The Correlation Between Success, Revenues and Expenses in CB
- Thread starter TJReaper
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Posts
- 27,463
- Likes
- 19,469
I disagree about the overachieved part.
Thanks for the comments.
Bang, the word "overachieved" is more so based on budget. Budget wise, we significantly overachieved if most teams in the 2nd round (mostly majors) spent 5-10x as much we did to get there.
RAM7889, thanks! The funny thing is over time, my initial analyses even further prove that the dollars spent don't correlate to the true successes on the court for the non-elite majors (like Kentucky, Louisville, UNC, Duke, etc.). Look at Kentucky's performance over the Gillespie years. They lost and lost, but somehow kept increasing their budget for basketball (thus, increasing what their peers spend to keep up). These departments tend to project BIG (ala national championships!) when it's budgeting time in the beginning of the year, so they justify their budgets based on those expectations - even when their team truly doesn't merit it! Then, when there's no postseason tournament and a record under .500, or a first round exit in the NCAAs, the solution is to SPEND MORE!!!!! Then, if you are an Oregon State (a "barely major" in MBB) with no recent successes on the court, you are basically forced to spend more just to compete in your league and keep fans happily donating.....
This topic really goes on and on (soooo many derivatives).......think, why (really) do so many major programs schedule most of their games at home, with so many 'cupcakes'? To inflate their record, so in case they don't get to the NCAAs they can justify their ridiculous budget by saying "we won 25 games and made the NIT Final Four; we were so close to the NCAAs - give us the same resources next year and we'll get there and win!".......was that worth, say $5 million? Was that worth the $1 million you paid your coach (he will surely make you think so!)? Was that worth the $8 million invested in a state-of-the-art practice facility you needed to compete in the "athletic arms race"? What if this is your average achievement, say over 10 years (10x$5m=$50 million + capital expenses!!!!). Are you really achieving anything CLOSE to being worth the money spent every year on your program?
Example - in a year where you're projected to win the national championship (by ESPN, etc.), you budget $8 million. Then, in a year where you're projected to barely make the NCAAs, you budget $8 million.......this is what happens!!!!!
It's just unbelievable how much a few schools at the top inflate the perceived cost of success every year for everyone else. I get the "follow the leader" ideology, but at what cost? In my opinion, until there is an established ceiling on athletic budgets, it will continue to grow exponentially........the trend is STILL upward........what if the Kentucky's of the world are spending $15 million in 2015, pushing the non-elite majors to then increase their budgets....which pushes the mid-majors (in many cases only try) to increase theirs....etc, etc.....when will enough be enough!?!?!
And the kicker - The more and more money you spend, the further and further away you move from the true purpose of collegiate athletics......it leads to the question - How much are we willing to GAMBLE each year to stay "on par"....because athletic budgeting is just that....a big gamble. Who do you think will lose in the end? Butler, GMU, etc. prove every blue moon that you don't need to spend like Kentucky, Louisville to have true success. I mean, how much is success really worth if you buy it? Doesn't that contradict the nature of what collegiate athletics is (or WAS) all about?
(sidenote - I stopped writing this because I became way too angry (thus, opinionated) when I saw the real deal. It makes me appreciate what VCU or other mids do with the money they have)
Bang, the word "overachieved" is more so based on budget. Budget wise, we significantly overachieved if most teams in the 2nd round (mostly majors) spent 5-10x as much we did to get there.
RAM7889, thanks! The funny thing is over time, my initial analyses even further prove that the dollars spent don't correlate to the true successes on the court for the non-elite majors (like Kentucky, Louisville, UNC, Duke, etc.). Look at Kentucky's performance over the Gillespie years. They lost and lost, but somehow kept increasing their budget for basketball (thus, increasing what their peers spend to keep up). These departments tend to project BIG (ala national championships!) when it's budgeting time in the beginning of the year, so they justify their budgets based on those expectations - even when their team truly doesn't merit it! Then, when there's no postseason tournament and a record under .500, or a first round exit in the NCAAs, the solution is to SPEND MORE!!!!! Then, if you are an Oregon State (a "barely major" in MBB) with no recent successes on the court, you are basically forced to spend more just to compete in your league and keep fans happily donating.....
