In intercollegiate athletics we have 23 teams that compete on and off campus, representing Rensselaer to peer institutions of higher learning. They require more time from participants and more resources from the Union than any other extra-curricular activity on campus. They are a part Union, part Administration, all Rensselaer entity. Athletics is made possible by numerous stake holders spanning far beyond the Union including general institute budgets, alumni contributors, and admissions. Even within administrative budgets we have the envelope of athletics encompassing student life, human resources, and facilities divisions. As a Union we provide operating expenses to compete, including annual equipment, travel, and officials. Alumni giving addresses specific needs within a team like larger equipment purchases or athletic apparel, while administrative budgets fund coaches and operate facilities. The teams are as diverse are they are numerous with competition in both Divisions I and III—with needs ranging the spectrum.
With that said, it is easy to see why I have never felt truly at ease with athletics. How could we provide direction and progress if success was contingent on others? Is it the Union’s job to create a wide offering of varsity sports? Or do we tier sports and demand championships from a select few? Are we content with a regionally competitive hockey team or do we look to beat the nation’s best and bring home another national championship like we did in 1954 and 1985? At first I believed, along with several of my predecessors, that athletics would be better fitted within administrative budgets alongside facilities and personnel budgets—yet the founding of our Union was to provide the means for intercollegiate athletic competition—and maybe it was not best to remove this student-led tradition from the process. Nevertheless, from a resource perspective we were at or near the bottom of our leagues when it came to game day expenses for our programs.
The only conclusion that I could draw was that as a Union it was our duty to do our part with the hopes of others stepping up. And stand up they did, with the announcement of the East Campus Athletic Project addressing the primary shortcoming when it came to athletics: facilities. This was by far the biggest and boldest step anyone has ever taken for athletics. Concurrently, the Union has made strides. During my two terms, we have increased athletic funding by $76,000 in Fiscal Year 2006 and $106,000 in FY ’07 representing $1.15 million and $1.25 million respectively in contributions from the Union.
From my experience it has been made clear that successful intercollegiate athletic programs are funded, managed, and operated at a standard above their peers. They combine the right mix of people, resources, and support to make something their alumni, students, and community draw exuberant pride from. There are many who have made vocal calls for improving the competitiveness of our athletic programs, specifically our men’s hockey programs. They have pushed narrow agendas and short-sighted solutions pointing the finger at admissions, coaching, or shortcomings in funding.
The truth is that NCAA athletics are a very complex arena in which to compete, requiring an equally complex approach to success—a solution that will not take one step, or one year for that matter. We must remember that we are in an environment where championships at the highest level often overshadow the university they are a part of, and have become a multi-billion dollar entity nationwide, requiring hundreds upon millions of dollars of attention from universities. These are not the ice hockey and football programs of our fathers, but mammoth undertakings that demand tremendous amounts of resources being pumped into the programs every year. We are not the Universities of Wisconsin or Denver of hockey or the Penn States or USCs of football, and for that I am proud. We are known for what we have contributed to society through science and technology.
That does not mean that Rensselaer has left athletics by the wayside; it is actually quite the opposite. As a Union we have expanded funding, and as an Institute we have undertaken an ambitious project for athletic facilities that when coupled together will eventually result in a much more robust athletic offering. That is not to say that we do not win our fair share of championships today, for we continually outperform in athletics; it is just that within the true spirit of Rensselaer, we always aim higher.
