Seriously....Explain To Me?

[Billy D Williams]

Given the huge $$$$$$ that can be realized through, gate revenues, concessions, parking, TV, apparel and the prestige that comes from being The **** in college football. Why wouldn't it be the mission of any revenue generating organization to bring in the people that can help the university realize it's full earnings potential?

 

[Gatorhater]

Elitist don't like to admit they are dirty little money grubbers. Plus they have and aversion to "earnings" in general. They prefer taxes ripped out of peoples paychecks, donations from rich people who previously ripped money from peoples' paychecks, or, in Donna's case money stolen from rich people by little smucks. Since they never actually "earn" anything, you can see the issue they have with it.

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

There are only a small handful of athletic departments that actually turn a profit. Alabama, UF, Texas, and a few others are really the only ones that consistently stay in the black, and that is because they have HUGE alumni and donor networks.

UM has netted out in the black the last couple years, largely by keeping costs moderate.

UM's attendance has never been a big driver for revenue. That is, even in our best years, we averaged ~50k or so per game over the course of the season. If we average out at 45k this season, for instance, that's a loss of 30k over 6 home games. 30k X $30 per ticket (that's an overestimate, IMO, because most people buy tickets online through stubhub or the like for a fraction of the regular price) is 900k. So even in the worst of years, we're only missing out on under a million in ticket sales. Add a couple hundred k for parking and concessions and call it 1.5 mil for a rough estimate.

We get the same TV money no matter whether we're on top or mediocre.

So is that 1.5 mil in extra revenues worth the cost of paying for top-notch coaches, potentially paying for a new stadium, etc?

 

[Gatorhater]

There are only a small handful of athletic departments that actually turn a profit. Alabama, UF, Texas, and a few others are really the only ones that consistently stay in the black, and that is because they have HUGE alumni and donor networks.

UM has netted out in the black the last couple years, largely by keeping costs moderate.

UM's attendance has never been a big driver for revenue. That is, even in our best years, we averaged ~50k or so per game over the course of the season. If we average out at 45k this season, for instance, that's a loss of 30k over 6 home games. 30k X $30 per ticket (that's an overestimate, IMO, because most people buy tickets online through stubhub or the like for a fraction of the regular price) is 900k. So even in the worst of years, we're only missing out on under a million in ticket sales. Add a couple hundred k for parking and concessions and call it 1.2 mil for a rough estimate.

We get the same TV money no matter whether we're on top or mediocre.

So does that 1.2 mil in extra revenues worth the cost of paying for top-notch coaches, potentially paying for a new stadium, etc?

That is a very simple and feeble minded approach at valuation by these idiots. The success of the football program had direct impact on the size of the student body and the prestige of the school. Those are measurable $$$ in revenue and capital calculations. The impact on fundraising drives is also measurable with even simple analysis and modeling. Do you think ND became the monster it is because of the golden dome, superior education, or tenuous connection to Catholicism? If so there are better Catholic Universities but none have ND's $$$ appeal. It was their historic football program that made them huge. The university of Miami, with maybe the exception of its Law, Medical, and Oceanography schools, was a joke before THE U. If this destruction continues it will return to being a joke. Donna has been living off the fat stored by the success of the football program. Whatever she accomplished was by standing on its shoulders.

 

[killacane]

Has anyone ever thought of putting a stadium on campus?

 

[ball915]

different strategy from Donna. Create an elite academic school, drive up tuition and create generous donors for future years. she looks more into the future than the moment. one reason she can do no wrong

 

[CaneInHeelCountry]

There are only a small handful of athletic departments that actually turn a profit. Alabama, UF, Texas, and a few others are really the only ones that consistently stay in the black, and that is because they have HUGE alumni and donor networks.

UM has netted out in the black the last couple years, largely by keeping costs moderate.

