Did I miss something along the way that explains this? They say they are 2008 numbers so does this reflect the last year of TC?
http://www.bbstate.com/info/schools-hoopsbudget
Oh and look at Duke.....talk about an outlier.....and a bad ROI as of late.
Quote from: texaswarrior74 on August 29, 2009, 11:22:11 AM
Did I miss something along the way that explains this? They say they are 2008 numbers so does this reflect the last year of TC?
http://www.bbstate.com/info/schools-hoopsbudget
Oh and look at Duke.....talk about an outlier.....and a bad ROI as of late.
Are you sure this is based on calendar year and not season? 2008 was Crean's last season. 2009 was Buzz's first. We're heading into 2010. If that's the basis, than this number does reflect Crean's salary.
And here's something interesting--Crean made about $1.6 mil, Buzz about 600K. Take the $1 million difference out of MU's spending, and we only drop from 3rd to 5th.
There are a host of other points that makes these numbers almost worthless for comparison. The bottom line is that we don't really know how the programs allocate costs.
Is MU's rent for the BC included? Is there a comparable allocation for Xavier's or SLU's "rent" of their own on-campus facility? Or is that buried in the school's physical plant budget?
How does MU allocate Cottingham's salary compared to the AD expenses for a football school like Kansas or Kentucky.
Does the school incorporate tuition expense into the sports budget at full list price? 13 scholies at $38,776 (MU's estimated annual cost) is half a mil.
Are hyperbaric chambers, taekwondo, and midnight limo rides included as well?
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 29, 2009, 11:46:22 AM
Are you sure this is based on calendar year and not season? 2008 was Crean's last season. 2009 was Buzz's first. We're heading into 2010. If that's the basis, than this number does reflect Crean's salary.
And here's something interesting--Crean made about $1.6 mil, Buzz about 600K. Take the $1 million difference out of MU's spending, and we only drop from 3rd to 5th.
There are a host of other points that makes these numbers almost worthless for comparison. The bottom line is that we don't really know how the programs allocate costs.
Is MU's rent for the BC included? Is there a comparable allocation for Xavier's or SLU's "rent" of their own on-campus facility? Or is that buried in the school's physical plant budget?
How does MU allocate Cottingham's salary compared to the AD expenses for a football school like Kansas or Kentucky.
Does the school incorporate tuition expense into the sports budget at full list price? 13 scholies at $38,776 (MU's estimated annual cost) is half a mil.
All important points. My question is where have you seen Buzz's salary at $600k? I've seen it higher which is why I ask.
4ever, you forgot the tanning salon costs.
Well these numbers are worthless unless you have revenue numbers; which in 2006-2007 was 10.8m....so is it safe to say that number has risen?
How do booster clubs and the money they raise affect this number?
I see Cuse, UConn, Nova, and Pitt are lower than we are (esp the last two)...are there alternative sources of funding that help lower their numbers?
I wonder if ongoing costs of the AL (and the new offices) affect MU's number.
Also, I don't think the Bradley Center's lease should affect it that much as about 50% of the BE play in non-campus courts.
I hope we are always serious and dedicated to the basketball program. Let's hope we have the success and financial ability to keep it up for a long time
SJS...Buzzard makes 1.1.
How out of touch are you?
Now folks have long said you're hopelessly uninformed but I have always said you only seem uninformed when you open your mouth.
Quote from: Fullodds on August 29, 2009, 07:48:34 PM
I hope we are always serious and dedicated to the basketball program. Let's hope we have the success and financial ability to keep it up for a long time
+1. I take this number as a positive sign that we're willing to back our program, and hope we continue to be near the top of this list.
I have to wonder if there are costs that MU has that get thrown under "basketball operating costs" that aren't there for other schools because of the presence of a football team.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on August 30, 2009, 12:41:06 AM
I have to wonder if there are costs that MU has that get thrown under "basketball operating costs" that aren't there for other schools because of the presence of a football team.
Absolutely. Some schools use athletic budgets to pay for athletic facilities while others put those under general plant costs or what have you. There is so much variability from one school to the next. At IU we did a study of this just among the 11 Big Ten schools and the disparity of how each school attributed costs was amazing.
