Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, statsman said:

Question- how do the donors funding TexasOne feel about this?

I gather that a few guys have been making most of the contributions? I don’t think we should take their generosity for granted. Were they counting on the House settlement picking up a big part of the slack for them, to allow a transition away from big annual donations?

I, of course, don’t k ow shit about fuck, but I kind of think the best long term move for Texas is to use Bellmont fundraising from rank and file to fund TexasOne. 

There’s a reason OneFund announced they were remaining independent. This is good for us. 

47 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Time to buttfuck Florida.

You’re right, it’s a day that ends in Y. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
2 hours ago, Machinator said:

 

 

2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

What if I cut a deal with a kid for 4909 per week? 4900 per day? Now yall are getting the idea. 

Wait, wouldn't 4,900k be 4,900,000?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 hours ago, Lone Star Horn said:

 

Wait, wouldn't 4,900k be 4,900,000?

 

6 minutes ago, TxEx84 said:

Right. Confusing post.  $4.9M?

USC has multiple dudes signed for 5 million this cycle. Sure, it's spread out over years. But the point is, there is no limit. Hence the whole NOW Y'ALL GET THE IDEA part of my post. 

There will come a kid who makes a 5 million a year deal with some school. 
 

Posted

This is delicious. A SoonerScoop moderator explains how and why OU is where they are. 
 
https://www.on3.com/boards/threads/nil-collectives-that-didnt-last-long.7561589/page-2#post-158787039

Quote

OU did a few things wrong. Going with the wrong collective to start. They picked the Crimson & Cream group that was an outside group focused on running collectives for many schools. They never devoted the resources to truly build out an "in-house" collective. You can blame that on the BMDs and Joe C both.

The multiple rebranding and changing caused a lot of confusion in the marketplace. And Crimson & Cream ended up creating even more confusion by not providing any communication about refunds or switching donations to the new collective.

The people they hired to run the new 1Oklahoma Collective were good people, but they ended up just being a go-between for the BMDs. The whole operation seemed clunky and I don't have the answer to whether that was due to the support they were given or the internal operations as a whole.

I think it was more of a failure to reach people than anything else.

People on the board have continued to make it out that Joe C fumbled the bag on this. He was always planning different strategies to move forward depending on how things worked out. We were involved in a lot of stuff to help out with NIL and none of it ever materialized.

In the end, OU doesn't have the money or fanbase (strictly a population/alumni base problem, not an indictment on the passion of the fanbase as a whole) other places have. They couldn't buy their way around the obstacles like other places have been able to.

The criticism Joe C has taken all centers around one thing. OU doesn't have multi-billionaires who are passionate about winning. Or people married to Larry Ellison.

But as far as Joe C, he hasn't been living in a world with one purpose or one direction. He's been open to all directions this thing could go. And I would bet good money he's had at least 25 to 50 or more plans that just were scrapped based of the twists and turns over the last two years. 

People want to make it out that Joe C was at fault for relying too much on revenue sharing. He was, because the only way around that was to have more money than anyone else. And OU's donors have done a really good job of getting OU to where they are, but they aren't going to outspend some of theses schools. So at some point you hit a brick wall of what you can do.

OU is also losing too much. If OU was winning and in the CFP and competing for national titles, there would be a bigger ground swell of support. 

In the end, this is a leadership issue from the very top down in my mind. Everyone can share in some of the blame. But the NCAA has the most blame. They've let their members hang out to dry with very little guidance or help. They've been waiting around for the courts. 

And I think in the end, and I've said this many times, universities are not businesses. They don't run like a business. They don't think like a business. And when you have multiple departments that have to work together to adapt to the biggest change in the history of college athletics, you see how the red tape and inefficiency across departments makes it almost impossible to be nimble as an entire entity. 

The only way to navigate all of this is to bypass the bureaucracy and use the blunt force of money to accomplish your goals. And OU was never in a position to do that. 

It will be interesting to see what collectives are able to accomplish moving forward. Interesting to see what type of limitations are placed on them. But I would say turning over your collective to your MMR partner looks bad on the surface. But I do think they'll do a better job putting together legitimate NIL deals than anyone has done so far.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

That's some delightful reading.  They scapegoated Castiglione and his removal isn't going to solve most of their actual problems.

Edited by kevwun
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

for the past 75 years, 0u has been buying national championships by handshaking or bagging the signatures of texas kids, especially from north texas

the numbers may have been an order of magnitude less

and most of the money was spent on the original commit

but what comes around goes around

plus, switzer and stoops

karma is a bitch

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, statsman said:

This is delicious. A SoonerScoop moderator explains how and why OU is where they are. 
 
https://www.on3.com/boards/threads/nil-collectives-that-didnt-last-long.7561589/page-2#post-158787039

 

So much to love. 

Quote

In the end, OU doesn't have the money or fanbase (strictly a population/alumni base problem, not an indictment on the passion of the fanbase as a whole) other places have. They couldn't buy their way around the obstacles like other places have been able to.
 

It's not an indictment on the PASSION, of our fanbase, but it's certainly an indictment on the general success in life of their fucking fanbase and alumni, which is stupid, poor, unsuccessful, and so fucking stupid it had to be said twice. And that doesn't even get into their general hygiene and average number of teeth per imbecile. 

"It's not an indictment on their passion, just every other aspect of their humanity." Fucking losers.

Additionally, the rest of the article is also delicious. "Well, the real problem is a lack of guidance from the NCAA..." OH, is that so? If they'd been more clear in their direction would that have magically filled your pathetic coffers? No. 

"Universities aren't run like businesses." Weird, one University with a great fucking business school seems to have figured out how to cut through bureaucracy and red tape. Mostly because a bunch of alums from the school figured out how to cut the fucking red tape. 

