|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 7:59:09 GMT -6
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 22, 2024 7:59:09 GMT -6
The current situation is very odd. The NCAA is holding their nose and closing their eyes and trying to avoid contact with that yucky NIL as much as they can. Their world has dramatically changed but they are in denial of it. Mitchell is a very typical NCAA apparatchik in that respect. His first year summation is almost comical in its avoiding a gigantic elephant loudly trumpeting and stomping around the room. He prefers to dwell on adding some tens of people to the year's women's gymnastics attendance, or some such thing. BSU is more or less guaranteed to fall behind with this caliber of "leadership".
So, for the time being, we have a situation where the most critical competitive factor, NIL - the means by which a programs most important assets are acquired and paid for - is in the hands of people outside the program. Or at least the program is not supposed to exercise any "governance". The people who are providing the critical financing will inevitably gain a great deal of control and power, and the NCAA types will complain about those evil boosters and their nefarious influence. As if people would want to make the effort to earn or raise the money and just shovel it over to the programs with zero say in how it is used. Completely unrealistic.
The losers of the NCAA world will whine and wring their hands and make excuses featuring NIL. The most sharp and competitive AD's and coaches are going to recognize reality and start working to deal with the current situation as effectively as they can. This will involve them providing energy, awareness and initiative around NIL. I don't know exactly how much of this is allowed, but they will do it. And they will win championships.
I think this situation is too jumbled and awkward to last forever. But it is the environment the programs will be competing in for the next few years at least. It would be nice to see the AD showing some awareness of this and providing some focus and energy, but apparently that's not going to happen. It seems the individual coaches will have to act for the competitiveness of their programs.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 8:02:07 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2024 8:02:07 GMT -6
All good points, mills, you're asking the right questions.
Agreed that over 25 years we may have made a couple of horrible decisions that were very costly.
Good point too that resource management can always be tweaked and improved. Fewer resources means less ability to do that though. And, oo9one of the great advantages of having more resources is more margin for error.
Having resources gives you more and easier to make good choices.
All programs make mistakes, ours tend to be harder to handle for that reason.
There are reasons (not just excuses) we fail and lack of resources is one. That actually is a "good excuse" not some trumped up thing.
Sherm seems to think one can never excuse a bad result. That's saying good decision makers always have clear cut winning decisions available. Wish the world was like that.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 8:14:15 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2024 8:14:15 GMT -6
Sherm has a good point that we have to adjust to this new era.
He fails to acknowledge that those that. will win because they win the race to have more resources probably start out with more resources and his assumption we can leapfrog into that group just by adjusting overlooks everyone else is adjusting too
We start out the race giving several programs in the MAC and many other mid majors a head start. He refuses to accept that probably counts for something.
Reality and reasonable expectations say we have an outside chance to do that, and should give it our best effort.
That will have little to do with the past, excepting our track record in fund raising, and the distant past success on the court, achieved when that was not so critical, doesn't mean this new challenge is the same challenge we overcame then.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 8:26:27 GMT -6
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 22, 2024 8:26:27 GMT -6
Sherm has a good point that we have to adjust to this new era. He fails to acknowledge that those that. will win because they win the race to have more resources probably start out with more resources and his assumption we can leapfrog into that group just by adjusting overlooks everyone else is adjusting too We start out the race giving several programs in the MAC and many other mid majors a head start. He refuses to accept that probably counts for something. Reality and reasonable expectations say we have an outside chance to do that, and should give it our best effort. That will have little to do with the past, excepting our track record in fund raising, and the distant past success on the court, achieved when that was not so critical, doesn't mean this new challenge is the same challenge we overcame then. Shockingly, 00mph has some excuses for failure at the ready for BSU athletics. What inherent advantages did other MAC schools start out with? Did BSU have no advantages? |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 8:41:31 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2024 8:41:31 GMT -6
Sherm has a good point that we have to adjust to this new era. He fails to acknowledge that those that. will win because they win the race to have more resources probably start out with more resources and his assumption we can leapfrog into that group just by adjusting overlooks everyone else is adjusting too We start out the race giving several programs in the MAC and many other mid majors a head start. He refuses to accept that probably counts for something. Reality and reasonable expectations say we have an outside chance to do that, and should give it our best effort. That will have little to do with the past, excepting our track record in fund raising, and the distant past success on the court, achieved when that was not so critical, doesn't mean this new challenge is the same challenge we overcame then. Shockingly, 00mph has some excuses for failure at the ready for BSU athletics. What inherent advantages did other MAC schools start out with? Did BSU have no advantages? BSU starts with more severe budget issues than the majority of MAC schools, and with a history of lower donor support for athletics than most of the top tier regular championship contenders. We have literally no significant advantage in the NIL game. Unless we accept your theory that our $15 mil gift in the past proves there is gold in them thar hills. More than all the others who can cite similar gifts. Most more of those gifts. We have advantages of good facilities and relatively good fan support in BB, that is true. I'd say we're equal or better overall in non NIL factors to more than 1/2 the MAC programs. Not significantly better than top programs, though. We're hit harder by trying to support FB than all but a few. We're not expecting plusses to amount to much in the transfer portal. |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 10:26:57 GMT -6
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 22, 2024 10:26:57 GMT -6
A school's budget issues have nothing to do with NIL. You're thinking in the old terms.
