(10-17-2016 10:29 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 10:02 PM)YOwl Ming Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 09:50 PM)Tiki Owl Wrote:  It is similar for Wash U. Up until about 10 years ago I would always have to say I was a grad of Wash U in St Louis. It still happens today at times. I would add Cornell to the "known" group...not just because that's Dr Tiki's undergrad school (though she was there when Ed Marianaro was there and a year behind Ken Dryden).

Is that caused by the genome project or the presidential debates?

Sent from my QTAIR7 using CSNbbs mobile app

For Wash U its national and international recognition only really began about the time I attended (1968-1972). That was the point when the school began to really recruit throughout the US (international would come later). Up until that point it was mainly thought of as a St Louis area university on the undergrad side. People knew it was a higher academic school than St Louis U but really had no concept of it having national stature. The only real association was to the 1904 Olympics and Dal Maxvill, the Cardinal shortstop. The Med school had a good reputation but almost all on the clinical side and the law school was seen as a good but not great school. The campus mostly consisted of buildings from the Olympics except for Olin Library but in 1966 in anticipation of the national push a new dorm area (the South 40) was created across Forsyth Blvd. A new law school building was just going up when I graduated. The 80's brought a more aggressive leadership both on the undergrad campus and the med school campus across Forest Park from the main campus. The push to attract world class faculty to both campuses really took off then. I would compare it to the change that happened at Rice with Hackerman though I think Wash U always had a more liberal arts component to it.

Interesting note about Cornell is that there is a state school side and a private school side.

My grad school (8 years of Engineering). Growing up in StL (the local place) and working in LA (nigh on invisible), I never had an unbiased sense of their value.

Sent from my SM-G920V using CSNbbs mobile app

How does Appalachian State do what they do?
Could we imitate?

(10-18-2016 11:26 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  How does Appalachian State do what they do?
Could we imitate?

1 - they can recruit anyone
2 - they get some p5 drop outs, some of which are still outstanding players who had personal issues or just got caught up in numbers at the p5
3 - like WKU, they had a very strong program at the lower level that created some interest that has continued as they've risen.

we can't really do 'one', because even if we CAN recruit them, we have to keep them eligible and on path to graduation, and we don't have enough 'easy' classes or majors to do that. They have 16,000 students.

we can do two and have had some success there, but still we're going to be limited in who/how many we get. It's VERY tough to transfer into Rice.

we can't recreate three... other than by winning at THIS level and hoping to move up.

(10-17-2016 09:39 PM)T-Moar Wrote:  

(10-17-2016 07:49 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Can't tell if texowl2 is joking with the "U of Chicago is virtually unknown" comment. They're #3 in USNWR.

You can be virtually unknown and still ranked highly. Every UChicago grad I've ever known has had a litany of stories about telling people, even in Chicago, that they go to or went to Chicago and having that person think they mean UIC. I had never heard of UChicago until they started sending me recruiting mailers, and I can imagine plenty of others were in the same boat. WashU and, to a lesser degree, Penn have the same issues. Generally, it's hard to have a recognizable name unless you've either got a power Football/Basketball program or you're Ivy League, and even among the Ivy League it's only really Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and maybe Dartmouth or Columbia.

I think it's a long stretch to"virtually unknown". I'd say most my friends, none of whom are economists or from Illinois, know U Chicago by reputation as a top school for economics.

In any case, it's unclear to me what sort of benefits that texowl2 thinks that U Chicago is missing out on by not being known for sports. I mean, Penn State is famous for sports.

My point on U Chicago is you know it, I know it, most of the folks in Parliament also know it, but I suspect that the vast majority of the US population have no clue as opposed to one of the ESU's. But they know of Butler, Gonzaga, or Boise St. On the other hand, what some %'s of our population don't know and/or what they think is pretty darn scary, to be brutally honest.

(10-18-2016 01:20 AM)YOwl Ming Wrote:  Growing up in StL (the local place) and working in LA (nigh on invisible), I never had an unbiased sense of their value.

Well ... as one who grew up in suburban St. Louis and now lives an hour south of L.A. ... I second that opinion.

(10-18-2016 03:49 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  My point on U Chicago is you know it, I know it, most of the folks in Parliament also know it, but I suspect that the vast majority of the US population have no clue as opposed to one of the ESU's. But they know of Butler, Gonzaga, or Boise St. On the other hand, what some %'s of our population don't know and/or what they think is pretty darn scary, to be brutally honest.

