Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
odu09 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,425
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Norfolk
Post: #61
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-01-2018 09:23 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  Obviously as has been pointed out, Marshall’s room for growth is severely limited. I do know there is a major fundraising plan in the works a new baseball stadium and upgrades to the Henderson Center and our tennis complex. All done with private funds. We’ll see how that goes.

Hell, maybe in 10 years we’ll be D2 and some of you guys may be in the AAC or better.

Or we could have a competent commissioner who doesn't allow any schools in the conference to fall into dust. Does that fall into the commissioner's responsibility? It should.
07-02-2018 07:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODU AGGIE Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,642
Joined: Sep 2012
Reputation: 171
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location:
Post: #62
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 07:05 AM)odu09 Wrote:  
(07-01-2018 09:23 AM)SVHerd Wrote:  Obviously as has been pointed out, Marshall’s room for growth is severely limited. I do know there is a major fundraising plan in the works a new baseball stadium and upgrades to the Henderson Center and our tennis complex. All done with private funds. We’ll see how that goes.

Hell, maybe in 10 years we’ll be D2 and some of you guys may be in the AAC or better.

Or we could have a competent commissioner who doesn't allow any schools in the conference to fall into dust. Does that fall into the commissioner's responsibility? It should.

I believe that responsibility would lie squarely with the other school presidents. If a school is consistently failing in its representation of the conference, the other members should provide the ultimatum. Fix it, or be gone.
07-02-2018 07:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 210
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #63
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 09:16 AM by Side Show Joe.)
07-02-2018 09:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUFan518 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,734
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: WKU
Location: Lexington KY
Post: #64
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.

Really? I don't buy that at all......north Texas has one good season in football and now there will be a competitive gap? WKU, Marshall, La. Tech. are not going away any time soon.....These schools still will be competitive despite any gaps between money.....Money is not be all end all, I think coaches matter more than money......
07-02-2018 09:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fish Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 43
I Root For: FIU
Location:
Post: #65
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 09:37 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.

Really? I don't buy that at all......north Texas has one good season in football and now there will be a competitive gap? WKU, Marshall, La. Tech. are not going away any time soon.....These schools still will be competitive despite any gaps between money.....Money is not be all end all, I think coaches matter more than money......

You are correct, but money certainly helps getting better coaches!
07-02-2018 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUFan518 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,734
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: WKU
Location: Lexington KY
Post: #66
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 09:48 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:37 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.

Really? I don't buy that at all......north Texas has one good season in football and now there will be a competitive gap? WKU, Marshall, La. Tech. are not going away any time soon.....These schools still will be competitive despite any gaps between money.....Money is not be all end all, I think coaches matter more than money......

You are correct, but money certainly helps getting better coaches!

Not necessarily we are paying our current football coach almost double what Brohm made his first couple of seasons and he has done nothing so far.....We are all in still in same boat regardless of who has more money, Still any one of us will be poached by a "P5' school regardless where your budgets stands in CUSA...
07-02-2018 09:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fish Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,074
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation: 43
I Root For: FIU
Location:
Post: #67
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 09:50 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:48 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:37 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.

Really? I don't buy that at all......north Texas has one good season in football and now there will be a competitive gap? WKU, Marshall, La. Tech. are not going away any time soon.....These schools still will be competitive despite any gaps between money.....Money is not be all end all, I think coaches matter more than money......

You are correct, but money certainly helps getting better coaches!

Not necessarily we are paying our current football coach almost double what Brohm made his first couple of seasons and he has done nothing so far.....We are all in still in same boat regardless of who has more money, Still any one of us will be poached by a "P5' school regardless where your budgets stands in CUSA...

One could argue if WKU had a larger budget, they would have never lost Brohm in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but typically speaking, the better performing coaches get paid more monies.
07-02-2018 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUFan518 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,734
Joined: Mar 2009
Reputation: 26
I Root For: WKU
Location: Lexington KY
Post: #68
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 09:56 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:50 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:48 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:37 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.

Really? I don't buy that at all......north Texas has one good season in football and now there will be a competitive gap? WKU, Marshall, La. Tech. are not going away any time soon.....These schools still will be competitive despite any gaps between money.....Money is not be all end all, I think coaches matter more than money......

You are correct, but money certainly helps getting better coaches!