Simply put, don't believe the numbers
The men's basketball program is our biggest means for national name recognition for the entire school. I am glad we are spending like we are and would not mind seeing it increase.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on August 30, 2009, 11:44:11 AM
The men's basketball program is our biggest means for national name recognition for the entire school. I am glad we are spending like we are and would not mind seeing it increase.
+2,000,000
On the Wisconsin taxpayers' dime, of course. :)
- MU Alum in CA
Does that include Jack Harbaugh's salary?
All that money, how come we can't land a top big?
I'm surprised Marquette is 3rd, especially with our lack of success in the post season. Love that we have the money, and the program is well maintained, don't let us ever fall to DePaul level(88)
Looking at these, schools like Butler(133) and Gonzaga(93) impress me even more.
Quote from: The Lens on August 29, 2009, 10:28:40 PM
SJS...Buzzard makes 1.1.
Nice, classy correction.
Then again, nobody has ever confused you for a guy with class.
But let's go ahead and assume you are right--a questionable assumption given both your track record, and your lack of any evidence or link.
Based on that assumption, the irony here is that you provide data that makes my point even stronger--that there is even less reason to blame the high spending on Crean.
So thank you for the correction--even if you can't provide it without coming across like a total ass.
Holy high strung, batman. "Buzzard" isn't so bad.
...
I don't mind MU spending that dough. If it was reported that MU was spending $2-3m on marketing the school, no one would bat an eyelash. Spending on success for our BBall program is money well spent. (Plus, of course, it's not really spending as it is funding all other sports.)
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 30, 2009, 05:56:55 PM
Nice, classy correction.
Then again, nobody has ever confused you for a guy with class.
But let's go ahead and assume you are right--a questionable assumption given both your track record, and your lack of any evidence or link.
Based on that assumption, the irony here is that you provide data that makes my point even stronger--that there is even less reason to blame the high spending on Crean.
So thank you for the correction--even if you can't provide it without coming across like a total ass.
What is my track record, in terms of accuracy, SJS? I would like you to document the last 5 times I have been wrong factually...ready, set, go! Come Mr. Google...do it!!!
Quote from: The Lens on August 31, 2009, 12:27:27 PM
What is my track record, in terms of accuracy, SJS?
I don't need to go back and find five--I can start right here with this thread, where you used an unsubstantiated claim, then launched into personal insults.
My challenge to you--can you provide a link to support your $1.1 million claim or not?
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 31, 2009, 12:43:00 PM
I don't need to go back and find five--I can start right here with this thread, where you used an unsubstantiated claim, then launched into personal insults.
My challenge to you--can you provide a link to support your $1.1 million claim or not?
From the JS: (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/46957502.html)
QuoteWhen Marquette named Williams to replace Crean, Williams' salary was not disclosed. However, sources say Williams is being paid between $800,000 to $1 million a year.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on August 31, 2009, 01:49:24 PM
From the JS: (http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/46957502.html)
So that link would mean $1.1 million is wrong. ;D
And you can break down the total compensation so MANY ways...
How much is MU paying him, how much is from camps, talk shows, endorsements, etc.....
Indeed! I'll bet the Buzz Show on Time Warner Sports Channel is paying him DOZENS of dollars.
That's enough for many many sweet teas.
I thought I had heard 1.16 million.
Here's something from MUScoop found via Google, but it doesn't have a source:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8658.40;wap
And here's something with an actual link with 7 million over 6 years, ie 1.16 million:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=8655.0
Edit:But, yeah, maybe you're right, maybe DKCL is just an a$$hole. Who is the one throwing out the insults?
My understanding is that the first year base was 600K and change.
That did not include the repayment of UNO's buyout (300K)--which may or may not have been paid by MU depending on who you speak with.
If you combine the 600K base with the 300K buyout, that's certainly inside in the 800 to 1000 range for first year. Its in line with what I said, but also close enough to what Lens said if you include the UNO buyout (although certainly not enough reason for him to be such a jerk about it).
Fifteen posts later, the underlying point hasn't changed--MU's basketball budget was not large due to Tom Crean's salary--its large because MU has decided to make it large combined with some likely accounting decisions around facilities/rent/tuition etc.
SJS, I probably didn't need to insult you but IMO you tend to carry yourself with a certain smugness that begs for people to take shots at you, which I so immaturely did.
