|
Post by lmills72 on Sept 17, 2019 18:24:11 GMT -6
Not sure I am understanding....maybe because I don't know (or care) what Neu's contract situation is. I take it you ARE advocating extending Neu for recruiting purposes? Are you suggesting to extend with the idea it might later be bought out? Or are you accepting additional years of Neu? Or what?
Explain to me the type of recruit and his mindset that he would have in order to be influenced by the extension to sign with Neu/BSU. It seems to me, for the extension to be relevant in his decision, that he must be expecting Neu to continue to underperform. Otherwise the extension is irrelevant....if Neu starts having success, he would be retained based on the success....he wouldn't need the extension to be retained.
So, in my thinking, the only additional recruits you pick up with the extension are ones who kind of think Neu will continue to underperform, but they still want him around for their 4/5 years, and the extension gives them that assurance. How many recruits are in this category? Personally I think very few teenage boys would think this way. I think it's more likely that you sign kids who either 1) think Neu IS going to start succeeding, or 2) don't care that much about Neu one way or another and just like the BSU scholarship.
Well, Neu has one more year left on his contract after this season. No I am NOT advocating extending him for recruiting purposes. At this point, I would advocate firing him. However, if the university decision is to keep him, I would say they need to extend him, yes with the idea that they might later buy it out. I understand that you don't care about football and could care less if the next coach inherits a Division III level roster. I also think you give high school boys way too much credit; you seem to think they rival Socrates in their thought processes. I would argue a sufficient number could be swayed by blowing a little smoke up their ass.
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Sept 17, 2019 18:33:55 GMT -6
I wouldn't have the slightest idea where to look for football coaching candidates. In the MAC, it's basically a moot point anyway because there is no possible coaching hire that could make a MAC program something other than a colossal waste of money. Whether you are losing games in a dead-end, money pit conference or winning games in a dead-end money pit conference is of interest only to a very limited group of followers, and you're going to lose $5-$10 million a year no matter what you do.
Try more like $10-15mm per year for MAC programs...
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Sept 17, 2019 20:25:33 GMT -6
You are right that I may need to update my numbers. When I looked into this a few years ago, I found that it wasn't particularly easy to determine the yearly money loss because schools were not very forthcoming about it. They used various flakey accounting methods to mask the situation. For example, counting student fees as "income" for football. anyway, I came to conclusion that the yearly loss was at least $5 million if you only counted the direct football expenditures and closer to $10 million if you counted the costs of the obscure and utterly valueless women's sports made necessary by the combination of all the male football scholarships and title IX. The loss would increase if the program played in a bowl.
These figures may well have increased because the idiotic football supporters think MAC programs have to have all the things that profitable football programs have....indoor facilities, elaborate scoreboards, multiple helmets and uniforms, etc., etc. etc. If you think of MAC football supporters as if they were 5 year old children, you can usually understand and anticipate their otherwise baffling attitudes.
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Sept 18, 2019 17:05:48 GMT -6
You are right that I may need to update my numbers. When I looked into this a few years ago, I found that it wasn't particularly easy to determine the yearly money loss because schools were not very forthcoming about it. They used various flakey accounting methods to mask the situation. For example, counting student fees as "income" for football. anyway, I came to conclusion that the yearly loss was at least $5 million if you only counted the direct football expenditures and closer to $10 million if you counted the costs of the obscure and utterly valueless women's sports made necessary by the combination of all the male football scholarships and title IX. The loss would increase if the program played in a bowl. These figures may well have increased because the idiotic football supporters think MAC programs have to have all the things that profitable football programs have....indoor facilities, elaborate scoreboards, multiple helmets and uniforms, etc., etc. etc. If you think of MAC football supporters as if they were 5 year old children, you can usually understand and anticipate their otherwise baffling attitudes. And if we truly assigned costs appropriately, such as facilities rent and personnel, the loss would be astronomical. Our football program only generates $1.5mm in revenue per year. We spend at least $12mm directly on football, not to mention other expenses that they conveniently leave out of the spend number. It is a joke of epic proportions to have a football program at the FBS or FCS level if you can't at least come close to breaking even on direct overhead.
|
|