Not necessarily we are paying our current football coach almost double what Brohm made his first couple of seasons and he has done nothing so far.....We are all in still in same boat regardless of who has more money, Still any one of us will be poached by a "P5' school regardless where your budgets stands in CUSA...

One could argue if WKU had a larger budget, they would have never lost Brohm in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but typically speaking, the better performing coaches get paid more monies.

So you are saying at FIU if you had Brohm and a P5 school came along after he won 2 CUSA titles, you would be able to pay enough to keep him at FIU? I don't think it matters how much more money FIU has you would still lose him to a P5 school.....No way any of us can match a P5 school, I don't care if you are one of the top CUSA schools in terms of budget.....
07-02-2018 10:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 210
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #69
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 10:00 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:56 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:50 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:48 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:37 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Really? I don't buy that at all......north Texas has one good season in football and now there will be a competitive gap? WKU, Marshall, La. Tech. are not going away any time soon.....These schools still will be competitive despite any gaps between money.....Money is not be all end all, I think coaches matter more than money......

You are correct, but money certainly helps getting better coaches!

Not necessarily we are paying our current football coach almost double what Brohm made his first couple of seasons and he has done nothing so far.....We are all in still in same boat regardless of who has more money, Still any one of us will be poached by a "P5' school regardless where your budgets stands in CUSA...

One could argue if WKU had a larger budget, they would have never lost Brohm in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but typically speaking, the better performing coaches get paid more monies.

So you are saying at FIU if you had Brohm and a P5 school came along after he won 2 CUSA titles, you would be able to pay enough to keep him at FIU? I don't think it matters how much more money FIU has you would still lose him to a P5 school.....No way any of us can match a P5 school, I don't care if you are one of the top CUSA schools in terms of budget.....

Money can't save any of us from losing coaches to the middle to better programs in the P5, but it can insulate us from the lower programs. Look at Houston. They pay their coach very well, and yes they lose their coaches to the P5s too, but they lost their last two coaches to Texas and Texas A&M. The Kansas and Iowa State's of the Big 12 were not able to snatch them, and that has allowed Houston to become a major player among the G5, and regularly compete with many P5 programs. The programs in C-USA that can pay more will be able to follow a similar strategy going forward. So yes, money does matter, and if the gap continues to grow, some in C-USA could find their programs at a competitive disadvantage.
07-02-2018 10:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chidave Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 644
Joined: Jul 2013
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location:
Post: #70
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
https://www.underdogdynasty.com/2018/3/7...a-atlantic

Did money play a role here? Budget isn't the end all be all or lord knows Charlotte would be performing better but it does make a difference, especially when a school gets an aggressive AD and coach.
07-02-2018 10:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,942
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 489
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #71
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 10:21 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:00 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:56 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:50 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:48 AM)Fish Wrote:  You are correct, but money certainly helps getting better coaches!

Not necessarily we are paying our current football coach almost double what Brohm made his first couple of seasons and he has done nothing so far.....We are all in still in same boat regardless of who has more money, Still any one of us will be poached by a "P5' school regardless where your budgets stands in CUSA...

One could argue if WKU had a larger budget, they would have never lost Brohm in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but typically speaking, the better performing coaches get paid more monies.

So you are saying at FIU if you had Brohm and a P5 school came along after he won 2 CUSA titles, you would be able to pay enough to keep him at FIU? I don't think it matters how much more money FIU has you would still lose him to a P5 school.....No way any of us can match a P5 school, I don't care if you are one of the top CUSA schools in terms of budget.....

Money can't save any of us from losing coaches to the middle to better programs in the P5, but it can insulate us from the lower programs. Look at Houston. They pay their coach very well, and yes they lose their coaches to the P5s too, but they lost their last two coaches to Texas and Texas A&M. The Kansas and Iowa State's of the Big 12 were not able to snatch them, and that has allowed Houston to become a major player among the G5, and regularly compete with many P5 programs. The programs in C-USA that can pay more will be able to follow a similar strategy going forward. So yes, money does matter, and if the gap continues to grow, some in C-USA could find their programs at a competitive disadvantage.


There is not one school in CUSA that can hold on to a football coach if a SEC school wants him. Not unless that school is facing major probation or something like that.

