ADVERTISEMENT

Do You Want To Win...Spend the Money

ghostoffatjack

ghostoffatjack

Sophomore
Jun 15, 2013
1,788
1,477
113
FYI, the local paper listed the BB budgets of the Top Ten spending Universities and all the schools that made it to the NCAA Dance this year :

1. Louisville -$16.35 mil
2. Ky - $16.2
3. Duke - $14.2
4. Oklahoma St. - $11.05
5. Indiana - $10.85
6. Georgetown - $10.27
7. Michigan State - $9.87
8. Arizona - $9.83
9. Texas - $9.59
10. Kansas - $8.74

Some others of note:

Wiscy - $7.6 mil
Maryland - $6,78
Cinn - $6.54
Iowa - $6.5
Purdue - $6.38
Gonzaga - $6.14
OSU - $6.04
ND - $5.39
Butler - $4.06

LENDS a lot of credence to the saying, Wanna win, you gotta spend!

:
 
Originally posted by ghostoffatjack:
FYI, the local paper listed the BB budgets of the Top Ten spending Universities and all the schools that made it to the NCAA Dance this year :

1. Louisville -$16.35 mil
2. Ky - $16.2
3. Duke - $14.2
4. Oklahoma St. - $11.05
5. Indiana - $10.85
6. Georgetown - $10.27
7. Michigan State - $9.87
8. Arizona - $9.83
9. Texas - $9.59
10. Kansas - $8.74

Some others of note:

Wiscy - $7.6 mil
Maryland - $6,78
Cinn - $6.54
Iowa - $6.5
Purdue - $6.38
Gonzaga - $6.14
OSU - $6.04
ND - $5.39
Butler - $4.06

LENDS a lot of credence to the saying, Wanna win, you gotta spend!

:
Click to expand...
The argument doesn't hold much water. The 4 schools listed below us had longer seasons than we did. Actually, we had the shortest season amongst that entire last group you put up.
 
I'm not so sure.

Half of the top 10 (OK State, Indiana, Georgetown, Texas, Kansas) didn't survive the first weekend of this year's tournament. Purdue seems to be spending about what its peers are spending.

My main take away is that schools such as OK State, Indiana, Georgetown, and Texas have been getting a fairly small return on enormous (probably disproportionate) spending on men's basketball.

Purdue is probably always going to be in that second tier of spending - so the key is maximizing available resources. I have to think that both the coaching staff and the athletic administration understand that.
 
I have little knowledge on this topic, so I'm asking anyone that knows: does the AD have complete control over the budget for athletics and how it's used?

I assume yes, but I didn't know if the Board Of Trustees, University President, or whoever had a hand in it as well.
 
Surprising to see O$U so far down on that list. I mean, really? I know it's basketball but come on man.
 
Originally posted by nagemj02:




I have little knowledge on this topic, so I'm asking anyone that knows: does the AD have complete control over the budget for athletics and how it's used?

I assume yes, but I didn't know if the Board Of Trustees, University President, or whoever had a hand in it as well.
Click to expand...
I think you assume incorrectly. Nobody in a public or corporate situation is autonomus. There is no doubt that our AD must propose a budget to the BOD, and to the president. They probably take a sissors to it, and then approve. Our AD must find a way to work under that budget.

He can probably shift funds to some small degree, but even that should be limited. If the BOD think he should spend money on "X", he would be hard pressed to spend that money on "Y:" instead. For example, if he were told to spend $1.5 million on recruiting, then his recruiting budget is probably limited. He can't pull $300k funds for a new popcorn stand and apply them to recruiting arbitrarilly, to increase the recruitiung budget to $1.8 million.

All that said, I beleive quite firmly, that we have under spent on recruiting and on our athletic programs as a whole during the previous administration's oversight. You can trace a deep dip in the quality of players in all our major sports, and even in volley ball, over the 2008-2011 period. This was not due to the efforts of our AD.

cool.r191677.gif

This post was edited on 3/26 10:23 AM by mathboy
 
I have not heard of this happening at Purdue, so its not really fair to say that's what happens. People seem to think that our AD's hands are tied - yet we have 2 very public situations of increased funding of our 2 biggest programs in the last few years where it magically happened with no problems.

