|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Mar 19, 2024 12:15:43 GMT -6
Yes there is a tab on Ball State Sports main web page that says donate and sends you to feed the bird.. There you greeted by pictures of Boogie Jaylin and a bunch of gone or even graduated football players.. We intitially started with like 12 kids we were paying
Went to the website before posting at 12:42:21 and saw that it was not updated. Hence my post that there doesn't seem to be anywhere to contribute. Shouldn't our AD know? I will contact him. Thanks! Good pressure him |
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Mar 19, 2024 12:21:22 GMT -6
We might even be able to collect enough money to get one Macnificant player from the portal.. The problems is then still have to find 3-4 more.. We are rolling the Dice on andersons and bailey types which require very little.. We hit pretty good on those someone evaluated pretty well
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 19, 2024 19:39:16 GMT -6
Magnificent? More like possibly magnificent...A risk both ways.
Winning an expensive bidding war rarely means you get a bargain.
That player might be rolling the dice more than getting two or three players each with lower ceiling, but maybe more coachability and filling more places of need.
Right now we can't count on budget to have the choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 19, 2024 20:12:11 GMT -6
I guess. I'm not familiar with Sowell's work on indoor football facilities It will be a good thought exercise for you to see if you can extrapolate from the economic principles you’ll learn about to formulate more rational thinking on the topic. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 19, 2024 21:19:55 GMT -6
Well I have partied with James Buchanan (the economist, not the president) and I can assure that Libertarian thought would be basically agnostic on whether or not the indoor facility is stupid. It's a question of cost/benefit, not principle.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 19, 2024 21:25:39 GMT -6
Well I have partied with James Buchanan (the economist, not the president) and I can assure that Libertarian thought would be basically agnostic on whether or not the indoor facility is stupid. It's a question of cost/benefit, not principle. It has nothing to do with libertarianism. I highly recommend his book Knowledge and Decisions. It will hopefully help you make stronger arguments. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 20, 2024 5:57:46 GMT -6
Maybe if somebody ever effectively counters one of my arguments here, then I'll turn to some middlebrow political books for pointers.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 9:04:44 GMT -6
Maybe if somebody ever effectively counters one of my arguments here, then I'll turn to some middlebrow political books for pointers. Ok. Arguing that because money was spent on one thing means that money exists to be spent on another thing makes no sense. It's actually the opposite. Money spent on one thing reduces the money available to spend on another. Better get cracking on those books... |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 20, 2024 9:42:51 GMT -6
BSU's ability to recently pry $15 million out of donor's hands DOESN'T suggest to you that donor money can be found for athletics purposes?
Well, whatever you say.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 10:44:15 GMT -6
BSU's ability to recently pry $15 million out of donor's hands DOESN'T suggest to you that donor money can be found for athletics purposes? Well, whatever you say. What is suggests to me is that BSU has already spent $15 million of the funds that were available for athletics purposes. Hence, there is less available for other athletics purposes. Sowell might be a little advanced for you. First, start researching a concept called "scarcity." |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 20, 2024 10:52:10 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 20, 2024 11:24:39 GMT -6
For basketball, we are not likely to be at a disadvantage compared to other MAC schools for annual stipends of $4-6K for the whole roster. The bigger conundrum is being able to keep an existing player (Bashir) or attract potentially several target transfers which might require several 100K per year. If you had $250-$500K to spend every year in the portal it would be a big advantage in the current landscape. It requires a "dedicated" effort by the University or the coach to find a donor(s) that are emotionally invested in men's basketball and willing to pony up the funds consistently to help us buy players. At some schools, (Miami?) I'd guess you have alums of means (perhaps former players) who recognize this new dynamic and actually approach the school to fund this concept especially if they believe in the coach and their alma mater is committed to return to glory. I believe Lewis is all-in because this is his shot. The question then becomes is the U all in? I'll believe it when I see it. I know some don't believe we can draw like we used to and maybe sellouts are a pipe dream, but with our largest alumni base in Hamilton County less than an hour away and a 11,500 seat arena in the middle of a hoops crazy state I think we could put 7,000 plus in Worthen on a regular basis if we decided to make the investments required. Ball State can be a winner again if they choose to be. It's a choice not a chance. That $250K might be minimum what is needed. Very hard to raise annually. That cost may destroy chance for parity. If it's $500K annually... As for attendance, that and conventional budget may be less relevant in this play for pay era. It's more about player acquisition, although increasing revenue to pay for coaching upgrade is still important. If the added revenue doesn't go to supporting the FB deficit. 7000 regularly is optimistic. 5000-6000 on weekends might be possible. Go all out to get student attendance to build future alumni support might be worth some effort. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 20, 2024 11:25:57 GMT -6
Oh, I see. So for example SEC football has spent much more money on NIL and on athletics generally as compared to the MAC for the last couple years. So the concept of scarcity would then suggest that the MAC must have a lot more money left to spend on NIL and athletics going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 20, 2024 11:29:41 GMT -6
Oh, I see. So for example SEC football has spent much more money on NIL and on athletics generally as compared to the MAC for the last couple years. So the concept of scarcity would then suggest that the MAC must have a lot more money left to spend on NIL and athletics going forward. You can't be serious? If so, what a poor comparison. Isn't it obvious the SEC not only has MUCH more donor money available, but their spending is supported by high revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 20, 2024 12:00:26 GMT -6
|
|
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/Inv.Terms_Scarcity-d54a392456f344a7acec0e4a650740b3.jpg)
