Is UL Athletics Broke?

[Geaux]

Pulled from Sportico website

OPERATIONAL EXPENSES 2020-2021
1) Coastal Carolina: $36,086,347
4) Louisiana: $34,129,724
9) ULM: $18,140,898

PROFIT/LOSS 2020-2021
1) Coastal Carolina: $658,821
6) Louisiana: -$862,391
7) ULM: -$1,320,345
9) South Alabama: -$2,644,738

GENERATED REVENUE 2020-2021
1) App State: $14,220,988
2) Louisiana: $11,267,394
9) ULM: $4,230,473

LOUISIANA PROFIT/LOSS BY YEAR
2020-2021: -$862,391
2019-2020: -$5,980,700
2018-2019: -$4,559,770
2017-2018: +$82,086

Know what fills this gap, a Student Athletic Fee, just like every other competitive athletic program.

17K students × $300 athletic fee/semester = $5.1M/semester

If we are serious about athletics make this happen.

[babysitter]

Know what fills this gap, a Student Athletic Fee, just like every other competitive athletic program.

17K students × $300 athletic fee/semester = $5.1M/semester

If we are serious about athletics make this happen.

Even when only 400 students attend games ?

[ExecutiveCajun]

Know what fills this gap, a Student Athletic Fee, just like every other competitive athletic program.

17K students × $300 athletic fee/semester = $5.1M/semester

If we are serious about athletics make this happen.

thats not up to us. its up to the state and the student body. they both already said no
what covers this is getting people to your games. separating rcaf to a private entity. hiring competent fund raisers. giving people a reason to join. getting students involved with private donations. early alumni groups with benefits for staying involved. going after the everyday joe with promotions. raising enrollment. developing the real estate around the fields. increasing student housing and having a lively on campus experience. alumni association getting off of their asses. rcaf board have some motivation other than how they get to their suite. getting the gameday and tailgating atmosphere right. or in other words admins doing their ____ing jobs

[cajun_lannister]

Know what fills this gap, a Student Athletic Fee, just like every other competitive athletic program.

17K students × $300 athletic fee/semester = $5.1M/semester

If we are serious about athletics make this happen.

Ask Tech how that went 80% votes no

[cjr3888]

Looking closer at the numbers, here's overall revenue.

Media rights grew and will get larger with new media contract.
$40,091
$1,260,000
$1,184,738
$1,253,265

Donations is up and down.
$7,128,275
$4,628,155
$4,962,106
$5,211,463

Ticket sales had a huge drop.
$2,390,440
$2,210,502
$1,538,645
$806,993

[Cajunrunner]

Know what fills this gap, a Student Athletic Fee, just like every other competitive athletic program.

17K students × $300 athletic fee/semester = $5.1M/semester

If we are serious about athletics make this happen.

And we’re maybe the only state in the Union that requires such to go before a student body vote.

UTSA’s $240/semester athletic fee, with their roughly 30,000 enrollment, generates a cool additional $14.4 Million a year for their athletic department.

[Turbine]

thanks---Did Maggard indicate to you that we could not be successful because of our budget? Did CMD indicate we could not be successful because of our budget? Why is everyone using our budget as a reason we cannot be successful if Maggard and CMD have not used that as an excuse?

If they feel they cannot succeed with the budget they have, they need to resign now.

We lost to a team that has a much lower budget than ours.

Budget has nothing to do with this.

The accountability to produce results is on Maggard and CMD.

You are asking for a quote (that if you polled 1000 executives) you would never get.

[Turbine]

Even when only 400 students attend games ?

If zero students attended games.

Athletics is the difference between "I've never heard of this school, goodbye" and "You're hired."

[JamesTheJeweler]

I don't think we did that. I believe the budget set was $750,000 and the target was CMD because with him, you get a lot more intangibles that you would not get with any other candidate at that salary.

It's kind of a chicken and egg thing at this point. I believe they had a budget and that they believed that the best candidate they could find with that budget was right here and they suceedded.

This is how I kinda think things went down as well. If they supposedly had/ could come up with 3 mil to keep Napier, they couldn't have hired someone with a far better resume? After seeing what Billy did here, you don't think the top coordinators weren't salivating at the opportunity to come here for their first coaching gig. On top of that, the hard work was already done. Nothing coming out of the mouths of this administration, or some of its outside mouthpieces, makes any sense. Something stinks. We can all smell the dead body, but we just can't locate it.

[ExecutiveCajun]

hate to say this but yall make some valid points

[JamesTheJeweler]

thats not up to us. its up to the state and the student body. they both already said no
what covers this is getting people to your games. separating rcaf to a private entity. hiring competent fund raisers. giving people a reason to join. getting students involved with private donations. early alumni groups with benefits for staying involved. going after the everyday joe with promotions. raising enrollment. developing the real estate around the fields. increasing student housing and having a lively on campus experience. alumni association getting off of their asses. rcaf board have some motivation other than how they get to their suite. getting the gameday and tailgating atmosphere right. or in other words admins doing their ____ing jobs

This!

[Cajun Monkee]

Your analysis, as usual, can't be further from the truth.

You do not get to set agenda's which are not yours, neither do they exist because you have said so.

This thread, with mounds of accurate and supplemental information is killing you, isn't?

Participate or sit on the side, but please don't try to taint with you regular BS.

Thanks

Vic

"This thread, with mounds of accurate and supplemental information is killing you, isn't?"

Actually, no.

"I don't think we did that. I believe the budget set was $750,000 and the target was CMD because with him, you get a lot more intangibles that you would not get with any other candidate at that salary."

This is your response to me an another post.

You "think" and "believe." Not "I know."

Vic, you've setting up a strawman argument. I don't think your intent is to denigrate Mike, or even his hiring, but your basic argument is that we could only afford $750,000. I even recall you saying we couldn't afford $750,001.

I don't think this is the case.

This entire thread is your supposition you try to insist is fact.

When in fact, it appears to just be your opinion.