This topic really goes on and on (soooo many derivatives).......think, why (really) do so many major programs schedule most of their games at home, with so many 'cupcakes'? To inflate their record, so in case they don't get to the NCAAs they can justify their ridiculous budget by saying "we won 25 games and made the NIT Final Four; we were so close to the NCAAs - give us the same resources next year and we'll get there and win!".......was that worth, say $5 million? Was that worth the $1 million you paid your coach (he will surely make you think so!)? Was that worth the $8 million invested in a state-of-the-art practice facility you needed to compete in the "athletic arms race"? What if this is your average achievement, say over 10 years (10x$5m=$50 million + capital expenses!!!!). Are you really achieving anything CLOSE to being worth the money spent every year on your program?
Example - in a year where you're projected to win the national championship (by ESPN, etc.), you budget $8 million. Then, in a year where you're projected to barely make the NCAAs, you budget $8 million.......this is what happens!!!!!
It's just unbelievable how much a few schools at the top inflate the perceived cost of success every year for everyone else. I get the "follow the leader" ideology, but at what cost? In my opinion, until there is an established ceiling on athletic budgets, it will continue to grow exponentially........the trend is STILL upward........what if the Kentucky's of the world are spending $15 million in 2015, pushing the non-elite majors to then increase their budgets....which pushes the mid-majors (in many cases only try) to increase theirs....etc, etc.....when will enough be enough!?!?!
And the kicker - The more and more money you spend, the further and further away you move from the true purpose of collegiate athletics......it leads to the question - How much are we willing to GAMBLE each year to stay "on par"....because athletic budgeting is just that....a big gamble. Who do you think will lose in the end? Butler, GMU, etc. prove every blue moon that you don't need to spend like Kentucky, Louisville to have true success. I mean, how much is success really worth if you buy it? Doesn't that contradict the nature of what collegiate athletics is (or WAS) all about?
(sidenote - I stopped writing this because I became way too angry (thus, opinionated) when I saw the real deal. It makes me appreciate what VCU or other mids do with the money they have)
You make a lot of good points.
I've worked in numerous fortune 500 companies and now have my own small business. Many factors contribute to "success" in general, but I tend to see them boil down to several basic areas: 1) leadership, 2) accountability, and 3) cash flow (or access to capital for growth). Assuming you have a reasonably decent product or service, those three elements in simpliest terms tend to make-or-break the business endeavor.
I don't see much difference when it comes to what we're trying to do at VCU with bb. While all areas can be influenced by RamNation, probably the last area has the most direct impact, i.e. financial support. Vocal support [and paid tickets] certainly also fall into that category.
While we can influence the first two categories, we must have an AD and President, amongst others, who have the vision and determination to "make it happen"; this includes a priotity on good coaching, facilities, recruiting and corresponding accountability [academic integrity is assumed].
When we had past success I suspect it was due to strength in categories one and two. But we did not sustain our success, which I suspect was do more to category three. That last category includes all of the "show me the money" aspects of big time programs: a college with facilities, student body, diverse academics, etc. To be honest the last category is where VCU has come into its own in recent years. Now, combined with the first two categories we should be able to "sustain" top notch quality. If we falter, like many majors, I suspect it will be due to a failure in the first two categories.
I realize I'm generalizing, which is always dangerous. But look at any states expenditures on education--no correlation between money spent and test scores/graduation, etc. Money alone simply is not the answer to all of life's problems. Indeed, to the root of your comments, I suspect in many ways money often only masks the core problems of leaderhsip [or lack of]. Money must be present to sustain, but in itself does not directly correlate with success.
As with most things in life it probably comes down to the top leadership and accountability. If either or both are missing then having sufficient money often only makes failure all the more obvious....if for no other reason than the reality that the poor performance serves mostly as an exclamation point to reinforce the lack of excuses.
I've worked in numerous fortune 500 companies and now have my own small business. Many factors contribute to "success" in general, but I tend to see them boil down to several basic areas: 1) leadership, 2) accountability, and 3) cash flow (or access to capital for growth). Assuming you have a reasonably decent product or service, those three elements in simpliest terms tend to make-or-break the business endeavor.
I don't see much difference when it comes to what we're trying to do at VCU with bb. While all areas can be influenced by RamNation, probably the last area has the most direct impact, i.e. financial support. Vocal support [and paid tickets] certainly also fall into that category.
While we can influence the first two categories, we must have an AD and President, amongst others, who have the vision and determination to "make it happen"; this includes a priotity on good coaching, facilities, recruiting and corresponding accountability [academic integrity is assumed].
When we had past success I suspect it was due to strength in categories one and two. But we did not sustain our success, which I suspect was do more to category three. That last category includes all of the "show me the money" aspects of big time programs: a college with facilities, student body, diverse academics, etc. To be honest the last category is where VCU has come into its own in recent years. Now, combined with the first two categories we should be able to "sustain" top notch quality. If we falter, like many majors, I suspect it will be due to a failure in the first two categories.