Agreed. At the same time, the vast majority of the US population aren't the ones making hiring, etc. decisions. The people doing the hiring may still know about Gonzaga/Butler, sure, but they'll probably know about UChicago too, especially if they're hiring for the sort of jobs that UChicago applicants actually apply to.

We need Rice to be well known at least to the people doing the hiring across the nation, if not the world.

(10-18-2016 04:06 PM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 03:49 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  My point on U Chicago is you know it, I know it, most of the folks in Parliament also know it, but I suspect that the vast majority of the US population have no clue as opposed to one of the ESU's. But they know of Butler, Gonzaga, or Boise St. On the other hand, what some %'s of our population don't know and/or what they think is pretty darn scary, to be brutally honest.

Agreed. At the same time, the vast majority of the US population aren't the ones making hiring, etc. decisions. The people doing the hiring may still know about Gonzaga/Butler, sure, but they'll probably know about UChicago too, especially if they're hiring for the sort of jobs that UChicago applicants actually apply to.

We need Rice to be well known at least to the people doing the hiring across the nation, if not the world.

1. At least some hiring managers watch and are passionate about Div I college football (I suspect the majority)
2. Small businesses make up the majority of jobs in the country, and I'll bet those small business owners are on average even bigger fans in general

But what about the $6million ballpark figure for football coaching staff and recruiting: does that sound to high, too low, or about right to ya'll and why? How would you break that figure (or your own figure if you don't like that one)? Or do you think we will be successful paying bottom of the barrel rates like we have been for decades?

(10-18-2016 04:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  But what about the $6million ballpark figure for football coaching staff and recruiting: does that sound to high, too low, or about right to ya'll and why? How would you break that figure (or your own figure if you don't like that one)? Or do you think we will be successful paying bottom of the barrel rates like we have been for decades?

I'm not sure how a bunch of fans, even some of whom are somewhat connected, can answer that question with any kind of intelligence. While we know Bailiff's rough salary (~$800,000), we do not know what his coordinators or assistants make. We do not know how much is currently spent on recruiting. Also, does your suggested figure include salaries for S&C, quality control, video folks, etc.?

Without the information of what is currently spent, it is hard to compare that figure to the $6 million you toss out there. And I'm assuming your suggestion is that the increase would be without strings (i.e., no cuts necessary elsewhere in the athletic program)?

Having no idea what the recruiting budget that is, $6 million sounds like a lot more than Rice would need to spend just on coaching & recruiting.
HC - $800,000 (this is already toward the top of the CUSA salaries, no need to increase it except to retain a coach proven to be "successful")
DC - $400,000
OC - $400,000
7 position coaches - $200,000 each
Total = $3 million

I have no idea how close those are to what Rice currently pays, nor how those stack up to what other CUSA coordinators & assistants make. I think those would probably all be on the high side for CUSA, but well below P5 averages.

*When I put the word successful in quotation marks - "successful" - I am not quoting someone. That is my way of saying that I'm not trying to argue about the definition of the word as it relates to Rice football.

(10-18-2016 11:26 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  How does Appalachian State do what they do?
Could we imitate?

Academically?

(I know. But wanted to make a point)

(10-18-2016 03:49 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  My point on U Chicago is you know it, I know it, most of the folks in Parliament also know it, but I suspect that the vast majority of the US population have no clue as opposed to one of the ESU's. But they know of Butler, Gonzaga, or Boise St. On the other hand, what some %'s of our population don't know and/or what they think is pretty darn scary, to be brutally honest.

Geez, it's not as if we would nominate a reality-show personality to run for President or anything.

(10-18-2016 04:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  But what about the $6million ballpark figure for football coaching staff and recruiting: does that sound to high, too low, or about right to ya'll and why? How would you break that figure (or your own figure if you don't like that one)? Or do you think we will be successful paying bottom of the barrel rates like we have been for decades?

I'm not sure how a bunch of fans, even some of whom are somewhat connected, can answer that question with any kind of intelligence. While we know Bailiff's rough salary (~$800,000), we do not know what his coordinators or assistants make. We do not know how much is currently spent on recruiting. Also, does your suggested figure include salaries for S&C, quality control, video folks, etc.?