Share this MAC donor history data that you have, please. Sounds very interesting.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 10:34:29 GMT -6
Post by rmcalhoun on Mar 22, 2024 10:34:29 GMT -6
A school's budget issues have nothing to do with NIL. You're thinking in the old terms. Share this MAC donor history data that you have, please. Sounds very interesting. Sherms right you cant blame budget on NIL or vice versa.. Nil is its own thing.. The good schools do direct big donors to give to the collective the School likes the most |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 15:43:06 GMT -6
00hmh likes this
Post by lmills72 on Mar 22, 2024 15:43:06 GMT -6
In terms of resource allocation and utilization, I guess we would look at the AD for that. And while Mitchell's comments, or lack thereof, regarding NIL are uninspiring, I think generally you'd have to say that BSU's general leadership in the AD position over the past 25 years has been better than average, or at least better than the performance of the coaches they've hired/directed.
While virtually no BSU coach in football or men's basketball has moved on to bigger and better things, several ADs have. Bubba Cunningham now the AD at UNC. Bill Scholl at Marquette. Beth Goetz at Iowa.
Only Tom Collins and Mark Sandy have not parlayed their time at BSU to greener pastures, although Sandy retired and Collins is at least still in the game (and probably making more than he did at BSU).
But coaching success is usually pretty black and white. You win or you lose. AD success is probably viewed more in shades of gray. However you grade them, I would think Cunningham, Scholl and Goetz are at least viewed as decent managers of resources or they probably wouldn't hold their current jobs.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 16:36:07 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2024 16:36:07 GMT -6
Mark Sandy was always a retirement in place.
TC was AD but JAG dominated decision maker with all the VP level administrators.
The others had more responsibility for both good and bad decisions.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 16:40:13 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2024 16:40:13 GMT -6
A school's budget issues have nothing to do with NIL. You're thinking in the old terms. Share this MAC donor history data that you have, please. Sounds very interesting. Sherms right you cant blame budget on NIL or vice versa.. Nil is its own thing.. The good schools do direct big donors to give to the collective the School likes the most Budget deficit makes it far more likely fund raising efforts focus on in house expenditure needs. Brick and mortar with naming for the donor is always appealing and that's internal need although explicitly not on budget it's definitely in conflict with player salary expenditure. Budget fund raising and NIL promotion are very clearly in conflict for scarce dollars. |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 17:18:05 GMT -6
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 22, 2024 17:18:05 GMT -6
Sherms right you cant blame budget on NIL or vice versa.. Nil is its own thing.. The good schools do direct big donors to give to the collective the School likes the most Budget deficit makes it far more likely fund raising efforts focus on in house expenditure needs. Brick and mortar with naming for the donor is always appealing and that's internal need although explicitly not on budget it's definitely in conflict with player salary expenditure. Budget fund raising and NIL promotion are very clearly in conflict for scarce dollars. Hey, did you forget to share that MAC donor history data you've been basing your comments on? |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 22, 2024 20:27:41 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by 00hmh on Mar 22, 2024 20:27:41 GMT -6
Budget deficit makes it far more likely fund raising efforts focus on in house expenditure needs. Brick and mortar with naming for the donor is always appealing and that's internal need although explicitly not on budget it's definitely in conflict with player salary expenditure. Budget fund raising and NIL promotion are very clearly in conflict for scarce dollars. Hey, did you forget to share that MAC donor history data you've been basing your comments on? My sources measure athletic fund raising a bit differently than the source below, but if you are claiming we match up well this source should make you hesitate. These numbers for 20 years aren't what I would use, not completely clear exactly what is included, may not include many resources obtained through corporate sponsorship, may not include all brick and mortar commitments, would certainly not count NIL funding in the last couple of years. Athletic department accounting is often baffling. |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 23, 2024 9:24:21 GMT -6
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 23, 2024 9:24:21 GMT -6
Well, I guess people have different ideas as to what is an acceptable excuse for failure. Me, I don't see it in that data. For whatever the data is worth. Rather, I see that BSU is fairly average in the MAC and teams that have been regularly kicking our ass in basketball during the period covered are just slightly above or behind us.