I realize I'm generalizing, which is always dangerous. But look at any states expenditures on education--no correlation between money spent and test scores/graduation, etc. Money alone simply is not the answer to all of life's problems. Indeed, to the root of your comments, I suspect in many ways money often only masks the core problems of leaderhsip [or lack of]. Money must be present to sustain, but in itself does not directly correlate with success.
As with most things in life it probably comes down to the top leadership and accountability. If either or both are missing then having sufficient money often only makes failure all the more obvious....if for no other reason than the reality that the poor performance serves mostly as an exclamation point to reinforce the lack of excuses.
EXACTLY. You think Kentucky fans, who at root are pretty conservative by nature, have a problem with their program being the most "luxurious" of all in college basketball? No. You don't see them screaming for fiscal accountability. What do you see them screaming for? More national championships. More wins. More, more, more, more, more. And as long as fans continue to demand 100% (even with 60+ other major teams doing the same), the budgets will forever increase - even though there is little proof of the correlation between TRUE success (tangible accomplishments; not argued ones) and the dollars used to accommodate the fans and Universities who foot the bill.
(PS - I lived in Kentucky.....while I am talking about UK a lot, Louisville (my family's team) is just as bad....they are always in the top 5 of CBB in spending [thanks spider]). Even with that, would you consider U of L amongst the Duke's, UNC's, Texas' of the world? Missing link? The latter schools are actually the highest caliber academic schools as well....that's another story.....)
(PS - I lived in Kentucky.....while I am talking about UK a lot, Louisville (my family's team) is just as bad....they are always in the top 5 of CBB in spending [thanks spider]). Even with that, would you consider U of L amongst the Duke's, UNC's, Texas' of the world? Missing link? The latter schools are actually the highest caliber academic schools as well....that's another story.....)
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2010
- Posts
- 20
- Likes
- 5
TJReaper said:
You may have lived in KY, but your statement about UL's budget being the largest in the country is absolutely false. If you really think this, it makes me seriously question your credibility regarding many of the other "facts" and figures you were throwing around.
Clarification, I most definitely misspoke (obviously, with football and merchandising the Ohio State's, Florida's have them pounced...). Louisville is tops in spending in CBB (in '09 they were #4).
I also lost interest in writing this because I ended up well beyond the original idea so please, don't ding me because of a sidebar PS comment (i'm no longer very interested in writing this topic).
I would still like to hear what you have to say about the overall issue, if you have any thoughts (forget what I said - what do you think?). My angle here is purely to discuss the subject, so please discuss. I thought that's how message boards worked!!!!! A year later, I guess I still don't get it.
I also lost interest in writing this because I ended up well beyond the original idea so please, don't ding me because of a sidebar PS comment (i'm no longer very interested in writing this topic).
I would still like to hear what you have to say about the overall issue, if you have any thoughts (forget what I said - what do you think?). My angle here is purely to discuss the subject, so please discuss. I thought that's how message boards worked!!!!! A year later, I guess I still don't get it.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2009
- Posts
- 27,463
- Likes
- 19,469
I disagree about the 'get it' part.
I mentioned [above] about three key components for success, one of which was finances...specifically cash flow in our present situation.
Check out today's RTD artilce featuring VT's football lockers. Here's an excerpt:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/college-sports/2010/aug/10/vtfb10-ar-419661/
While money is not the most important element, we'd be foolish to pretend it is not important and perhaps VCU's present major challenge. I hope we can all give what we can as we grow into an on-going Top 20 program. A place to start with applying our bb money is facilities and coaches salaries. Regarding the later, competing coaches use our coaching revolving door against us in recruiting. Stability must go hand-in-hand with integrity at VCU. I know we will get there, and we're making major progress!
Check out today's RTD artilce featuring VT's football lockers. Here's an excerpt:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/sports/college-sports/2010/aug/10/vtfb10-ar-419661/
While money is not the most important element, we'd be foolish to pretend it is not important and perhaps VCU's present major challenge. I hope we can all give what we can as we grow into an on-going Top 20 program. A place to start with applying our bb money is facilities and coaches salaries. Regarding the later, competing coaches use our coaching revolving door against us in recruiting. Stability must go hand-in-hand with integrity at VCU. I know we will get there, and we're making major progress!
vcu70
Elite Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2009
- Posts
- 12,994
- Likes
- 13,274
Hate them or not VT IS big time football and among the top ten consistently-their record over the last ten to fifteen years is among all the great programs in winning. I was totally shocked last year when they had 40K plus show up in Atlanta for a regular season game 600 miles from home. Looked like they had just as many as much closer Alabama. That 18 mmillion doesn't surprise me. I think we need to get over our petty jealousy of them and other state schools for that matter. Tech did it, we haven't yet. And personally I don't think we will get there without Football. Its the only way. Thats where the big money is people.