Without the information of what is currently spent, it is hard to compare that figure to the $6 million you toss out there. And I'm assuming your suggestion is that the increase would be without strings (i.e., no cuts necessary elsewhere in the athletic program)?

Having no idea what the recruiting budget that is, $6 million sounds like a lot more than Rice would need to spend just on coaching & recruiting.
HC - $800,000 (this is already toward the top of the CUSA salaries, no need to increase it except to retain a coach proven to be "successful")
DC - $400,000
OC - $400,000
7 position coaches - $200,000 each
Total = $3 million

I have no idea how close those are to what Rice currently pays, nor how those stack up to what other CUSA coordinators & assistants make. I think those would probably all be on the high side for CUSA, but well below P5 averages.

*When I put the word successful in quotation marks - "successful" - I am not quoting someone. That is my way of saying that I'm not trying to argue about the definition of the word as it relates to Rice football.

I'm guessing that is more than we spend on our coordinators and position coaches now.

This gets back to the point of whether you cut other salaries to get the football salaries higher.

Should an OC or DC make as much money as Wayne Graham? (not sure where Wayne is at now, but back in the day, I thought he was around $250,000 at the program's highest point. I say this knowing I will likely be corrected).

How much should Rhoades make versus the football coordinators and assistants? If our AD upped the ante on Rhoades I could easily see it having an impact on other salaries in the department, and that seems appropriate.

Someone asked the question on another thread: What if giving a raise to Rhoades precludes a buyout? An AD makes those calls. We live in a fantasy world fraught with speculation.

(10-18-2016 07:09 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 03:49 PM)texowl2 Wrote:  My point on U Chicago is you know it, I know it, most of the folks in Parliament also know it, but I suspect that the vast majority of the US population have no clue as opposed to one of the ESU's. But they know of Butler, Gonzaga, or Boise St. On the other hand, what some %'s of our population don't know and/or what they think is pretty darn scary, to be brutally honest.

Geez, it's not as if we would nominate a reality-show personality to run for President or anything.

Or a would-be Felon who sold access to the US for personal profit, married to a sexual predator.

(10-18-2016 07:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  But what about the $6million ballpark figure for football coaching staff and recruiting: does that sound to high, too low, or about right to ya'll and why? How would you break that figure (or your own figure if you don't like that one)? Or do you think we will be successful paying bottom of the barrel rates like we have been for decades?

I'm not sure how a bunch of fans, even some of whom are somewhat connected, can answer that question with any kind of intelligence. While we know Bailiff's rough salary (~$800,000), we do not know what his coordinators or assistants make. We do not know how much is currently spent on recruiting. Also, does your suggested figure include salaries for S&C, quality control, video folks, etc.?

Without the information of what is currently spent, it is hard to compare that figure to the $6 million you toss out there. And I'm assuming your suggestion is that the increase would be without strings (i.e., no cuts necessary elsewhere in the athletic program)?

Having no idea what the recruiting budget that is, $6 million sounds like a lot more than Rice would need to spend just on coaching & recruiting.
HC - $800,000 (this is already toward the top of the CUSA salaries, no need to increase it except to retain a coach proven to be "successful")
DC - $400,000
OC - $400,000
7 position coaches - $200,000 each
Total = $3 million

I have no idea how close those are to what Rice currently pays, nor how those stack up to what other CUSA coordinators & assistants make. I think those would probably all be on the high side for CUSA, but well below P5 averages.

*When I put the word successful in quotation marks - "successful" - I am not quoting someone. That is my way of saying that I'm not trying to argue about the definition of the word as it relates to Rice football.

I'm guessing that is more than we spend on our coordinators and position coaches now.

This gets back to the point of whether you cut other salaries to get the football salaries higher.

Should an OC or DC make as much money as Wayne Graham? (not sure where Wayne is at now, but back in the day, I thought he was around $250,000 at the program's highest point. I say this knowing I will likely be corrected).

How much should Rhoades make versus the football coordinators and assistants? If our AD upped the ante on Rhoades I could easily see it having an impact on other salaries in the department, and that seems appropriate.

Someone asked the question on another thread: What if giving a raise to Rhoades precludes a buyout? An AD makes those calls. We live in a fantasy world fraught with speculation.

