While it has been established that participation in interdisciplinary teams is likely to have a positive impact on researchers' careers, it has been questioned whether these researchers were already destined for success. If high-achieving faculty members are simply taking advantage of the availability of internal funds to boost their already high rates of productivity, internal programs designed to support the formation of novel teams and to enhance the impact of an institution's research portfolio may not be advancing their objectives. In this study, we examine whether applicants to an interdisciplinary funding program are already more productive than other faculty members, including those who apply for traditional (non-interdisciplinary) internal funding support. Data were drawn from several sources: Academic Analytics, which provides productivity data that allows for comparisons of faculty members within fields; the Office of the Vice Provost for Research's data on internal funding program applications; the Office of Research Administration's data on external grant proposal submissions; data from an internal survey on perceptions of the university's research climate; and Scopus, which provides individual faculty members' h-indices and lists of publications and citations. Results indicate that faculty members who join interdisciplinary research teams and are awarded internal funding are not more or less likely to be "superstars." This not only provides support for assertions that interdisciplinary programs can lead to team innovation and professional growth of individual faculty members, but also provides a blueprint for the establishment of baseline measures that can be used to help evaluate the impact of internal funding programs.