CSNbbs

Interesting graphic.

Please delete this and deny it ever exists. (Before Bobby's agent reads)

(12-16-2016 10:14 AM)ODUBB35 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting graphic.

I am not sure whether we are fiscally brilliant or should be horribly embarrassed.

I am sure that Western Michigan gets the best bang for the buck, as they not only have 13 wins but are also nationally ranked.

UVA is beyond laughable.

Let's be realistic - any G5 coach who approaches 10 wins is going to look like a bargain.

(12-16-2016 10:14 AM)ODUBB35 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting graphic.

I understand that they want to have the more well known schools at the top so that people will look at the list, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the teams with the BEST cost per win ration ranked the highest and not the WORST?

(12-16-2016 11:04 AM)ODU804 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2016 10:14 AM)ODUBB35 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting graphic.

I understand that they want to have the more well known schools at the top so that people will look at the list, but wouldn't it make more sense to have the teams with the BEST cost per win ration ranked the highest and not the WORST?

Yeah, they could have headlined it "Best Bargain" and led with the schools that paid the least to get the most.

Also, using ODU's cost-per-win number, had the Monarchs possessed Ohio State's coaching budget, they would have ... 60.5 wins this season. And probably still be playing in the Bahamas Bowl.

(12-16-2016 10:14 AM)ODUBB35 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting graphic.

Wow, Virginia is a forest fire of money up in smoke. Looks like we got our monies worth with the 9 wins. I do think Old Dominion works consistently as a trustee of fiscal responsibility in the athletic department.

I believe many schools, as we all move forward, especially schools not in the power conferences (FCS & G5's) will be forced to make tough decisions. Are the economics of athletics at the college level worth the investment. The climate of decreaseing revenues will bring many changes and force athletic departments to evaluate the needs, wants, and the direction of their future athletic expenditures. The big question that will be asked over and over is if the impact, overall exposure and is the enhancement to the University worth the equitable expenditures to continue to fully fund an athletics department. Is the mission of the school elevated and enhanced because of the massive investment in athletics. IMO, in the future we will see this take its toll on many schools, and many will be forced to make cuts or eliminate non revenue sports at the college level. I also believe this will eventually dictate more realignment within the G5 conferences in the future.

When you get P5 media money you can afford to light your cigars with $1000 bills, especially if you only lit two of them.

(12-16-2016 11:43 AM)ODU Oldtimer Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-16-2016 10:14 AM)ODUBB35 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting graphic.

Wow, Virginia is a forest fire of money up in smoke. Looks like we got our monies worth with the 9 wins. I do think Old Dominion works consistently as a trustee of fiscal responsibility in the athletic department.

I believe many schools, as we all move forward, especially schools not in the power conferences (FCS & G5's) will be forced to make tough decisions. Are the economics of athletics at the college level worth the investment. The climate of decreaseing revenues will bring many changes and force athletic departments to evaluate the needs, wants, and the direction of their future athletic expenditures. The big question that will be asked over and over is if the impact, overall exposure and is the enhancement to the University worth the equitable expenditures to continue to fully fund an athletics department. Is the mission of the school elevated and enhanced because of the massive investment in athletics. IMO, in the future we will see this take its toll on many schools, and many will be forced to make cuts or eliminate non revenue sports at the college level. I also believe this will eventually dictate more realignment within the G5 conferences in the future.

Bronco has only been at UVA for 1 year, and is taking over a disaster of a program. He needs a couple years, at least.

This is a good resource, as it also shows total pay for assistants.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries

(12-16-2016 12:51 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote: [ -> ]This is a good resource, as it also shows total pay for assistants.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/salaries

It is not as bad as we it might first appear.

As you can see, we are ranked 97.
Until this year's winning season, I suspect our program ranking was similar or worse, making the salary in fact commensurate with performance.

And we did indeed renegotiate after this season.

I see that as a wtf moment for p5 pay. It's really out of control.

Posted from mobile device. Hopefully it's coherent.

It's also worth noting that cost-per-win on its own says almost nothing. As one poster pointed out, Virginia's trying to fix a superfund site of a football program. They may have paid out for a name coach but they're also not delusional enough (you'd hope?) to expect 8-10 wins in the first season. For another, nine wins in a better conference are worth way more than nine wins in CUSA. For yet another, it doesn't factor in previous performance, potential, engagement with fans or any of the other 100 bells and whistles associated with college football.

It's a cute number but it really says nothing. By its nature, the best value for coaching money is always going to be the G5 programs with the best records. Alabama will never get the same value by that very specific measure for 14 wins than UAB would for six, but for the school and its fans, they'll consider it a bargain well worth striking.

And also remember that not all 10 win seasons are the same. I'd like to see these numbers run with some weight added for strength of victories. Ten wins in the SEC is a little different than 10 in the CUSA.

Traditional media and newspaper sites are doing nothing now other than report things they hope people will talk about, share on message boards, tweet, etc. I assume they are also smart enough to know that this particular statistic means absolutely nothing.

In this instance, whoever put it together did a good job because they are probably getting plenty of clicks on it.