One of the things I have been repeatedly reading here and elsewhere the past 24 hours is how much MU has/does spend on its basketball program. That has clearly been the case, but do we know its going to continue?
If MU is like every other institution, and I assume they are, they are needing to continually find ways to reduce expenses, ensure they are funneling dollars toward the mission of the university, key strategic initiatives, etc. Is continued big spending on Athletics consistent with that? Is the basketball program the asset it was 2, 3, 5, 10 years ago? I don't know that it isn't, just asking. Is it possible that cuts to funding were coming down the line that also contributed to Buzz's discontent?
Key questions in light of conference realignment, decreasing attendance, ever increasing competition for the entertainment dollar, etc., can they keep spending at the same level? Are they getting the payoff they need in return? I don't know. What of the future of the Bucks and the Bradley center the next serval years? Where will they be playing?
Obviously potentially important questions as it relates to Buzz, but more so to the next potential coach if they are facing the prospect of having to give up charter flights, assistant salaries, etc.
As I said yesterday at this time, my apathy toward college sports grows stronger with each passing day, so it just doesn't matter to me much anymore, but just throwing this out there.
3 points
1. Men's bball is an integral part of the university's strategic plan.
2. ROI is the right way to put it--and it is my understanding that the program makes money--net.
3. You also have to factor in how bball contributes to (though not sure how to quantify it) the level of alum financial support and marketing/promotion to potential new students. (See No. 1, which is based in part on a belief that bball does contribute to those things).
Quote from: LloydMooresLegs on March 22, 2014, 04:35:18 PM
3 points
3. You also have to factor in how bball contributes to (though not sure how to quantify it) the level of alum financial support and marketing/promotion to potential new students. (See No. 1, which is based in part on a belief that bball does contribute to those things).
I have always thought this subject would make an excellent PhD dissertation for a Business or Econ student. I wonder if anyone has ever taken it on?
When I refer to ROI, I am really talking about the other things...alumni relations, donations, exposure, etc., not so much whether it is a net money maker in and of itself. Is the University getting enough bang for the buck?
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 22, 2014, 04:41:49 PM
Is the University getting enough bang for the buck?
One or two of the impartial/very non-immersed articles a year or two ago said no; at least when they looked at our reported investment versus success relative to other programs. Most of us were just fine with that, but it also wasn't money coming out of our own pockets. Don't think revenue is an issue - television deal pays significantly more, getting more NCAA shares than ever, attendance was steady/slightly up this year. Just don't think many would be in favor of expenses increasing at the same rate or outpacing revenue - throwing money at something is easy enough, at some point (maybe already) someone will ask if we need to spend more, or spend smart.
I think this may be the main issue as to why "MU let/pushed Buzz to go elsewhere".
Too much was never enough for the guy. Same issue at New Orleans when he left. They weren't "committed" (read: money) to the program. Buzz didn't get everything he wanted.
Here at MU, he just kept asking for more, more, more. Charter jet, higher salary. higher salary for assistants, better hotels, more power, etc., etc., etc. The school bent over backward for him, but when MU asked for anything in return, it "messed with his happy".
It was definitely time to let the Diva know he might be more welcome somewhere else.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 22, 2014, 02:50:36 PM
One of the things I have been repeatedly reading here and elsewhere the past 24 hours is how much MU has/does spend on its basketball program. That has clearly been the case, but do we know its going to continue?
Many of those comments are based on Knight Commission survey data. The amounts on a program-by-program basis are not good comps. In other words, it's trash data. The allocation of expenses differs between schools (as does leaving amounts simply unallocated!) and this is even more true when you're talking about a school without football (i.e., more overhead that all schools have tends to go to bball for MU, football for others).
That said, MU has been committed to spending on things like private jets, but in the grand scheme of things that cost is not significant. We should continue to do that - it's a great benefit for coaches. One issue for some public schools is it can cause griping by the public... even though it's money well spent IMO.
I wouldn't worry about MU deciding to 'cut spending' on the bball program. And definitely remember that when you see reports and quotes of studies, financials, etc... most of it is nonsense junk.
had dinner w a friend who is an adjunct prof at nd. he said the number the board attributes to football direct and indirect is 850 million. zoiks