If a Miss or KY or Vandy offers $2 million and UNT offers 2.2million....SEC wins out. If they offers 2.5 million and UNT offers 2.7 million. SEC wins out

If he stays at UNT he knows he cant get to that 5 million a year job and have a chance at a national championship. You can do both at the lowest rung of the SEC, Big 10, Big12, Pac 12, ACC

You are dreaming if you think UNT can compete with the lowest of the lowest in a P5 conference. What's going to end up happening is something like ULL went through..

thinking you have a winner and over paying. Not only over paying but paying more than UNT can afford to buyout. That is more likely than keeping up with the lowest of the P5

UNT's coach is gone the very first time a SEC school wants him. The problem is he really hasn't won anything. Other than win a weak western of the CUSA.

Other than that what has that money bought UNT?
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 11:03 AM by WKUYG.)
07-02-2018 11:00 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Auburn_Blazer Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 352
Joined: Apr 2018
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Auburn & UAB
Location:
Post: #72
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
I wish they kept yearly logs. If I remember correctly, UAB was at $30M for FY2016 and has now dipped to $24.8M for FY2017. But that dip also came from a $5M drop in allocation, something BlazerTalk is currently going bananas over.
07-02-2018 11:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,942
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 489
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #73
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 11:01 AM)Auburn_Blazer Wrote:  I wish they kept yearly logs. If I remember correctly, UAB was at $30M for FY2016 and has now dipped to $24.8M for FY2017. But that dip also came from a $5M drop in allocation, something BlazerTalk is currently going bananas over.

click on a schools name and it goes back to 2005
07-02-2018 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Auburn_Blazer Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 352
Joined: Apr 2018
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Auburn & UAB
Location:
Post: #74
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 11:04 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 11:01 AM)Auburn_Blazer Wrote:  I wish they kept yearly logs. If I remember correctly, UAB was at $30M for FY2016 and has now dipped to $24.8M for FY2017. But that dip also came from a $5M drop in allocation, something BlazerTalk is currently going bananas over.

click on a schools name and it goes back to 2005

Can't believe I didn't notice that earlier.
07-02-2018 11:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 210
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #75
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 11:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:21 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:00 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:56 AM)Fish Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:50 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  Not necessarily we are paying our current football coach almost double what Brohm made his first couple of seasons and he has done nothing so far.....We are all in still in same boat regardless of who has more money, Still any one of us will be poached by a "P5' school regardless where your budgets stands in CUSA...

One could argue if WKU had a larger budget, they would have never lost Brohm in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but typically speaking, the better performing coaches get paid more monies.

So you are saying at FIU if you had Brohm and a P5 school came along after he won 2 CUSA titles, you would be able to pay enough to keep him at FIU? I don't think it matters how much more money FIU has you would still lose him to a P5 school.....No way any of us can match a P5 school, I don't care if you are one of the top CUSA schools in terms of budget.....

Money can't save any of us from losing coaches to the middle to better programs in the P5, but it can insulate us from the lower programs. Look at Houston. They pay their coach very well, and yes they lose their coaches to the P5s too, but they lost their last two coaches to Texas and Texas A&M. The Kansas and Iowa State's of the Big 12 were not able to snatch them, and that has allowed Houston to become a major player among the G5, and regularly compete with many P5 programs. The programs in C-USA that can pay more will be able to follow a similar strategy going forward. So yes, money does matter, and if the gap continues to grow, some in C-USA could find their programs at a competitive disadvantage.


There is not one school in CUSA that can hold on to a football coach if a SEC school wants him. Not unless that school is facing major probation or something like that.

If a Miss or KY or Vandy offers $2 million and UNT offers 2.2million....SEC wins out. If they offers 2.5 million and UNT offers 2.7 million. SEC wins out

If he stays at UNT he knows he cant get to that 5 million a year job and have a chance at a national championship. You can do both at the lowest rung of the SEC, Big 10, Big12, Pac 12, ACC

You are dreaming if you think UNT can compete with the lowest of the lowest in a P5 conference. What's going to end up happening is something like ULL went through..

thinking you have a winner and over paying. Not only over paying but paying more than UNT can afford to buyout. That is more likely than keeping up with the lowest of the P5

UNT's coach is gone the very first time a SEC school wants him. The problem is he really hasn't won anything. Other than win a weak western of the CUSA.

Other than that what has that money bought UNT?

Kentucky is a football coaching graveyard. Every coach they've had this century has had a losing record. Guy Morriss is the only Kentucky coach that has been hired away for another job, and that was in 2002. The power house SEC programs couldn't even fend off Baylor from hiring him away. By the way, North Texas beat the 2003 Morriss Baylor team.