As long as no major red flags appear on our athletic departments budget, I don't think there's too much interference from anyone outside the athletic department since the athletic department operates independently of the university. I don't think it is fair to say Morgan Burke is micromanaged.
 
Causation isn't established. It is entirely possible that budgets follow revenues which follow success and not the other way around.

It probably works both ways, but I believe that Purdue spends enough on basketball. The worst case scenario is that every team on the list doubles their spending, resulting in no change in results, but diverting funds from the true mission of the universities.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Year in and Year out most the teams above us are almost always Top 25 and most Top Ten..hard to argue with that fact despite what some have posted! Keep in mind ILL, Mich are not listed since they did not make the dance this year!

It would be interesting where Purdue stands in the B1G 10 (14) in BB budgets! I'll wager not even close to the top 1/2, my guess would be 9th at best!
 
Originally posted by Schnelk:

Surprising to see O$U so far down on that list. I mean, really? I know it's basketball but come on man.
Click to expand...

My exact thought....though I'd imagine most of their $pending is under the table.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by Schnelk:

Surprising to see O$U so far down on that list. I mean, really? I know it's basketball but come on man.
Click to expand...
This list is only legitimate published expenditures. Doe$ not cover hidden co$t$ that O$U might have when recruiting $pecific player$.
 
Originally posted by Schnelk:

Surprising to see O$U so far down on that list. I mean, really? I know it's basketball but come on man.
Click to expand...
Well, as Cardale Jones said, they ain't come to play class--or basketball either.
 
Maybe a dumb question but, as a state university, aren't athletics suppose to be non-profit activities? So they should spend as much as they take in?
 
That's how most athletic departments are set-up these days - an independent budget to the university's.

They project out years in advance how much their anticipated revenue/expenses are and adjust spending to that level.

There's no one on the BOT/President's office telling Morgan how much he can spend on basketball recruiting.
 
Found some 2013 numbers on ILL 6.6 mil, Mich, 5.9 mil and Neb, 6.1 so I would believe two years later those 3 would be above us. Minny spen 5.0 in 2013. PSU and NW numbers are hard to find and no luck with Rutgers so far!
 
Assuming that each scholarship costs $30,000, less than $400k of that $6+m goes to the players. If anything, this argues for diverting more money to the student athletes. As much as I support Coach Painter, I think that it would be a positive thing if he made $130k less and each of the players received a $10k stipend. I know it's not that simple, but something seems out of balance to me, not with Purdue specifically, but with Power 6 revenue sports in general.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
I posted an interesting study done about athletes' views on things that was done.

One of the questions was whether a basketball player would have come to the school if the coach was not there. Only 40% said yes.

So in theory, they are worth the money they are paid if they are attracting the recruits they are. And I'm not sure why suddenly $10,000 is deserving. Can't imagine where that money would go towards. I can tell you where my athlete roommates put their extra stipend money - keg parties.
 
Good point. Maybe the money goes into some kind of trust then.

My point is that spending is tightly controlled where it directly benefits the athletes, but not controlled at all in other areas. For example, scholarships were reduced from 15 to 13 a few years ago to save money, but basketball budgets continue to sky-rocket. Something just seems wrong to me about that.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Therefore the published b-ball budgets are merely a smoke screen, unless you play by the rules. You decide.
 
Spending is tightly controlled where it benefits the athletes?

The basketball team gets the absolute maximum number of shirts, shorts, pants, shoes, jackets, backpacks, travel gear, etc. that the NCAA permits. They literally could wear gear they are given every day of the year.

The basketball team travels on private charters to almost every road game. Heck, when Purdue players went to Big Ten media day in Chicago - 2 hours away - they took a private plane.

The basketball team has training tables - essentially a private dining hall - and eats very well. They eat very nice meals and at nice restaurants when traveling.

The basketball team stays at nice hotels everywhere they go. They are not staying at a Best Western.

The basketball team has a brand new locker room, and their previous locker room was previously remodeled not that far back. They have the nicest locker room of any sport.

This list can go on and on.

So yes, basketball budgets continue to skyrocket. The spending of college athletics continues to skyrocket. And where is all of this increased spending going? It's not giving the marketing director massive raises, in fact - college athletics jobs notoriously pay low. It's going to increasing spending on - primarily - football and basketball. And who does it benefit? The athletes!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back