To answer your questions: I'm looking for the number which includes just football salaries and coaching and recruiting expenses, without cutting anywhere else. A S&C coach can be included. facilities not--but to me that is a separate line item here (and I believe in still raising the funds for additional HRS improvements as previously alluded to by the AD).

Yes, it is speculation, since we don't have all the actual numbers. Bailiff is listed on Coaching Hot Seat as at at $925,000 per year (and he's up slightly to #17.)

My thought is that because the Rice job is currently not viewed as a premium job, and because we have additional self-imposed academic restrictions that we actually follow vs. most other schools, we need to pay a premium to attract the same coach as another school does.

I also don't believe it is correct to merely compare our coaches salaries to other CUSA schools because that is a mostly irrelevant comparison to me for a school that purports to want to move back up to P5 status. If we do, then we should only be comparing to median P5 coaching salaries and not CUSA or even G5 salaries.

So I do a ballpark figure of offering between $2 million and $3 million per to attract the next head coach with a reasonable upside: he would be considered for any median level P5 job available. Rice would pay him a premium to come to South Main because all things being equal, the guy would not seriously consider coming to Rice otherwise. We need to give him the ability to hire P5 level assistants. And we need more national recruiting since that is the scope and milieu of our school. So I'm ballparking about $6 million total per annum (5 year contract, wrth Owl69's low $100K buyout for either the school or the coach), which is likely somewhere about $3.5 to 4 more per year than we are currently spending with the present staff.

So, $3.5- $4 million more annually above what we spend now. I think it would make a big difference over the course of 2 or three coaches in the next decade (Boise State model of coach is successful, leaves for better position, and we reload and keep firing on all cylinders.)

Vs. spending the $2.5 million to $3 million on coaches and recruiting we currently do and being last (ok next to last, espn) in Div I.

I also don't think it should be approached by the school or the AD as an either/or with other sports, although I get that might be what actually is going on. Each sport should be funded to the median level of P5 schools if we aim to go back. They should not cannibalize eachother. It is one university we are trying to elevate, not only one sport.

(10-18-2016 09:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Everything expires for the XII in 2025--TV contract, grants of rights. That is when the fit is going to hit the sham. So we have basically eight years to get our ducks in a row. It can be done. It is not easy. I am convinced that David Bailiff cannot get it done. To be fair, I thought he might have a chance in 2008. But 2009, 2010, and 2011 cured me of that, permanently.

You can argue the quantitative results all you want. But what gets me are the qualitative results. We just don't ever look like a team that knows what it is trying to do.

Your post fits the argument here as well, Owl69. There's the argument for an additional infusion of several million from the University over the next 8 to 10 years for Football, specifically coaching salaries and recruiting, as I have posted.

(10-18-2016 06:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think 2025 is the next witching hour. Not much doubt that the XII falls apart them. OU and Okie State to the SEC is IMO a given. SEC wants OU, they're not going without Okie State, and I think Okie State is actually a good fit with SEC. Texas is a bit trickier. If they are tied to TT then that combination is academically unsatisfactory to B1G, Pac-12, and ACC. Baylor and TCU would appear to be unacceptable to the Pac-12 which has stated no church schools. I still think the most likely outcome for Texas is going to the B1G with Kansas. That leaves ACC looking for two and PAC-12 looking for four. ACC dream duo is probably UConn and ND. ND has to go somewhere, and it's either ACC or B1G. If Texas and Kansas go to B1G, that leaves ACC. So now we have a PAC-12 looking for four teams and having ruled out Boise for academics, and BYU, TCU, SMU, and Baylor for religious association. In that scenario, we could have a shout if we get our act together, but only if. It would appear to me that we have 3-5 years to get football turned around, followed by 3-5 years of Boise/TCU-like results. It can be done, but not by David Bailiff

Suppose someone offered this deal--Spend what it takes to have a first class program for the next 8 years. If we make the cut, great. If we don't then D-3. I'd take that deal in a heartbeat. Would you?

While I'm scattershooting, one other thought. Suppose we got together with everybody who got jilted by the XII and put together our own league? Rice, UH, Cincy, BYU, Air Force, Colo St, Tulane, UConn, UCF, Boise, toss in Army and Navy, maybe Memphis and Tulsa. That's a way to showcase everybody for the next round. Worst case, it's a more attractive league than the XII without Texas, OU, Okie State, and Kansas basketball.

