going on your experience of how Rutgers grows small donors into slightly larger donors or are you looking at how other schools instantly land boatloads of cash? Because I think we need to be like them. I’m not saying small donors aren’t important. They certainly are. I’m just saying we need a game changer and need to look at all ways to get that done. Respectfully sport specific fundraising can be different than general univ fundraising. Sports really tug on emotions. Isn’t a whales help, along with fanatics money, how we finally got Ace and Dylan?
Involved in academic fundraising here and the question doesn't fully integrate skoolie's answer. The big donors are attracted in part by the presence of lots of small donors. Their absence raises a yellow flag.
The little guys attract the big guys. That's what's missing from your post.
Fair point but I would think that in sports the emotions and motivations of big donors is a bit different.
This is just another way to blame the everyday fans. The big donors won't give unless the people who may not be able to afford it are giving? If the big donors aren't giving, they are the problem that needs to be worked on. I can see the small donor being much more interested in adding in when things are being done. Small donors aren't the ground work, they are the gravy.
That doesn't understand the mindset of many large donors and it also misrepresents what is being said.
Ironically, this was one of the biggest complaints about Pat Hobbs and now suddenly it's being argued that he was illogical or wrong for doing so.
I cannot speak to everyone in the AD but plenty of people are going after big fish. That is a big part of Holloway's job for the school. Again, I can't speak to certain coaches, not all of them do it that much I know.
Apparently only 10% of the people ITT understand this. Its a useful excuse to not give to the school though, so I understand why people parrot it.
Correct. They share the blame. Many Rutgers alum and fans have big mouths to complain and short arms to give. Its reality. Our school sucks at giving relative to our peers. The school is working very hard to change that and I would argue they're doing a decent job. The lack of giving (among other factors, not 100% the fault of alums) is why we have always been so far behind in sports here. Its not complicated.
There was another post where it was debated little guys > whales. Of course both help but my point was it’s the whales that move the needle.
No company that I've worked for ever found success by blaming the consumer for them not purchasing the product.