Vandy is a dead end SEC job too. Only James Franklin has been able to escape that steaming pile. Like Kentucky, no Vandy coach has had a wining record at that school this century, including Franklin. So, Yes I believe C-USA teams that invest in their coaching can certainly keep their coaches from ruining their careers by taking lower P5 Jobs.

ULL did overpay for Hud, but no bigger programs came along and hired him away..... ULL did a few things that placed them in a bad spot. Hud got them in trouble with the NCAA (academic fraud and payments to players), and they were forced to vacate wins. ULL was stupid to expand their stadium to 41,000. I think they averaged about 15,000 last season.

This isn't about North Texas, but I believe our AD understands the finances of the UNT program. I think we are spending the extra money wisely. I've posted a few threads regarding how UNT is investing our resources (turf, track/soccer stadium, indoor practice facility,...). You can go look those up if you feel like it.

Look, this is about how the better funded programs, not exclusively North Texas, will be better positioned to retain their coaches. You can believe differently if you choose, but Houston has proven more money, to some degree, can protect a program from being raided by lower P5 programs.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 02:14 PM by Side Show Joe.)
07-02-2018 02:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,942
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 489
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #76
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 02:05 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 11:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:21 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:00 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:56 AM)Fish Wrote:  One could argue if WKU had a larger budget, they would have never lost Brohm in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to everything, but typically speaking, the better performing coaches get paid more monies.

So you are saying at FIU if you had Brohm and a P5 school came along after he won 2 CUSA titles, you would be able to pay enough to keep him at FIU? I don't think it matters how much more money FIU has you would still lose him to a P5 school.....No way any of us can match a P5 school, I don't care if you are one of the top CUSA schools in terms of budget.....

Money can't save any of us from losing coaches to the middle to better programs in the P5, but it can insulate us from the lower programs. Look at Houston. They pay their coach very well, and yes they lose their coaches to the P5s too, but they lost their last two coaches to Texas and Texas A&M. The Kansas and Iowa State's of the Big 12 were not able to snatch them, and that has allowed Houston to become a major player among the G5, and regularly compete with many P5 programs. The programs in C-USA that can pay more will be able to follow a similar strategy going forward. So yes, money does matter, and if the gap continues to grow, some in C-USA could find their programs at a competitive disadvantage.


There is not one school in CUSA that can hold on to a football coach if a SEC school wants him. Not unless that school is facing major probation or something like that.

If a Miss or KY or Vandy offers $2 million and UNT offers 2.2million....SEC wins out. If they offers 2.5 million and UNT offers 2.7 million. SEC wins out

If he stays at UNT he knows he cant get to that 5 million a year job and have a chance at a national championship. You can do both at the lowest rung of the SEC, Big 10, Big12, Pac 12, ACC

You are dreaming if you think UNT can compete with the lowest of the lowest in a P5 conference. What's going to end up happening is something like ULL went through..

thinking you have a winner and over paying. Not only over paying but paying more than UNT can afford to buyout. That is more likely than keeping up with the lowest of the P5

UNT's coach is gone the very first time a SEC school wants him. The problem is he really hasn't won anything. Other than win a weak western of the CUSA.

Other than that what has that money bought UNT?

Kentucky is a football coaching graveyard. Every coach they've had this century has had a losing record. Guy Morriss is the only Kentucky coach that has been hired away for another job, and that was in 2002. The power house SEC programs couldn't even fend off Baylor from hiring him away. By the way, North Texas beat the 2003 Morriss Baylor team.

Vandy is a dead end SEC job too. Only James Franklin has been able to escape that steaming pile. Like Kentucky, no Vandy coach has had a wining record at that school this century, including Franklin. So, Yes I believe C-USA teams that invest in their coaching can certainly keep their coaches from ruining their careers by taking lower P5 Jobs.

Does Not Matter....if they want the UNT coach he will take one of those jobs over UNT.

BTW if those two are considered dead end jobs.... UNT?
07-02-2018 02:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ghostofclt Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,286
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 79
I Root For: Charlotte
Location:
Post: #77
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.


clt says you forgot Charlotte. In the past 10 years, we built a $60M football complex, sold seat lisences for that stadium, and are constantly improving facilities.