Most everything you say here seems plausible.

(10-19-2016 07:57 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 07:16 PM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(10-18-2016 04:12 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  But what about the $6million ballpark figure for football coaching staff and recruiting: does that sound to high, too low, or about right to ya'll and why? How would you break that figure (or your own figure if you don't like that one)? Or do you think we will be successful paying bottom of the barrel rates like we have been for decades?

I'm not sure how a bunch of fans, even some of whom are somewhat connected, can answer that question with any kind of intelligence. While we know Bailiff's rough salary (~$800,000), we do not know what his coordinators or assistants make. We do not know how much is currently spent on recruiting. Also, does your suggested figure include salaries for S&C, quality control, video folks, etc.?

Without the information of what is currently spent, it is hard to compare that figure to the $6 million you toss out there. And I'm assuming your suggestion is that the increase would be without strings (i.e., no cuts necessary elsewhere in the athletic program)?

Having no idea what the recruiting budget that is, $6 million sounds like a lot more than Rice would need to spend just on coaching & recruiting.
HC - $800,000 (this is already toward the top of the CUSA salaries, no need to increase it except to retain a coach proven to be "successful")
DC - $400,000
OC - $400,000
7 position coaches - $200,000 each
Total = $3 million

I have no idea how close those are to what Rice currently pays, nor how those stack up to what other CUSA coordinators & assistants make. I think those would probably all be on the high side for CUSA, but well below P5 averages.

*When I put the word successful in quotation marks - "successful" - I am not quoting someone. That is my way of saying that I'm not trying to argue about the definition of the word as it relates to Rice football.

I'm guessing that is more than we spend on our coordinators and position coaches now.

This gets back to the point of whether you cut other salaries to get the football salaries higher.

Should an OC or DC make as much money as Wayne Graham? (not sure where Wayne is at now, but back in the day, I thought he was around $250,000 at the program's highest point. I say this knowing I will likely be corrected).

How much should Rhoades make versus the football coordinators and assistants? If our AD upped the ante on Rhoades I could easily see it having an impact on other salaries in the department, and that seems appropriate.

Someone asked the question on another thread: What if giving a raise to Rhoades precludes a buyout? An AD makes those calls. We live in a fantasy world fraught with speculation.

To answer your questions: I'm looking for the number which includes just football salaries and coaching and recruiting expenses, without cutting anywhere else. A S&C coach can be included. facilities not--but to me that is a separate line item here (and I believe in still raising the funds for additional HRS improvements as previously alluded to by the AD).

Yes, it is speculation, since we don't have all the actual numbers. Bailiff is listed on Coaching Hot Seat as at at $925,000 per year (and he's up slightly to #17.)

My thought is that because the Rice job is currently not viewed as a premium job, and because we have additional self-imposed academic restrictions that we actually follow vs. most other schools, we need to pay a premium to attract the same coach as another school does.

I also don't believe it is correct to merely compare our coaches salaries to other CUSA schools because that is a mostly irrelevant comparison to me for a school that purports to want to move back up to P5 status. If we do, then we should only be comparing to median P5 coaching salaries and not CUSA or even G5 salaries.

So I do a ballpark figure of offering between $2 million and $3 million per to attract the next head coach with a reasonable upside: he would be considered for any median level P5 job available. Rice would pay him a premium to come to South Main because all things being equal, the guy would not seriously consider coming to Rice otherwise. We need to give him the ability to hire P5 level assistants. And we need more national recruiting since that is the scope and milieu of our school. So I'm ballparking about $6 million total per annum (5 year contract, wrth Owl69's low $100K buyout for either the school or the coach), which is likely somewhere about $3.5 to 4 more per year than we are currently spending with the present staff.

So, $3.5- $4 million more annually above what we spend now. I think it would make a big difference over the course of 2 or three coaches in the next decade (Boise State model of coach is successful, leaves for better position, and we reload and keep firing on all cylinders.)

Vs. spending the $2.5 million to $3 million on coaches and recruiting we currently do and being last (ok next to last, espn) in Div I.

