I'm with you. Most of these "fans" were also starting "Fire Painter" threads two years ago.
When was the last time season ticket sales were this low?
- Thread starter BoilerBonz
- Start date
I'm with you. Most of these "fans" were also starting "Fire Painter" threads two years ago.
Sorry but for me that isn't even remotely true. The difference here is Painter had a track record of being successful where CDH doesn't and to top it off the football program has been in a plunge for some time now. And based on ticket sales alone, there are more and more people feeling the same way as those of us that are disgruntled with the state of the football program.
Like I and many others have said, we would LOVE to be wrong and hope we are, but so far there isn't much reason to change that line of thinking and it has been more than just a couple of weeks for the sample size.
Personally I think that CDH is fine, but his staff needs to change and by change I mean be replaced.
Being competitive is one thing, if that doesn't translate in to wins however then being competitive doesn't get you anything IMO.
I will still watch on TV as much as I can because I am all in on Purdue, but that doesn't mean I will like what I see if we can't muster many wins.
Right? Either I endorse the idea that this is Hopes fault and Hazell is tortoise-ing his way to victory or Im suicidal. To his credit, many of his other posts dont include ridiculously off topic statements like that, but yes, he should be above all that. Maybe he thinks its funny and/or doesnt get it comes off out of left feild weirdo to most.
One can still be 'good with Purdue Football win or lose' and think they are headed in the wrong direction.
There is only one rule in football that is the same in all sports. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!!!
Until that is the case at Purdue you'll continue to see dissenting fans. The coaching staff is likely trying to best they can. So far that's not good enough. The sadder picture is that MB appears to be content to let the program swirl at the bottom of the bowl and rake in his take of the BTN money without spending any to compete.
Until that is the case at Purdue you'll continue to see dissenting fans. The coaching staff is likely trying to best they can. So far that's not good enough. The sadder picture is that MB appears to be content to let the program swirl at the bottom of the bowl and rake in his take of the BTN money without spending any to compete.
Does Morgan really get any of that?
I remember reading the break down in where that money goes and thinking it was a complete waste, but I dont remember it going to him. To the university and junk sports best I remember
Probably because such points are still applicable. Until just this year, Purdue's administration taxed its Athletic Dept. (internally) far more aggressively than any other B1G school. That was just one of Cordova and our BOT's ways of extracting the BTN money out of our AD. Morgan was only recently able to convince Daniels and the BOT to reduce this internal tax by $2M, but that's only a temporary reprieve, and even with that, Purdue still taxes its Athletic Dept. more than most B1G schools. This is the $HIT going on that made fans realize Purdue's administration wasn't (and maybe still isn't) serious about winning, for those who paid attention. For some here, however, noticing such things and second-guessing the Purdue administration is deemed as lack of loyalty. I've had season tickets for 20 years -- and do again this year -- but being a loyal fan, through good times and bad, doesn't mean one shouldn't call out the Purdue administration when it's the program's biggest obstacle in terms of achieving success.
Nope, it's not 2009. We've regressed as a program from that time. So just for you an new talking point.................. Doesn't matter if we lose and continue to lose. Just send in your $ and continue to rah! rah! for tired old Purdue football!!!
Just to be clear, the "taxes" you're referring to are the overhead costs passed down from the University, correct? I think it's fair to note that if the University wasn't providing the Athletic Department with space, paying their utilities, providing them with support staff, providing them with a payroll system, etc... the Ath. Dept. would have to go out and acquire those same services. If it was a stand-alone operation, it would need those things to function.
I guess the real question is whether those services, etc. are being charged to the AD at fair value, but I'd have to think at least some reasonable attempt has been made to allocate accordingly. In other words, I don't look at this as a "cash-grab" by the University in the same way you seem to look at it. Maybe some other schools comp this to the AD (probably some do and some don't, I dunno), but it certainly isn't a Mafia-style "protection fee" where the school is just robbing them without the AD getting any real value.
Not what i'm saying at all. I'm just arguing not giving this staff full support in only it's 3rd year is not what a good fan should be doing.
It will be abundantly clear after this year which way we are trending and we can make a decision from there. Again, shitting on the staff in the middle of the turn around effort is a waste of time. We will get there or we won't. It will be obvious to the fans and the AD where we are and a move will be made. Have to give the guy time though and let him work through this year at least. No coach short of one that costs double what we paid was going to turn this ship around immediately, and even then they still have the staff $$$ restrictions and recruiting restrictions that any other Purdue coach has and will face.
That's all I am saying.
No, the solution isn't sit back and shut up....but it's also not tear it all down and start all over. At least not at this point.
Lots of the internal admin issues have been addressed. Those take time to manifest themselves though. Example A. would be the potential resurgence in basketball.
Look, I don't think MB is the man for the job anymore but it's been made abundantly clear he's going to be made to retire at 65 and will get to ride off into the sunset mostly on his own terms. Has he earned that? Probably not, but I also don't think he's earned the public execution some would like to see. I think the internal facilities and branding changes have been a huge foundation for us building a brand moving forward. That has to translate to wins on the field though....and with the recruits we had, and the recruits we have been getting that process is going to be slow and tough. That's just the facts.
Any coach who comes to WL and Purdue has some things working against it that make it very difficult to recruit. Even when Tiller was here we weren't racking up top 15 classes (I think we only had 2-3 even rated in the top 25) and its naive to expect any coach we would reasonably hire (in the sub $4mil class) to come in and immediately change that. I mean, we are all biased. We would pick Purdue over MSU, Michigan, OSU, IU and many others. Most have at some point made that choice for academic reasons over their careers. That said, in a talent poor football state, not being the state name school, not being the best football school it's going to be really hard to recruit and it generally has NOT been easy for Purdue in this regard. What is going to change that? A charismatic HC?.....we already have one....
This has never been a destination that 4 and 5 stars clamor to come play football at....and why would it be? Football is 2nd fiddle here and always will be. That's just the facts of the state and basketball being as popular as it is. There are just realistic limitations Purdue has where other mid-low level P5 teams don't necessarily have those. Okie St. and Oklahoma have a good HS football scene in state....AND in their own backyards. Same with basically all the Texas schools. WVU has a high flying O and a sustained 15 years of BCS game type success. West Lafayette is not Nashville, Austin, Athens or Columbus. It's not even an Ann Arbor.
I do expect Purdue to be better....but why are we expected to win 8 games every year....why are we entitled to win 8 games every year....especially when the deck is so stacked against us as far as the football program and sustained success is concerned. We just don't emphasize football enough....and why should we?
This isn't a defeatest attiude....its just realism...and that's why a 6-7 win team is my expectation with a NYD bowl game every 4-5 years mixed in when our schedule and talent line up. Now obviously we haven't met those expectations lately....but to get there again in this day and age it will take a total rebuild and re-focus of the program which may or may not be currently in place. Have to let it happen though to judge and inevitably be happy or upset about it. Again, i'm not saying this team is going to be good....i'm also not saying it's going to be bad. I think this coach and his staff know what it's going to take to be long term successful, it's just up to them to manifest it. Hazell can be our Kirk Farentz or Frank Beamer....but if we put pitchforks to his ass and kick him out of town while he's attempting to build....we will absolutely never know.
Being a UGA grad, I know what factors it takes to build a successful program...and Purdue literally has none of them going for it historically....and that's not Hazell's or even Burke's fault at all. The brand started building 110+ years ago, and it just hasn't been done well. Again, it helps that here in GA and SEC country that all people care about is sub-pro football. That's just not a factor AT ALL as far as Purdue is concerned....and there are only really 2, maybe 3 fan bases North of the Mason-Dixon that can compare...and sadly we have had to play those teams a lot in our past and recent history.
Uga huh? Richt going to survive this year? Always liked him but feel like he barely wins enough to appease the fansfans
Richt will be fine. UGA has the best RB in the country, hands down. QB will be about the same as last year (program guy with practice experience). #1 QB in the country coming in next year and he WILL start as a true FR. Richt is a supreme recruiter. He was 1 play away from making the NC game in 2012, so to say he hasn't appeased the fans is silly to an extent. Lots of sidewalk alums feel that UGA should win the NC every year, but Richt has them, IMO achieving on pace to get to the promised land in the next 5 years, no problem. HAve to remember, if you win the SEC, you generally win the NC too. Alabama, LSU and Auburn have had a lot to say about UGA not winning that game over the past 7-8 years.
The issue is, if you fire Richt...who DO you hire? I don't see anybody who would actually come (Meyer, Saban and others aren't leaving their jobs anytime soon) and be an immediate upgrade. The biggest challenge UGA has faced over the past few years is injuries (2013) and Defensive attrition (2014) keeping them from getting to the next level. Can't necessarily peg that all on the coach.
A lot of this will flush itself out with our new OC. If he fails, that COULD be Richts ticket out of town. If he is successful and the D personnel stays stable, no doubt UGA wins one in the next 5 years.
Of course, the "tax" is an overhead allocation for "services." And, of course, the real question is whether it's "reasonable," whatever that means? My question is why would you start an argument about how you "look" at this versus how I look at it when you also make it clear you know nothing about it?!
Cordova changed the basis for the Athletic Department's overhead allocation to square footage of facilities, which clearly was to the disadvantage of the Athletic Department. This resulted in an increase in the AD's internal tax from about $0.6M (in 2006) to $3.5M last year, which put Purdue -- one of the smallest AD's in the B1G -- near the top of B1G in terms of $ transferred from the AD to the university! And you're naive if you think this was intended by Cordova and the BOT to be "reasonable" -- it was a pure "cash grab" -- meanwhile, all us dumb Purdue alums/fans proceeded to blame DH1 and Painter for our troubles, just as Cordova and the BOT figured we would. Please see article below from this past spring:
Agreement keeps more money inside Purdue athletics
Purdue athletic director Morgan Burke called it a substantial action by university president Mitch Daniels and the board of trustees.
During the next three years, the administrative charge to the athletic department will be reduced by $2 million, giving Burke funds to pay for the upcoming full cost of attendance scholarships and offset ticket income with the reduction of student prices.
"In many respects, the board and the president — at least out in the blogs — there's been this criticism that there isn't a support of intercollegiate athletics," Burke said. "A lot of people give you rhetoric but this is a very substantial action that will allow us to take care of cost of attendance, allow us to buy down the student rates so we could offer a very attractive package," Burke said.
The athletic department will now pay $1.5 million to the university for internal services compared to nearly $3.5 million during the last fiscal year.
"I made it clear from Day 1 that we expect to pay for the services we receive, but could we look at other allocation methods," Burke said. "I don't want the faculty and the campus to say — Mitch is subsiding athletics. The university still feels it appropriately represents the services that we consume internally."
The previous charge to the athletic department was based on square footage. Burke spoke to Daniels and the board last fall about exploring a different option.
"It's hard to value what a payroll system costs. We don't meter our facilities, so we don't know what our utility bill is," he said. "I suggested we look at a percentage of gross revenue, which is a metric used by many other Big Ten schools. I suggested we be placed about in the medium of the Big Ten in terms of the payout."
Before the Big Ten signed its 10-year television deal and the debut of the Big Ten Network in 2006, Purdue's athletic department was charged approximately $600,000 for services. However, the yearly increase in television revenue also increased the amount the athletic department was charged by the university.
The next three years coincides with the end of the current TV deal. The Big Ten will have a new television contract starting in 2017-18.
Burke estimated cost of attendance scholarships, which cover expenses that fall outside athletic scholarships, will be about $1 million to Purdue. In January, the Power Five conferences — Big Ten, Atlantic Coast, Southeastern, Pac-12 and Big 12 — approved providing cost of attendance scholarships beginning Aug. 1.
About $500,000 will be used as replacement revenue because of the new student ticket pricing structure. Students can purchase a $99 boarding pass, guaranteeing a ticket to all seven home football games and an opportunity to purchase tickets to men's and women's basketball and volleyball games. In 2014-15, a student VIP Card was $250.
Burke said the remaining $500,000 will be used for other areas in the athletic department.
Amen, I'll second that, and add, putting the 4 letter word bowl in the same sentence as this team, is like mentioning the Hindenburg in connection with Led Zeppelin. The band was great, the airship/blimp, not. Hazell actually did a better job of coaching his first season here. He had more injuries/built in excuses then, but definately regressed last season. Hope I'm wrong, but I look forward to this season, like I do to flying coach to LA., Christmas eve. If there was a sliver of hope, positive looking memories from last season to grab onto, but I see a slow motion train wreck, & the engineer is probably feeling the same about now.
Good thread, here are my thoughts on this.
The seat license fees, especially the $250 one, really contributed to the decrease in season tix holders followed up by two dismal seasons. Going back a few years I remember doing the math and the license fees almost covered the contract for Coach Hazell with the fan base we had at that time. My memory isn't as good now but I seem to remember reading a quote from MB that said something along the lines of we wanted a good coach and now the fans have to step up.
MB may have been forced into the seat license to pay the bills because I believe he was not getting any relief from the university at that time. Maybe someone else can clarify what was going on.
I am interested in seeing how many seats are filled with Purdue fans in the $250 area. I suspect many have downgraded to the $100 areas of just had enough. MB has now created an area where opposing fans can go to stub hub or buy tix the day of the game and sit on the 45 yard line.
In my opinion the fix is to drop all the seat licenses to $100 and let the remaining season tix holders fill up the middle of the stadium. That would at least reward the ticket holders who make the effort to attend the games.
I am not ready to give up on Coach H yet. This is his third year but he had what, a month to look for recruits after being signed? I have been very disappointed by the effort but looking back we weren't deep and the talent seemed to be very limited and the QBs seemed to always be running for their lives with no one to throw to if they had time to look downfield.
Maybe my 25th year of season tix will be good one?
Go Boilers!
The seat license fees, especially the $250 one, really contributed to the decrease in season tix holders followed up by two dismal seasons. Going back a few years I remember doing the math and the license fees almost covered the contract for Coach Hazell with the fan base we had at that time. My memory isn't as good now but I seem to remember reading a quote from MB that said something along the lines of we wanted a good coach and now the fans have to step up.
MB may have been forced into the seat license to pay the bills because I believe he was not getting any relief from the university at that time. Maybe someone else can clarify what was going on.
I am interested in seeing how many seats are filled with Purdue fans in the $250 area. I suspect many have downgraded to the $100 areas of just had enough. MB has now created an area where opposing fans can go to stub hub or buy tix the day of the game and sit on the 45 yard line.
In my opinion the fix is to drop all the seat licenses to $100 and let the remaining season tix holders fill up the middle of the stadium. That would at least reward the ticket holders who make the effort to attend the games.
I am not ready to give up on Coach H yet. This is his third year but he had what, a month to look for recruits after being signed? I have been very disappointed by the effort but looking back we weren't deep and the talent seemed to be very limited and the QBs seemed to always be running for their lives with no one to throw to if they had time to look downfield.
Maybe my 25th year of season tix will be good one?
Go Boilers!
I still watch on TV.. I haven't given up on the program, at $800+ to travel to a game I just decided to spend elsewhere until the entertainment value matches my spending. Part of it also my disdain for the power 5 conferences. Way to much "lack of institutional control" and the $$$ issue (all types, cheating academically, under the table payola).
I can respect that. I think we all can agree our FB has not met our expectations lately but at least we haven't resorted to LOIC/cheating to try and fix the problem.
In my best Aaron Rodgers voice: R-E-L-A-X. This is a fan message board; I thought the whole point was to discuss things of interest, even when those views don't necessarily overlap.
Reasonable - for starter's, I clearly said I presumed the allocation was from a "reasonable" methodology, not that I knew it was. You're the one who seems overwhelmingly convinced it isn't. And I'm going to skip the debate over the meaning of the word reasonable (your "whatever that means" comment)...
As to why I assumed a reasonable methodology had been used, well, we're talking about a multi-billion $ institution here. This isn't Mom-and-Pop Home School-R-Us where anything goes. I'm sure there are differing models on how these charges work, and I suspect these have been reviewed and discussed between AD and larger University -- but I guess I should state I don't know that to be true.
I also suspect differing models would yield higher or lower charges than what is paid today. A lower charge to the AD - simply because people think it would help football (or other sports) - doesn't necessarily mean a lower charge would be more accurate/reasonable/appropriate than the current one.
And the article you posted about what a great financial reprieve it was for the AD to not have to pay the entire $3.5M fee is sort of irrelevant. Of course it's a great win for the AD... they're paying less than half the price they previously agreed to for services they need. I get why you (and Burke) would like a lower number, but come one, who doesn't like lower prices on the goods and services they buy??
In short, if you feel the model/allocation for the AD's overhead charges is - dare I say the word - "un"-reasonable ... I would expect some basis as to why. And that basis can't be "I want our football team to be better". I personally don't understand the details of the current model beyond the fact that it's founded on square footage. If you have a deeper understanding of the models to know why its doing a disservice to AD, then my apologies for disagreeing with you.
Read the whole article, would you please. "Reasonable" here should be judged relative to two things: 1) what's the reason for the overhead allocation increasing almost 6-fold after the BTN money came around, and 2) what are our peer-level B1G Athletic Departments tranferring to their respective universities versus us?
1) Did the university suddenly begin providing 6-fold more service to our AD, just when the BTN showed, by coincidence? Of course not, central admin saw the new revenue source and rejiggered the basis for the overhead allocation to grab it.
2) The article explains that at $3.5M, Purdue's AD was near the top of the B1G in terms of $ transferred back to the university, even though we have one of the smallest ADs in terms of teams fielded and revenue produced. So while our B1G brethren left most of the BTN within their ADs, to support higher salaries for football coaches, to match the competitive trend being set by the SEC, Cordova and our BOT scarfed up the BTN so MB had to institute the seat license fee to cover DH2's salary. As others have mentioned above, this seat license fee has devastated ticket purchases in the prime sections of Ross-Ade, something that never happened before, even under the darkest days of Akers and Colletto.
If you've ever worked inside a major university, you know that the Prez's Office and central admin use the "overhead-allocation game" to suck up any new sources of revenue within the university and then reallocate the $ to favored units to enforce loyalty to the Prez. (Almost all major universities operate like Byzantine empires, literally, and if you think otherwise, you are naive.) The point is, until this year, our AD has been viewed by Purdue central admin as a unit to exploit, financially. This was a very intentional plan by Cordova because: 1) she didn't care about athletics, and 2) she rationalized that it was up to the JPC to make up for what she grabbed, if we (JPC members) wanted Purdue to be more competitive in terms of coaches' salaries. This why, if you ever went to a JPC meeting during the DH1 years, Morgan and Nancy spent most of the meeting almost crying for more donations! When significantly more JPC donations weren't forthcoming, but the fans demanded a more competitive salary for DH1's replacement, Morgan and his brain trust cooked up the seat license fee. But in Morgan's defense, what choice did he have?
Last edited:
I did read the article and fully understand what you're saying, but I disagree with how you're getting to your conclusion. In my opinion, assessing reasonableness should be as simple as asking "what's it worth?". (although answering that may not be easy, just to be clear) If the AD is paying excessively more than those services are worth, then it's an unreasonable fee. If they are roughly market value, then it is reasonable.
You absolutely bring up a good point about the significant increase over the past 5-10 years. But I'm not sure that's a useful driver in determining whether the charges are fair today... isn't it possible that the AD was underpaying for services before because the funds just weren't there for the AD to cover it's fair share? I'm not saying that's true, just that it's possible, and probably a valid reason for not using the past increase to assess the fairness of today's rate.
I can appreciate the comparison to other schools, and that's probably a better indicator. I do think it would be interesting to see how Purdue's AD fees compare on a per-student-athlete or per-varsity-sport scale, or something else that allows for an easier comparison across schools. The article doesn't state where Purdue ranks in B1G in absolute dollars, just the Burke suggests being at "the medium" of the conference.
Last edited:
Unless you want to argue that university "services" are worth far more to Purdue's AD, than they are to any other AD in the B1G, then I fail to see how you can disagree with the conclusion that Purdue's central admin has been screwing our AD? And if you compare on a "per-student-athlete or per-varsity-sport" basis, Purdue's AD would be paying even more, relatively speaking, since Purdue's AD is at the bottom of the B1G in terms of revenues and number of varsity sports. But never mind, just keep on defending Cordova, I'm sure she appreciates it.
Last edited:
I never tried to argue that these services were worth more to Purdue than any other school. I've simply stated, in the most basic sense, that I think reasonableness of the charge for these services is basically a question of their fair value. If the AD had to go replace all these services the University provides, what would that cost be? And is that number higher or lower than what the AD is paying the University? If's it way higher, then the AD is getting a good value; if it's way lower, then the AD is getting a raw deal. I've not defended Cordova or anyone else - not sure how you arrived at that from my post.
You're obviously convinced that Purdue is getting the shaft like no other and you're unwilling to entertain any other perspective. Frankly, I'm not sure how you can be so convinced that Purdue's overhead allocation per scholarship athlete is so much higher than every one else's when you don't know anyone else's overhead fees paid to their respective universities, nor do you know their total number of athletes.
You may very well be right, but your path in arriving at that conclusion is nothing more than a hunch (or perhaps searching for a crutch as to why the football team has been in the toilet). Your analysis is done almost entirely in a vacuum; the only thing relative about any of this is Burke saying he'd like Purdue's o/h costs to be "in the medium" of the B1G, which would indicate it's currently north of the medium. But that's not a lot to go on though...
Last edited:
I thought you said you read the article? It clearly states that Purdue was paying at the top of the B1G in terms of $ transferred to the university, and now with this temporary reprieve, Purdue is at the median, while Purdue is at the bottom of the B1G in terms of revenue and number of teams fielded. So where is this "vacuum"? What do you want, audited financial statements from every B1G school?! What I'm willing to entertain is logic based on fact, and your position -- that one of the smallest ADs in the B1G should be transferring 6-fold more than it did before the BTN $ and an amount similar to what the largest and wealthiest ADs in the B1G are transferring to their respective universities -- isn't logically defensible unless you argue that these university "services" are WORTH far more to Purdue's AD than they are to the other ADs in the B1G.
Last edited:
If by article, you mean the text you copied above, yes, I read it. And it does not clearly state what I've bolded here... the text above includes a quote from Burke suggesting his opinion that Purdue's AD should be "at the medium" of the B1G. Further, it does not state any reference to where they rank with the reprieve. Maybe you're remembering that from a different article...
Of course I don't wanted audited financials... But you don't have any comparable info from other schools. You don't know what other AD's are paying... you have Burke's "medium" comment. You don't know the number of athletes being covered by those funds at Purdue vs. other schools... you've just stated that Purdue has one of the smallest ADs in the B1G. What does smallest mean... bottom 2? bottom 3? bottom 4? How much smaller is Purdue's scholarship athlete count compared to Minnesota? to OSU? So yes, your conclusion is clearly in hand already, but your analysis - and any comparable data - is nil. Hence my vacuum comment.
Thank you for stating my position for me... however, you got it wrong. I never said Purdue's AD should be paying 6-fold what it did 10 years ago. Rather, I asked how you know the number 10 years ago is the right number to charge? I simply stated it's POSSIBLE that the AD was underpaying for overhead services 10 years ago and that it's been right-sized now that television money exists for the AD to pay it's fair share. It's also possible that it's been more than right-sized, and that Purdue's AD is now overpaying for these services. I acknowledge the latter... whereas you refuse to acknowledge the former.
Regarding your comment that Purdue is paying an amount similar to what the "wealthiest ADs in the B1G" are paying... the wealth of other schools is neither here nor there. It's about the value of the goods and service the AD is buying. Consider a BMV dealership trying to sell both you and me a car. They offer you a vehicle for $50k. If you make more money than me, are they going to offer the same vehicle to me for only $40k because I have a lesser ability to bear? Absolutely not.
In fact, that's the exact opposite of a fair market exchange... and a fair value is exactly what I've been arguing the University should charge the AD for said services. And to be fair, I've never once said that today's fees are a fair value. You however don't seem interested in this notion of what the services are worth, rather you seem to be putting forth an argument not much more sophisticated than this:
I like sports :: University fees hurt my sports :: Fees are bad
Purdue has the fewest varsity sports and least amount of revenue of any school in the B1G (that was pre Rutgers, I believe). We should better understand the fixed versus variable component of the overhead charge. If it is largely fixed (just an assumption on my part), that in itself would explain our higher charge per athlete than most schools. I am a firm believer that the TV revenue should overwhelmingly go to support our AD. I am also proud that we are financially self sufficient, that very few schools (and no school with such a small revenue base) can claim.
Good point. And with lesser sports, I would agree that it's likely that Purdue's cost per athlete might be more than - say - OSU. And that isn't necessarily bad, rather its just how the math works.
Just found this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Conference#Men.27s_sponsored_sports_by_school
Purdue has 10 mens sports, tied with 3 other schools. Northwestern has 8, Maryland has 9.
In women's sports, Purdue has 10, which is tied with Northwestern for fewest. So likely second only to Northwestern for fewest scholarship athletes (kind of making the assumption here that all sports have equal number of players [outside of football], but understanding that's not entirely accurate). And unfortunately Wikipedia gives only sport counts, not player counts.
Last edited:
First, I'm assuming, logically, I would argue, that the larger Athletic Departments in the B1G consume more university "services" than the smaller ones, like Purdue.
Second, the article quotes the following statement by Burke: "I suggested we look at a percentage of gross revenue, which is a metric used by many other Big Ten schools. I suggested we be placed about in the medium of the Big Ten in terms of the payout."
The revised allocation of $1.5M was chosen precisely because it did what Morgan requested, it placed the Purdue AD's contribution to the university at about the median level in the B1G.
So again, if you want to argue that the $3.5M allocation may have been "reasonable," then you must also assume that the university "services" Purdue provided to Morgan are worth more than those provided by other B1G universities to their respective ADs, or I suppose you could instead argue that other B1G universities are not charging their ADs enough. In either case, Purdue's AD was clearly put at a disadvantage relative to our peer B1G institutions.
Regardless, how about this for a solution -- since you're so concerned Morgan isn't transferring "enough" of the BTN $ to central admin -- how about we bump the allocation back to $3.5M and you make up the difference with an annual $2M donation to JPC. Morgan has some great seats in Ross-Ade available that I bet he'd be willing to comp you with in return.
I actually find this to be an interesting topic, which I why I responded as many times as I did. But you clearly aren't interested in hearing/discussing the subject. Your mind is made up: the AD is being way overcharged by greedy University officials. You - nor I - have a working no knowledge of what these services are actually worth, but you know beyond a doubt the University is pricing them excessively as a means of robbing every penny it can from the AD, re: your Byzantine empire comparison earlier. I think this is enough dialogue for me, since we've gotten to petty suggestions that I just go plop $2M in small bills on Burke's desk... so I guess you win.
Sorry for the snarky comment suggesting that you donate the $2M difference to JPC, although I said nothing about small bills -- a big check would be just fine.
Regardless of whether the "services" Purdue provides Morgan are really "worth" $3.5M, the fact is that the square-footage allocation basis Purdue used to justify the $3.5M put Morgan at a significant disadvantage versus peer-level B1G ADs. And the difference had to be made up somewhere, hence the seat license fee.
And I stand by my Byzantine Empire comment as being representative of how finances are manipulated for "political" purposes at major universities.
I was at that game you mentioned. Christ you would have thought it a miracle to be able to buy a garbage bag or a poncho! Just shows the level of preparedness with the whole program.
Why on earth are you blaming Cordova? Did the President before Cordova demand excellence? No. Has the President after Cordova demanded excellence? No. But yes, it's all her fault. We were in a downward spiral before, during and after her time as President. We get it, you hate that she's a liberal!
The one common thing among all of the Presidents is the athletic director. University presidents typically aren't going to meddle in athletics unless they absolutely have to. But it's laughable for you to single out one President, but not 2 others that have sat and watched things crumble themselves.
Cordova was the first president to pull several million dollars a year out of the AD and use it on general projects. If she hadn't sucked so bad as a fundraiser, she wouldn't have had to do that.
No, I didn't say it was all her fault. I blame the BOT and MB too.
Under Jischke, the Ath. Dept. paid $0.6M / yr tax (overhead allocation) back to the U. He may not have demanded excellence from AD, but Jischke understood good football and basketball mean $$$ for academics from alums.
In Cordova's defense, it became very hard to raise money with the financial crisis, shortly after she became President, and at the same time, the state (under you know who) cut PU's support in some years and flat lined it in others. So she responded by essentially deciding she could drain all the newly found BTN $$$ out of the Ath. Dept. with no long-term consequences to the competitiveness of the revenue sports. Very short-term thinking on her part but predictable since the only real interest she had in Purdue is what the job could do for her resume. I do blame the BOT for letting her do it, and MB for not pitching a fit over it publicly, but apparently MB valued his job too much to do what was right by the Ath. Dept. and JPC.
Painter is the one who really put the issue front and center when it took national media attention and an emergency meeting of the BOT just to make his salary (and his assistants') competitive with other B1G coaches -- and keep him from being hired away by a bottom-feeder program out of the B12. Meanwhile, we had the lowest paid football coaching staff in the B1G, if not all in the power 5, but who did "we" (smart PU alums an fans) blame? Oh, it was all Danny Hope's fault!!! It must have been hard for Frances to keep a straight face when she attended football games in those years, watching the "cow" she was milking dry wither away in front of her, while our "fans" booed the team and DH1.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
Indinia = Fraud & Coach Cig Got The Most Punchable Face In CFB- Latest: Bank Shot Podcast
-
-
-
-