UM's attendance has never been a big driver for revenue. That is, even in our best years, we averaged ~50k or so per game over the course of the season. If we average out at 45k this season, for instance, that's a loss of 30k over 6 home games. 30k X $30 per ticket (that's an overestimate, IMO, because most people buy tickets online through stubhub or the like for a fraction of the regular price) is 900k. So even in the worst of years, we're only missing out on under a million in ticket sales. Add a couple hundred k for parking and concessions and call it 1.2 mil for a rough estimate.

We get the same TV money no matter whether we're on top or mediocre.

So does that 1.2 mil in extra revenues worth the cost of paying for top-notch coaches, potentially paying for a new stadium, etc?

That is a very simple and feeble minded approach at valuation by these idiots. The success of the football program had direct impact on the size of the student body and the prestige of the school. Those are measurable $$$ in revenue and capital calculations. The impact on fundraising drives is also measurable with even simple analysis and modeling. Do you think ND became the monster it is because of the golden dome, superior education, or tenuous connection to Catholicism? If so there are better Catholic Universities but none have ND's $$$ appeal. It was their historic football program that made them huge. The university of Miami, with maybe the exception of its Law, Medical, and Oceanography schools, was a joke before THE U. If this destruction continues it will return to being a joke. Donna has been living off the fat stored by the success of the football program. Whatever she accomplished was by standing on its shoulders.

Much of your post is full of crap.

The success of the football team has no impact whatsoever on the size of the student body. That's ridiculous. UM's student body has remained at around 10k since the 70s.

Notre Dame was one of the top schools in the nation long before big-time college sports ever existed. You're **** right that the fact they're one of the oldest Catholic universities in the US has played a large role in that. No doubt that Knute Rockne and Rudy contributed to the aura and lured some students in, but the academic reputation of ND was cemented long before the days of billion-dollar TV contracts and BCS bowl games. And besides, they've been pretty **** mediocre on the field for the last 25 years, between Holtz and Kelly...and that doesn't seem to have killed their academic reputation or their endowment.

As I've explained before, there is a point of diminishing returns WRT the impact of sports success on academics. At UM, our football success definitely helped put us on the map as an academic institution...we've come a long way since the days of Suntan U. But since then, particularly under president Shalala, our academic reputation has grown by leaps and bounds even while our football team has struggled. Spending more on football will not "put us on the map" academically...we're already there, near the best in the country. So it's a tenuous proposition to say that spending tens of millions on football will translate into any measurable benefit to academics at UM at this point in time.

 

[Consigliere]

Given the huge $$$$$$ that can be realized through, gate revenues, concessions, parking, TV, apparel and the prestige that comes from being The **** in college football. Why wouldn't it be the mission of any revenue generating organization to bring in the people that can help the university realize it's full earnings potential?

The short answer is YES. It should be the mission.

In terms of athletics, our biggest problem stems from the top (The President and Admin). At our school, we love to micromanage the athletic department. This explains why we have a retarded puppet as Athletic Director. If we were smart, we would find an AD who was competent and had the authority to run the department. Instead, our Admin and President has been apart of (not just signing off) every search and decision. This has resulted in numerous bad hires and terrible extensions.

Since 2001, here is the list:

1. Coker's 05 Extension,

2. RS hiring,

3. RS extension,

4. AG hiring,

5. AG extension, and

6. Morris 2014 extension

All of these resulted in the product you have witnessed being terrible (football since 2004). Not only do we fail to win or have success on the field, these all cost us more in buyouts and potential revenues from fielding a better product (i.e. winning).

I know many of you don't care about our Basketball Program but do you see the success you can have when you hire a great coach. Combine a great coach and your own arena and forget about it. The fans love it, the students love it, the alumni love it and the revenues follow. Oh yeah, we also win games and have actual success.

The best thing the new President and Admin can do is bring in a real AD and give them the authority to do what is necessary.

Finally, since we never have a plan in place, we get caught with few options when big decisions need to be made (i.e. new stadium, orange bowl etc.). This AD would do and explore all avenues ACTIVELY and DILIGENTLY to prepare for the future. Not hope someone comes to us.