I also don't think it should be approached by the school or the AD as an either/or with other sports, although I get that might be what actually is going on. Each sport should be funded to the median level of P5 schools if we aim to go back. They should not cannibalize eachother. It is one university we are trying to elevate, not only one sport.

Not arguing with your premise, just that it doesn't seem to fit the reality of Rice's budget, and it seems unlikely that the budget would change significantly enough to fund your premise. I suspect the budget for athletics has already been increased somewhat over the last couple of years. You are talking about a significant increase of the total budget for only one line item.

It's kind of like the conference realignment discussions where everyone realizes (or if they don't, they missed out on the direct statements to this effect made by the Big 12), that eyeballs and butts in the seat are as big a factor as any in determining who gets included and who doesn't. We have the second smallest enrollment in Division 1 athletics (for football at least), and anyone who comes to our games can quickly see the age deomographic of our alumni fan base. We nod our heads at our attendance and blithely avoid discussing this aspect of realignment when we compare ourselves to other schools hoping to 'move up'.

I get that Rice fans are upset about football results the last two years. But suggestions of boycotting games and withholding support are understandable, they are never going to be helpful in terms of realignment. Attendance will drop when results are bad. But even when results are bad at A&M, or Tennessee, the crowd drop off doesn't look like what some here are willing to contribute to by protesting and avoiding Rice Stadium.

I am not saying that people shouldn't react the way they are. But we need to remember that our fan base/alumni support is a huge issue.

The coaching salaries you advocate are great. At U of H, they are occurring because alumni are giving money specifically for that purpose.

The fact U of H can do that, and we don't (expecting the University to just blow up a line item in the budget) is why they were front and center in the recent Big 12 discussions, and we were in credits for the cast of the crowd scene.

(10-19-2016 08:22 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote:  Not arguing with your premise, just that it doesn't seem to fit the reality of Rice's budget, and it seems unlikely that the budget would change significantly enough to fund your premise. I suspect the budget for athletics has already been increased somewhat over the last couple of years. You are talking about a significant increase of the total budget for only one line item.

It's kind of like the conference realignment discussions where everyone realizes (or if they don't, they missed out on the direct statements to this effect made by the Big 12), that eyeballs and butts in the seat are as big a factor as any in determining who gets included and who doesn't. We have the second smallest enrollment in Division 1 athletics (for football at least), and anyone who comes to our games can quickly see the age deomographic of our alumni fan base. We nod our heads at our attendance and blithely avoid discussing this aspect of realignment when we compare ourselves to other schools hoping to 'move up'.

I get that Rice fans are upset about football results the last two years. But suggestions of boycotting games and withholding support are understandable, they are never going to be helpful in terms of realignment. Attendance will drop when results are bad. But even when results are bad at A&M, or Tennessee, the crowd drop off doesn't look like what some here are willing to contribute to by protesting and avoiding Rice Stadium.

I am not saying that people shouldn't react the way they are. But we need to remember that our fan base/alumni support is a huge issue.

The coaching salaries you advocate are great. At U of H, they are occurring because alumni are giving money specifically for that purpose.

The fact U of H can do that, and we don't (expecting the University to just blow up a line item in the budget) is why they were front and center in the recent Big 12 discussions, and we were in credits for the cast of the crowd scene.

I agree with you that the admin doesn't seem to see it that way. I think Rice has to pay a premium for coaching over what it presently does that attracts at least mid-level P5 coaching prospects to South Main. It's just basic economics to me. And the economics of trying to do this on the cheap for 40 years have proven not to work. I hope we don't go try to go cheap yet again and expect anything much different. Pull the plug completely instead if saving the $2 million per year is so darm important and we are in such danger of closing the university down because of football costing too much.

Truth is we have the money in the budget. We need to recognize what we are paying for: Marketing/future student recruitment/reputation(rankings in USNWR, Money, etc...) and development(future donations to the school). I think that is worth at least $10 million more per year, honestly, but I'm being conservative with the additional $3.5 to $4 million to get us to spend the $6 million.

Sometimes those in the crowd get a line in the movie, so it can happen:

Before the awesome, classic series opener, there was this intro to the Six Million Dollar Man. It appeared on the last two made for TV movies (out of three) that predate the series. The movies were "Wine, Women, and War" and "The Solid Gold Kidnapping". The singer is Dusty Springfield: