Why do you think they're paying him so much?
It's to continue to build the football program, which leads to increased interest in the program, which leads to more donors, season ticket holders, butts in the seats, etc. and you need a place to put the butts in the seats. And with said revenue increases you have funding for further facility upgrades, larger budgets, and upgrading of our conference affiliation, which leads to MORE revenue through tv contracts, as well as being a HUGE factor in recruiting, which then leads to more and more of the same. Why pay the coaches a ton of money if you don't plan on growth of your athletic department? Just to be nice? No. It's to grow your programs. And to grow your program, you have to have the facilities to accommodate the growth. The expansion goes hand and hand with the contract extensions and salary increases. AND, without them, those extensions would not have been signed.
When did I ever suggest we shouldn't be spending money on facilities? Never. Of course we should spend money on facilities.
Look, we're just going to disagree on this. If you're really interested to learn why I think we could have spent our money better I'd be happy to explain it to you, but I'm guessing you aren't all that interested.
I really have no desire to hop on another merry go round on this issue.
Neither do I. And I don't recall your prior thoughts on stadium expansion. The posts I've made here are in direct reference to your post on page two...
"When people got on my case last year for suggesting we shouldn't be spending money on a football stadium expansion we don't really need, this is what I was talking about.
That 6 million dollars could have helped pay Deggs enough to not make him want to go looking elsewhere."
According to that post, you are saying that you'd rather spend money on keeping coaches here than on "on a football stadium expansion we don't really need". If that's not what you mean, then ok.
So Rebel, explain to the board how the money bonded to us by the state for the stadium expansion could have been used towards a coach's salary.
The baseball team was netting over $100K just on beer sales ten years ago, according to sources. I would expect they are still in the black overall.
I contend football swallows every penny it raises.
Football is to Athletics what athletics is to a university. The front porch.
Football is the front of the front porch.
Without football you never get an RCAF that benefits all sports, no multipurpose IPF.
But as far as funding other sports directly, or in part? No way, it uses every dime it makes.
Don't the last 2 statements contradict each other? Football drives RCAF, and we've seen incredible growth in the athletic department since Hud has been here, and the football program has become viable. So to say no way to it funding even "in part" doesn't seem to match up.
I guess "funding" may not be the right word. Can we agree that football supports all of the other sports?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)