And now we have an AD that gets it, and we just hired the #2 from Syracuse for the same position. Charlotte just increased the new goal for the current funraising effort.
07-02-2018 03:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 210
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #78
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 02:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 02:05 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 11:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:21 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:00 AM)WKUFan518 Wrote:  So you are saying at FIU if you had Brohm and a P5 school came along after he won 2 CUSA titles, you would be able to pay enough to keep him at FIU? I don't think it matters how much more money FIU has you would still lose him to a P5 school.....No way any of us can match a P5 school, I don't care if you are one of the top CUSA schools in terms of budget.....

Money can't save any of us from losing coaches to the middle to better programs in the P5, but it can insulate us from the lower programs. Look at Houston. They pay their coach very well, and yes they lose their coaches to the P5s too, but they lost their last two coaches to Texas and Texas A&M. The Kansas and Iowa State's of the Big 12 were not able to snatch them, and that has allowed Houston to become a major player among the G5, and regularly compete with many P5 programs. The programs in C-USA that can pay more will be able to follow a similar strategy going forward. So yes, money does matter, and if the gap continues to grow, some in C-USA could find their programs at a competitive disadvantage.


There is not one school in CUSA that can hold on to a football coach if a SEC school wants him. Not unless that school is facing major probation or something like that.

If a Miss or KY or Vandy offers $2 million and UNT offers 2.2million....SEC wins out. If they offers 2.5 million and UNT offers 2.7 million. SEC wins out

If he stays at UNT he knows he cant get to that 5 million a year job and have a chance at a national championship. You can do both at the lowest rung of the SEC, Big 10, Big12, Pac 12, ACC

You are dreaming if you think UNT can compete with the lowest of the lowest in a P5 conference. What's going to end up happening is something like ULL went through..

thinking you have a winner and over paying. Not only over paying but paying more than UNT can afford to buyout. That is more likely than keeping up with the lowest of the P5

UNT's coach is gone the very first time a SEC school wants him. The problem is he really hasn't won anything. Other than win a weak western of the CUSA.

Other than that what has that money bought UNT?

Kentucky is a football coaching graveyard. Every coach they've had this century has had a losing record. Guy Morriss is the only Kentucky coach that has been hired away for another job, and that was in 2002. The power house SEC programs couldn't even fend off Baylor from hiring him away. By the way, North Texas beat the 2003 Morriss Baylor team.

Vandy is a dead end SEC job too. Only James Franklin has been able to escape that steaming pile. Like Kentucky, no Vandy coach has had a wining record at that school this century, including Franklin. So, Yes I believe C-USA teams that invest in their coaching can certainly keep their coaches from ruining their careers by taking lower P5 Jobs.

Does Not Matter....if they want the UNT coach he will take one of those jobs over UNT.

BTW if those two are considered dead end jobs.... UNT?

Everything you have written is just your opinion. You have no clue what Littrell will do when and if he is offered a job. You have never spoken to the man and you don't know what his career goals are for him and his family. I will make another bold statement... If Seth Littrell leaves UNT, it will not be to take over at Kentucky or Vandy. Write it in your book and throw it in my face if I'm wrong. We will see.

BTW... if you are implying North Texas is a dead end job, then why are you even speculating Littrell will be hired away? If UNT is truly a dead end job, then why would any program want to hire away our coach? Your entire train of thought is flawed.
07-02-2018 04:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Side Show Joe Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,386
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 210
I Root For: North Texas
Location: TEXAS
Post: #79
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 03:33 PM)ghostofclt Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 09:15 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Reading these discussions about how the size of our universities and strength of our state and local economies, reminds me of the old debate about how C-USA chose to expand. Many laughed and complained about C-USA selecting large universities in major media markets, but I think we are now seeing the logic behind it.

FIU, UNT, and FAU are the three largest universities in C-USA, and because of their size and locations in states with strong economies, those three, along with MT, are investing in their athletics at a higher rate then all the other programs in C-USA, with the exception of ODU. In the past 10 years (2008-2017), North Texas has raised their athletic budget by $20,000,000. FIU has raised their budget by $18 million. And, FAU and MT have raised their budgets by $15 million. No other C-USA programs are even close. I believe this growing gap could eventually create competitive problems for some of the lower funded programs in our conference.


clt says you forgot Charlotte. In the past 10 years, we built a $60M football complex, sold seat lisences for that stadium, and are constantly improving facilities.

And now we have an AD that gets it, and we just hired the #2 from Syracuse for the same position. Charlotte just increased the new goal for the current funraising effort.