My apologies. I need to make a better effort of letting it go.
Remembering an argument from at least a year and a half ago, wasn't Buzz's salary as an assistant 600k? I remember it being brought up by some here as being very high for an assistant's salary, but can't remember what the exact figure was.
Quote from: Marquette84 on August 31, 2009, 05:13:45 PM
My understanding is that the first year base was 600K and change.
That did not include the repayment of UNO's buyout (300K)--which may or may not have been paid by MU depending on who you speak with.
If you combine the 600K base with the 300K buyout, that's certainly inside in the 800 to 1000 range for first year. Its in line with what I said, but also close enough to what Lens said if you include the UNO buyout (although certainly not enough reason for him to be such a jerk about it).
Fifteen posts later, the underlying point hasn't changed--MU's basketball budget was not large due to Tom Crean's salary--its large because MU has decided to make it large combined with some likely accounting decisions around facilities/rent/tuition etc.
Exactly. There is only so much you can do to really make a budget large. Coaching salaries are one thing....extra travel is another.
But my guess is that most of this is due to such accounting decisions - my guess is that scholarships, part of the depreciation on the McGuire Center, and Bradley Center rent is charged to mens's basketball.
Really the only two things that have substantially changed for MU basketball budget-wise in the last 20 years are coaching salaries and a new facility. Outside of that, you still have 13 guys on scholarship playing basketball in the Bradley Center. I'm sure there are other increases here and there, but I'm not sure how "substantial" those are.
Quote from: chapman on August 31, 2009, 10:10:29 PM
Remembering an argument from at least a year and a half ago, wasn't Buzz's salary as an assistant 600k? I remember it being brought up by some here as being very high for an assistant's salary, but can't remember what the exact figure was.
I think he was making 300K as an assistant. We were forced to grossly overpay assistants and hire radioactives (Rabineaux) under the previous regime -- although I'm not going to go as far to say Buzz was a bad hire. He was obviously a well qualified assistant and has done a better job than I thought he would as head coach.
Small detail, but we are a Mid West team playing teams on the East Coast, that adds to travel expenses.
TC's salary was never the final nail so to speak, it was the blank check he got for operating the program. But hey, I'm glad we could give him that blank check. It's MU's best investment.
Spending that much money at #3, we should be challenging for the NCAA championship most years!
Quote from: Murffieus on September 02, 2009, 08:00:04 PM
Spending that much money at #3, we should be challenging for the NCAA championship most years!
Glad you said it. I would be interested in seeing what our operating expenses were in 2003 vs 2008. Seems like we used to do more with less.
Regardless I appreciate the MU administration "putting their money where their mouth is" and go full out for a winner. Makes me stay motivated to give money to the program (however modest that sum is currently).
Quote from: Stone Cold on September 02, 2009, 09:28:10 PM
Regardless I appreciate the MU administration "putting their money where their mouth is" and go full out for a winner. Makes me stay motivated to give money to the program (however modest that sum is currently).
+ 1
Revenue for all sports $23+ mill, what % is BB
Quote from: PBRme on September 03, 2009, 09:38:40 AM
Revenue for all sports $23+ mill, what % is BB
If it's like it was when I was there, 99.2% from men's bb. Women's hoops brings in a little revenue with a few dollars coming in for soccer and volleyball.
As of last year, 95 to 97% came from basketball, once you factor in ancillary revenues.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/07/more-ticketing-questions-q-with-mike.html
It is crazy that these guys bring in so much money and don't get paid.
They do get paid.
Maybe this has been posted and I missed it. Anyway.....from Yahoo Sports
Duke's $13.87 million annual budget was by far the largest, more than $3 million higher than second-place Marquette and at least twice as much as 330 of the 346 Division I schools. On the other hand, Mississippi spent the least on basketball at a mere $2.5 million per year.
It's always difficult to know how accurate data like this is because not every school shares the same accounting practices so they will place certain expenditures under different categories. Furthermore, a one-year window isn't always representative of a school's typical annual basketball budget because expenses like buyouts for a previous staff can skew it higher than normal.
