forums

Administration

Canedude08 said:
Once again, do you understand how Title IX works? You have to throw them a sensible percentage, especially seeing that the larger schools are spending money on their non-revenue sports as well. Miami cannot totally ignore those sports, unless you are suggesting that Miami risks a major lawsuit that would threaten to ***** the University as a whole.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting they could use more of their money to the football program if they wanted to.
 
Advertisement
Pickle Richt said:
I'm suggesting they could use more of their money to the football program if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

They could, but considering that this isn't some magical, never ending pile of cash, every dollar you take away and put towards football, is a dollar that isn't going towards a non-revenue sport, which are getting significantly less than football to begin with. By doing so, you are opening yourself up to significant legal problems, especially when you start doing comparisons to the other schools we compete against. Deem, Meier and Tews aren't living lives of luxury, but they are in the same boat with their peers. Cutting their funding would be a problem, especially if this arms race continues.
 
Canedude08 said:
They could, but considering that this isn't some magical, never ending pile of cash, every dollar you take away and put towards football, is a dollar that isn't going towards a non-revenue sport, which are getting significantly less than football to begin with. By doing so, you are opening yourself up to significant legal problems, especially when you start doing comparisons to the other schools we compete against. Deem, Meier and Tews aren't living lives of luxury, but they are in the same boat with their peers. Cutting their funding would be a problem, especially if this arms race continues.
Click to expand...

You're really missing my point and this has become boring for me.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Not sure where you’re getting the idea about purse strings being loosened, there’s just more revenue. It’s been posted in this thread. Adidas contract. Increasing contributions from donors. Licensing revenues. Ticket sales, etc. There are different buckets at the university. The athletic department has its own bucket. It doesn’t draw money from the university. It generates its own revenue. There are no purse strings to loosen.
Click to expand...

The conventional wisdom around here was that the AD wasn’t willing to spend the money we had. Seems like now they are.

Whatever the case, we’re spending like a big boy program now. Not bama/Texas level, but much better.
 
Advertisement
To OP,, the administration has not changed it's philosophy.
They rehired Shalala..
 
Hey all first post but have been reading the threads for a long time. I'm an investments guy and Miami alum/former employee and know a bit about endowment management and university finances. I think there are lot of misconceptions here that I'd like to clarify to the best of my knowledge and ability. Bear with me this will be lengthy, but I hope insightful.

Like most corporations, finances are split up by operating departments. At the department level, everyone has a budget and a balance sheet. So the University as a whole has an operating budget, which is a combination of tuition/fees, income generated by the general endowment, and scholarships, grants, revenue from the hospital, etc. In many cases, there are specific sources of funds allocated to specific expenses. Endowed chairs, living scholars, naming donations for schools, etc. A person could give a piece of land and stipulate that it not be sold for 50 years.

Basically, there is a general pool of funds upon which to draw income, and then funding (mostly donations) with stipulations. A donor could endow the head coaching position, in theory. The donor pays $X and the HC becomes the "Rich Guy That Gave a Bunch of Money Head Coach at The U." The Living Scholars program is a good example of a stipulated donation.

Back to operations. The University has a budget, then the Athletic Dept, and then each sport. At basically every school that plays sports, the only sport that makes money is football. I'd guess Duke makes money off basketball, if anyone. As stated by other posters, there are Title IX stipulations dictating fair allocation of resources, which is an encumbrance on the football budget. Point being, the University allocates money to the Athletic Dept as a pool of funds, and will have some say as to how said funds are allocated to individual sports. As far as sponsorship, I don't know how Title IX impacts how those funds are allocated. Regardless, it stands to reason an argument can be made to allocate a greater percentage of sponsorship money to football, as it attracts by far the greatest audience, which is what the sponsor pays for.

When discussing "the University opening up its purse strings," there may be some impact as to the general allocation of funds to the Athletic Dept, as well as specifically to football, within the parameters of Title IX. But what we are likely seeing is the confluence (**** you Al Golden) of 1) a WAY better AD than we've had in a long time, 2) some increase in University funds to football, 3) increased donations, 4) the Adidas deal, 5) increased ACC revenue and 6) other factors. Basically, what we are myopically referring to as "The Administration."

I'd also like to reiterate what was stated earlier (sorry for no credit but it's my Friday night), that the President and BOT have very minimal overall impact on the actual operations of an individual team sport. There is probably more influence than typical at Miami, because of the size of the school. But all you guys blaming Shalalalalala for the struggles of the football program have no idea what you're talking about. If nothing else, the money for the new UC and dorms can be directly attributed to her fundraising efforts, and those both really help from a recruiting standpoint.

Ultimately, Miami lost its way and rested on its own laurels. We won five titles with four different coaches and thought we could coast on easy street. We made two bad hires at AD, got SCREWED out of our home (also not Shalalalala's fault -- she tried, it wasn't feasible) and had to deal with Nevin Shapiro, coupled with a massive real estate crisis that hit South Florida (and presumably our donors) hard.

It's not so much about the money, or the administration, as it is Miami finding its way again. Blake James was the right hire, because he's a CANE. Mark Richt was the right hire, because he's a CANE. These guys get it. Two good hires can make a world of difference.

Now we just gotta get the baseball program straightened out.

If this doesn't make sense, I'm a couple beers and bong hits deep. So blame it on that.
 
Advertisement
kryptonite said:
The conventional wisdom around here was that the AD wasn’t willing to spend the money we had. Seems like now they are.

Whatever the case, we’re spending like a big boy program now. Not bama/Texas level, but much better.
Click to expand...

What was he doing, putting it under his mattress?

Sometimes, the money legitimately isn’t there or it has to come from someone else’s budget in the athletic department.

No chance we can ever spend the level of Texas, Bama, or even Florida or FSU because we are limited in 2 areas: revenues and donor contributions. Our donors can’t hold a candle to those school’s boosters, it’s not even close. That’s a significant source of cash inflows for those programs. Also, revenue generations from all sources. While we’re doing much better than in the past, with Adidas, our sellouts, more season ticket holders, licensing, and ACC revenue and TV sharing, when it’s all combined and you back out our expenses, our net revenue (less expenses) is nowhere near what it is for the big boys. By a long shot.

Just our operating costs are based on a higher expense foundation when you take into consideration how much cheaper it is to operate in a state funded environment (FSU, TURDS, Bammer, etc) than in an overpriced higher COL south Florida environment..
 
Tad Footeball said:
Yeah, the King deal is weird. He's supposedly staying on as an advisor but that may just be due to contract verbiage. Of course they deny it has anything to do with the scandal but people will still jump to try to make a connection to Gatto. You know anything about this young(er) guy from New Zealand that's replacing King?

I personally view that Skechers suit as a cheap attention grab but I'm also not an attorney.
Click to expand...

The Skechers suit is HELLA weird b/c they’re not involved in athletic sponsorship! So I’m not clear as to their motive, but between the Kanye rant, King leaving, FBI probe, and now this weird lawsuit, it’s going to take a toll on them.

I have no clue about this dude from Europe, but King did something his predecessors didnt; he made the brand cool, both on and off the court, HERE IN AMERICA. As long as they keep up the pressure in the American sports world, they should be good. But it feels like everything is hitting them all at once right now.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top