I thought about Charlotte, but you guys are so new I just don't know how committed you are, especially when Lambert is still your coach. If he was gone and we knew who was leading Charlotte going forward, I'd certainly rethink the situation.

ODU is up there leading the way in athletic budgets. They appear to be serious. My only concern is their rumblings of restructuring with the Sun Belt. I think that is small time thinking, and gives me reservations about the direction of their leadership.

UTSA is another new FBS program that I believe will be a force going forward. They are doing a good job of developing revenue streams and they are the only game in one of the fastest growing US markets. Once they build facilities, and have a few more years under their belt, watch out.

Rice is a wildcard. They are a very wealthy private university and we have no idea what resources they currently commit to athletics. If they decide they want to be a major force at our level of football, and are willing to spend the money necessary, then they will be.

It will certainly be fun to revisit this topic in five more seasons.
(This post was last modified: 07-02-2018 04:31 PM by Side Show Joe.)
07-02-2018 04:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
WKUYG Away
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,942
Joined: Oct 2012
Reputation: 489
I Root For: WKU
Location:
Post: #80
RE: USA Today released athletic finances for 2016-17
(07-02-2018 04:17 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 02:59 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 02:05 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 11:00 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  
(07-02-2018 10:21 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  Money can't save any of us from losing coaches to the middle to better programs in the P5, but it can insulate us from the lower programs. Look at Houston. They pay their coach very well, and yes they lose their coaches to the P5s too, but they lost their last two coaches to Texas and Texas A&M. The Kansas and Iowa State's of the Big 12 were not able to snatch them, and that has allowed Houston to become a major player among the G5, and regularly compete with many P5 programs. The programs in C-USA that can pay more will be able to follow a similar strategy going forward. So yes, money does matter, and if the gap continues to grow, some in C-USA could find their programs at a competitive disadvantage.


There is not one school in CUSA that can hold on to a football coach if a SEC school wants him. Not unless that school is facing major probation or something like that.

If a Miss or KY or Vandy offers $2 million and UNT offers 2.2million....SEC wins out. If they offers 2.5 million and UNT offers 2.7 million. SEC wins out

If he stays at UNT he knows he cant get to that 5 million a year job and have a chance at a national championship. You can do both at the lowest rung of the SEC, Big 10, Big12, Pac 12, ACC

You are dreaming if you think UNT can compete with the lowest of the lowest in a P5 conference. What's going to end up happening is something like ULL went through..

thinking you have a winner and over paying. Not only over paying but paying more than UNT can afford to buyout. That is more likely than keeping up with the lowest of the P5

UNT's coach is gone the very first time a SEC school wants him. The problem is he really hasn't won anything. Other than win a weak western of the CUSA.

Other than that what has that money bought UNT?

Kentucky is a football coaching graveyard. Every coach they've had this century has had a losing record. Guy Morriss is the only Kentucky coach that has been hired away for another job, and that was in 2002. The power house SEC programs couldn't even fend off Baylor from hiring him away. By the way, North Texas beat the 2003 Morriss Baylor team.

Vandy is a dead end SEC job too. Only James Franklin has been able to escape that steaming pile. Like Kentucky, no Vandy coach has had a wining record at that school this century, including Franklin. So, Yes I believe C-USA teams that invest in their coaching can certainly keep their coaches from ruining their careers by taking lower P5 Jobs.

Does Not Matter....if they want the UNT coach he will take one of those jobs over UNT.

BTW if those two are considered dead end jobs.... UNT?

Everything you have written is just your opinion. You have no clue what Littrell will do when and if he is offered a job. You have never spoken to the man and you don't know what his career goals are for him and his family. I will make another bold statement... If Seth Littrell leaves UNT, it will not be to take over at Kentucky or Vandy. Write it in your book and throw it in my face if I'm wrong. We will see.

BTW... if you are implying North Texas is a dead end job, then why are you even speculating Littrell will be hired away? If UNT is truly a dead end job, then why would any program want to hire away our coach? Your entire train of thought is flawed.


I'm saying if it happen he takes the SEC job......

I never said this will take place, I dont believe it will. Hell I've not seen anything that says UNT will ever win a CUSA championship. But you are fooling yourself if you think a coach picks UNT over any P5 job. I dont have to know the man...history says, it will happen.
07-02-2018 05:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.