As a result, those caveats are worth keeping in mind as you read through this list of the five schools getting the least bang for their buck based on Fanhouse's 2008-09 figures:
1. Virginia ($7.18 million, 12th)
Comment: It's surprising that Virginia would be the 12th-highest spender in college basketball considering that the Cavaliers have only finished above .500 in ACC play once since 2002. Ten of the 11 teams that have spent more than Virgina have been to a Final Four since 2003 and the other is Kentucky, which fell one win short last season.
2. Rice ($4.63 million, 45th)
Comment: If you had 20 guesses for which programs were the three biggest basketball spenders among non-BCS schools, chances are that Rice would not have been among them. The Owls have won a combined five Conference USA games in the past three seasons and haven't finished above .500 since 2005.
3. Marquette ($10.30 million, 2nd)
Comment: The Golden Eagles have been a perennial NCAA tournament team for the past decade and even reached the Final Four in 2003, but their budget suggests they should be enjoying even greater success. They haven't won a Big East title or made the Sweet 16 since Dwyane Wade's final season in 2003. Perhaps this figure includes capital improvements expenses such as debt from the construction of the Al McGuire Center?
4. Indiana ($6.94 million, 15th)
Comment: Indiana's budget is in line with its basketball pedigree but not with its results of late. Not only have the Hoosiers lost 20-plus games the past two years as they try to dig their way out of the Kelvin Sampson fiasco, they also haven't advanced past the second round of the NCAA tournament since 2002.
5. Georgia ($6.29 million, 19th)
Comment: Next season could be a special one for Mark Fox's Georgia program, but the Bulldogs' recent results haven't lived up to their surprisingly high top-20 budget. Georgia hasn't finished above .500 since 2007 and its only NCAA tournament appearance in the past eight years was because of an out-of-nowhere SEC tournament run in 2008.
Marquette has no football team.
Even Rice and Indiana spent more on their football team last year than their basketball teams.
Marquette inclusive in this budget spends between 20 and 40% of this budget on rent for the Bradley Center.....
This is not apples to apples......
This has been discussed at length before......
Yep, discussed and debunked .. 5 or 6 times.
Quote from: jayswia on September 03, 2009, 10:33:56 AM
It is crazy that these guys bring in so much money and don't get paid.
No it's not. The other 13 sports lose money at Marquette. If you pay the basketball players, then you have to pay the women's volleyball team and the women's soccer team....and that means Marquette intercollegiate sports is officially over...FOREVER.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 05, 2010, 10:34:43 PM
No it's not. The other 13 sports lose money at Marquette. If you pay the basketball players, then you have to pay the women's volleyball team and the women's soccer team....and that means Marquette intercollegiate sports is officially over...FOREVER.
As long as Title IX is enforced, yes, that's the scenario.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 05, 2010, 10:34:43 PM
No it's not. The other 13 sports lose money at Marquette. If you pay the basketball players, then you have to pay the women's volleyball team and the women's soccer team....and that means Marquette intercollegiate sports is officially over...FOREVER.
Seems like MU sports are just about dead in comparison to others...lowest of all the Big 6 conference schools in the Directors' Cup...really need to up our game in light of all this conference realignment talk. Being a one trick pony not gonna make it in the future as you have pointed out quite clearly.
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1099809
Total standings:
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/d1final.pdf
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on July 06, 2010, 09:25:31 AM
Seems like MU sports are just about dead in comparison to others...lowest of all the Big 6 conference schools in the Directors' Cup...really need to up our game in light of all this conference realignment talk. Being a one trick pony not gonna make it in the future as you have pointed out quite clearly.
http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1099809
Total standings:
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/d1final.pdf
Yeah it's not good, but the Director's Cup isn't the best judge for a school like Marquette. We have 12 sports teams, and the Director's Cup is based upon up to 20 sports teams. The schools with a lot of sports don't even have to count their worst ones, whereas MU has 8 spots it's not even using.
Quote from: bma725 on July 06, 2010, 09:41:59 AM
Yeah it's not good, but the Director's Cup isn't the best judge for a school like Marquette. We have 12 sports teams, and the Director's Cup is based upon up to 20 sports teams. The schools with a lot of sports don't even have to count their worst ones, whereas MU has 8 spots it's not even using.
That was more along what I was thinking that I left unsaid...absence of teams vs. actual team performance. Thanks