Reading that got me harder than Helobious when a DT prospect officially visits Texas. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

Ran across an interesting and detailed report on UW-Milwaukee athletics yesterday and am highlighting parts to illustrate how vulnerable most departments are for optional distribution of $20 million in revenue to ALL their athletes, especially as the revenue-sharing cap escalates. Helps put both revenue sharing and NIL in perspective. I've supplemented my notes with outside information.

Some things to keep in mind: UWM has no football team, but is D1 and its men's basketball has made two Sweet 16s in its history (the last in 2005). It has three consecutive 20-win seasons under third-year coach Bart Lundy. Last time they did that (four consecutive) was also when they made the Sweet 16. UWM has 22K students, about the size of Iowa and slightly more than Baylor. Has 15 D1 teams (eight men's, seven women's).

Note that half of the $10 million budget is salaries and fringe benefits. But only two athletics officials (Lundy, at $430K, and AD Amanda Braun, around $250K) are making much to speak of. About three dozen folks are listed on the athletics pages as being salaried, if I recall correctly -- many not making much, like part-time academic advisors.

By far the biggest revenue source is student segregated fees ($7.1 million). Looked this up separately, and each student pays $700 a semester for this. Pretty standard stuff -- pays for rec centers and gets students game tickets.

Note also that game operation expenses are more than double ticket-sales revenue. 

"Athletic student aid" is roughly $2,000 per athlete (about 300 total). This figure does not include room and board provision for athletes and a few other provisions that come out of other campus budgets.

Bottom line is that most D1 schools with football are much closer to UW-Milwaukee in budgeting than they are to Texas and Ohio State at north of $250 million.  I posted elsewhere that once you get past the 60 or so top schools, revenues are starting to top out around $65-70 million for football schools. But there are 261 D1 schools who play football (about half of them in FCS). 

Quick AI searches: James Madison, for instance, had about $68 million in revenue, with a whopping $53 million from student fees. Think about the implications of that: I'm a JMU student and I pay mandatory money to keep football players at their training table and getting a salary? And then they portal out?

Somewhere, there's a student government association president wondering why the SGA doesn't have the primary voice in running the athletic program, since it's the primary funder.

FCS football power South Dakota State had a $20 million athletic budget overall. How is it going to give $20 million in revenue to athletes?

Here's a screenshot from the 81-page report (which was given to the Wisconsin Board of Regents if you want to see it -- it's at the end of the audit committee report). 

image.thumb.png.2c2daf36c69f782a7cbfc6df4238533a.png

 

Edited by Hayduke
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Hayduke said:

Ran across an interesting and detailed report on UW-Milwaukee athletics yesterday and am highlighting parts to illustrate how vulnerable most departments are for optional distribution of $20 million in revenue to ALL their athletes, especially as the revenue-sharing cap escalates. Helps put both revenue sharing and NIL in perspective. I've supplemented my notes with outside information.

Some things to keep in mind: UWM has no football team, but is D1 and its men's basketball has made two Sweet 16s in its history (the last in 2005). It has three consecutive 20-win seasons under third-year coach Bart Lundy. Last time they did that (four consecutive) was also when they made the Sweet 16. UWM has 22K students, about the size of Iowa and slightly more than Baylor. Has 15 D1 teams (eight men's, seven women's).

Note that half of the $10 million budget is salaries and fringe benefits. But only two athletics officials (Lundy, at $430K, and AD Amanda Braun, around $250K) are making much to speak of. About three dozen folks are listed on the athletics pages as being salaried, if I recall correctly -- many not making much, like part-time academic advisors.

By far the biggest revenue source is student segregated fees ($7.1 million). Looked this up separately, and each student pays $700 a semester for this. Pretty standard stuff -- pays for rec centers and gets students game tickets.

Note also that game operation expenses are more than double ticket-sales revenue. 

"Athletic student aid" is roughly $2,000 per athlete (about 300 total). This figure does not include room and board provision for athletes and a few other provisions that come out of other campus budgets.

Bottom line is that most D1 schools with football are much closer to UW-Milwaukee in budgeting than they are to Texas and Ohio State at north of $250 million.  I posted elsewhere that once you get past the 60 or so top schools, revenues are starting to top out around $65-70 million for football schools. But there are 261 D1 schools who play football (about half of them in FCS). 

Quick AI searches: James Madison, for instance, had about $68 million in revenue, with a whopping $53 million from student fees. Think about the implications of that: I'm a JMU student and I pay mandatory money to keep football players at their training table and getting a salary? And then they portal out?

Somewhere, there's a student government association president wondering why the SGA doesn't have the primary voice in running the athletic program, since it's the primary funder.

FCS football power South Dakota State had a $20 million athletic budget overall. How is it going to give $20 million in revenue to athletes?

Here's a screenshot from the 81-page report (which was given to the Wisconsin Board of Regents if you want to see it -- it's at the end of the audit committee report). 

image.thumb.png.2c2daf36c69f782a7cbfc6df4238533a.png

 

Up to 20 million dollars in revenue sharing, schools can spend less than that.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Not a Sock said:

Up to 20 million dollars in revenue sharing, schools can spend less than that.

Right. Why I wrote "optional."  Few schools are going to be able to do that.

When you look at a school like James Madison, it stands to reason that if any of those $53 million in segregated student fees -- which are called that because they go to specific expenditures -- are used to pay athletes directly, there will be questions and blowback. JMU might have enough athletic revenue overall to let bookkeeping magic take broadcast/conference revenue and non-student ticket revenue to pay the athletes. But its bookkeeping expenses will probably go up, too.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...