Rivalries are great but should be in fun. Please don't turn into the WVA crowd and their behavior.
Rivalries are great but should be in fun. Please don't turn into the WVA crowd and their behavior.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Posts
- 2,031
- Likes
- 279
VT is a successful and emerging football program and tradition. I personally consider "Big Time" reserved for the likes Texas, Alabama, Oklahoma, Nebraska, USC, Penn St, Ohio St, Notre Dame (I know they suck now) and others, but VT is definitely in a 2nd tier of very good programs. They just don't have as much tradition, no national championships, and regardless of this $18MM facility, I suspect their fund raising around football is not at a level with the truly "big time" programs. How "big time" can a football team truly be playing in the ACC anyway? All that said, I would like to have a football team in the 2nd tier of BCS football.
The $18M spent on that football locker room is a good example of the luxuries purchased by major programs. There's NO WAY an Akron, Toledo, Boise State, etc. can compete. However, like some of you said, the HIGHEST TIER of college programs look at $18M as 'chump change' because their private donations come in on a recurring basis. Sure, they fund-raise, but it's not to cover necessities (including necessities to elevate the program's level) like mid-major programs have to. How do you win? You can't, because if you spend more, they will spend more........the only possible success for programs at the 2nd, 3rd, etc. tier of athletics is to WIN GAMES. With no cap on spending, trust me it will get harder to do (without making MAJOR changes within the scope of mid-major athletics).
That's why IMO it's important to build in some type of ceiling(s) on spending. These programs feel like they have to spend, spend, spend in order to keep up with the trendsetters. It's just unfortunate that athletics programs, no matter their size, can do what they want and not have to pay any taxes (there are a few exceptions). If you operate as a corporation, you should be treated as one and STOP pretending you are serving some academic purpose for the university you represent that's WORTH THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can easily raise $100M from alumni to build a new stadium, but can't raise $100M to endow some scholarships for ACADEMICS??????? COME ON!!!!
(<---frustrated)
PS - More, more, more, more, more.........it's absolutely ingrained in the American psyche (in general). So, why should we be surprised that these programs are spending the way they do? What's next for UK? A spa house dedicated to servicing their highly tensed basketball players? A playhouse for their players entertainment (and of course, it is to NEVER be used for academic purposes)? Twelve Mercedes-Benz convertibles so that their players are less stressed walking around campus? It's heading there.........
PPS (short) - Once you have everything, what do you want? Everything + X.........and that "X" scares me.
[Bravo, bravo New York University for apparently having a 'crystal ball' when you moved from DI to DIII....and they, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, etc. maintain their statuses as some of the WORLD'S best universities without high-caliber athletics....high-major athletics.....it's the cheapest, yet most expensive way to gain recognition for your school outside of the classroom........]
That's why IMO it's important to build in some type of ceiling(s) on spending. These programs feel like they have to spend, spend, spend in order to keep up with the trendsetters. It's just unfortunate that athletics programs, no matter their size, can do what they want and not have to pay any taxes (there are a few exceptions). If you operate as a corporation, you should be treated as one and STOP pretending you are serving some academic purpose for the university you represent that's WORTH THE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can easily raise $100M from alumni to build a new stadium, but can't raise $100M to endow some scholarships for ACADEMICS??????? COME ON!!!!
(<---frustrated)
PS - More, more, more, more, more.........it's absolutely ingrained in the American psyche (in general). So, why should we be surprised that these programs are spending the way they do? What's next for UK? A spa house dedicated to servicing their highly tensed basketball players? A playhouse for their players entertainment (and of course, it is to NEVER be used for academic purposes)? Twelve Mercedes-Benz convertibles so that their players are less stressed walking around campus? It's heading there.........
PPS (short) - Once you have everything, what do you want? Everything + X.........and that "X" scares me.
[Bravo, bravo New York University for apparently having a 'crystal ball' when you moved from DI to DIII....and they, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Carnegie-Mellon, etc. maintain their statuses as some of the WORLD'S best universities without high-caliber athletics....high-major athletics.....it's the cheapest, yet most expensive way to gain recognition for your school outside of the classroom........]