I suppose if you are absolutely determined to excuse our administration and coaches for 24 solid years of failure, and you want to prepare a ready-made excuse for continued low expectations and continued failure, any excuse is a good excuse. Although it's a little difficult for me to understand why anyone would be so wedded to failure.
|
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 23, 2024 9:43:04 GMT -6
Post by williamtsherman on Mar 23, 2024 9:43:04 GMT -6
In terms of resource allocation and utilization, I guess we would look at the AD for that. And while Mitchell's comments, or lack thereof, regarding NIL are uninspiring, I think generally you'd have to say that BSU's general leadership in the AD position over the past 25 years has been better than average, or at least better than the performance of the coaches they've hired/directed. While virtually no BSU coach in football or men's basketball has moved on to bigger and better things, several ADs have. Bubba Cunningham now the AD at UNC. Bill Scholl at Marquette. Beth Goetz at Iowa. Only Tom Collins and Mark Sandy have not parlayed their time at BSU to greener pastures, although Sandy retired and Collins is at least still in the game (and probably making more than he did at BSU). But coaching success is usually pretty black and white. You win or you lose. AD success is probably viewed more in shades of gray. However you grade them, I would think Cunningham, Scholl and Goetz are at least viewed as decent managers of resources or they probably wouldn't hold their current jobs. Looking at decisions concerning the basketball program, this group of AD's has been ineffective at best, and often abysmal. And it's no coincidence that the program has plummeted this century in EVERY important measure: championship winning, national ranking, attendance. And, although it's more difficult to quantify, I think anyone would agree that the general level of excitement around the program and its ability to bring positive attention to the school has fallen just as far. What would you say is the BEST decision any of these AD's has made concerning basketball in 25 years? Firing the failing coaches were necessary decisions that were finally made after taking way, way too long and wasting years of time. What drives these people's moves upwards, I really don't know and don't much care. Maybe extraneous factors such has DEI came in to play in certain situations. Whatever the case may be, I can definitely say that their stewardship of BSU basketball brings no credit whatsoever to their reputations among sane people. |
|
|
|
NIL
Mar 23, 2024 13:06:56 GMT -6
Post by 00hmh on Mar 23, 2024 13:06:56 GMT -6
Well, I guess people have different ideas as to what is an acceptable excuse for failure. Me, I don't see it in that data. For whatever the data is worth. Rather, I see that BSU is fairly average in the MAC and teams that have been regularly kicking our ass in basketball during the period covered are just slightly above or behind us. I suppose if you are absolutely determined to excuse our administration and coaches for 24 solid years of failure, and you want to prepare a ready-made excuse for continued low expectations and continued failure, any excuse is a good excuse. Although it's a little difficult for me to understand why anyone would be so wedded to failure. Nothing there is excuse for anything. We're talking about the future, and we agree NIL money is going to be critical. I said our history of poor donor support did not give us reason for optimism we can get more outside resources. You didn't seem to believe that.
I see a future that is tough sledding for us if it is to be based on financial resources.
Given data about our meager outside support, you disregard that as "excuses." It is substantial and make things harder. What you call fairly average donor support looking at these numbers is probably in today's dollars something like a million dollar deficit a year. or more. I am warning you it is probably more than that. Outside NIL will be soaked up for FB too, not just BB.
Give us an extra half million bucks a year in NIL for BB and I'd be pretty optimistic..there are about half the MAC schools who may be able generate that. You sure aren't giving me any reasons you think none of this matters.
|
|
