Caron Butler on how former players view UConn

[Hans Sprungfeld]

Jim Calhoun is a diety at UCONN, that said, the condition he left the program in was less than ideal to say the least. The conference move, KO's divorce, broken rules, all contributed to the situation, but dropping the entire blame on KO is unfair, bad coach that he ended as.

I could overlook some imprecision in your first sentence and accept it for arguments sake. I could then similarly overlook more imprecision and say, "OK" to the second sentence. Does it add up to anything relevant or meaningful? Is this written in direct response to something I haven't seen, like a quoted post from someone I ignore? This doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "dropping the entire blame?" It sounds like it might be unfair, but is it real? What am I missing here?

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

In honor of @freescooter, maybe you should just burn in front of your son instead and tell him "This is how we treat ungrateful traitors."

Self-immolation seems rather extreme. Can't he just burn the book and make his point?

 

[Robertelamin]

Hopefully the staff continues to reach out the the former players and they can mend the relationships.

 

[8893]

I do get the sense that their financial constraints and public disclosure requirements are driving the strategy and that they may have underestimated the ripple effect with other former players and how much collateral damage that could do to the program and the brand.

What financial constraints are those 88? You realize that you can’t annual budget is 4 billion a year right? I think they might be able to find a 10 million in the seat cushions somewhere.

LOL. You’re not from around here, are you? But New Jersey may be in even worse shape financially so I’m surprised you don’t appreciate the financial constraints that our state is under, which extends to our state university.

The university runs on a budget, broken down by department and line item. This ain’t in the budget and someone’s gotta eat it. I don’t think anyone at the university has the appetite to make the case for that. New president? How could he have the necessary perspective? Suzie and AD David Benedict owned the decision and they can’t be the ones to press for UConn to pay now.

You are right though, I do like to knock down the bull crap mythology that has grown up around here on this issue, including that somehow Connecticut was unfair to Kevin because they “couldn’t afford to pay him.” That’s just wrong. Sorry if that offends you.

I don't know what it would cost, but I do believe that the financial constraints have been a factor.

If you say money has never been an issue that's welcome news to me.

That said, the suggestion that the school couldn’t afford to pay Ollie the full buyout is flat out wrong. I wonder why you’d suggest otherwise.

From today's UConn Daily (thanks @JohnFSilver ):

UConn In a $42 Million Hole The Story: The athletic department released its budgetary performance yesterday as the school had to fill a $42 million budget with a university subsidy. The direct institutional support is one of the highest in the nation, if not the highest. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: The deficit will be a problem for the school going forward as basic revenue over expenses runs $42 million in the red. UConn's athletic budget is $84 million a year, which is the largest of the non-Power 5 programs. The school brings in approximately $42 million in revenue a year. UConn isn't a business and we do have to keep in mind that the goal of the athletic department isn't to turn a profit or even operate with no subsidy. The school spends $17 million in institutional aid a year (technically, it has to pay for the scholarships) and about $18 million in coaches' salaries. Because of some of the accounting, the deficit number isn't as eye-opening as it seems. That said, the athletic department hasn't been hitting its revenue targets in recent years and is going to remain challenged to do so for the near term. The subsidy in 2011 was $15 million, but the move to the AAC has seen expenses explode and revenue tank. That is why UConn is leaving for the Big East, not nostalgia. THE NUMBERS: Per the Hartford Courant, the football program brought in a paltry $3.3 million in revenue and $16.6 million in expenses for a deficit of $13.3 million. Men's basketball is losing nearly $4 million a year and women's basketball is losing $3.5 million. Now, those numbers include costs of scholarships and don't account for revenue from royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorships, which brought in $11.2 million. TICKET SALES DECLINING: The football team's ticket revenue dropped 20 percent in 2019 while men's basketball dropped 3 percent, meaning there was no Dan Hurley hire bump. The women's basketball team's ticket revenue is down an astounding 17 percent. Those are all concerning metrics as the school has to rent the XL Center and Rentschler Field from the state, and doesn't receive parking or concession revenue from games played in the Hartford area. The non-big three sports for UConn cost $25.8 million and brought in only $2.8 million in revenue with only $615,000 in ticket sales. That number includes men's hockey, which has struggled in attendance in Hockey East, and men's and women's soccer, which played home games away from campus as a new stadium is built. Also, baseball is selling season tickets as it enters a new stadium in Storrs this spring and will begin to bring in more ticket revenue as a result. EFFECT OF MOVE TO BIG EAST: It is going to be a big expense for the school, which had to forfeit $3 million of AAC revenue as a result of moving out of the AAC. UConn has to pay $17 million to exit AAC and $3.5 million to enter the Big East. Those expenses are going to crush the short-term balance sheet. BENEDICT IN THE SPOTLIGHT: The budget is a Dave Benedict problem. We see the bright red, but what was it against targets? How much is the athletic department missing on its budget? Just as coaches are responsible for wins and losses, it is the job of the athletic director to manage the budget. A structural deficit is always going to be in the budget, but we are assuming the athletic department is not hitting its revenue targets. How far off is it from its goals and what's being done to get to those targets? That's the question we have to ask. OUR THOUGHTS: UConn has already started to trim expenses under the hood as administrative salaries were cut and we all know the football team's coaches' salary pool is challenged and well below what other major athletic departments pay. The Huskies are hoping to get better ticket sales in the Big East and develop an attractive home schedule for football as an independent. UConn is also actively seeking out buy games, such as Clemson in 2021, that will fetch north of a million dollars. UConn is also playing a one-off at UCF for more than $1 million and will try to negotiate a TV deal for football. Inevitably, we will hear about cutting football as a magic bullet, but that doesn't solve the structural deficit and would have repercussions in alumni donations and reduce the power and brand of the athletic department. BOTTOM LINE: If the deficit concerns you — and it should — buy tickets to games. Watch the games on television. The only way the Huskies are going to get out of the deficit is to grow their customer base and season-ticket base and negotiate more revenue-friendly deals for stadiums. UConn's predicament is a revenue problem, and cutting isn't going to make anyone who watches the athletic program happy with the end result.

 

[fatlucy]

Men's basketball is losing nearly $4 million a year and women's basketball is losing $3.5 million. Now, those numbers include costs of scholarships and don't account for revenue from royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorships, which brought in $11.2 million.

How do you not account the $11.2M. Looks to me like the BBall teams make $4.2M

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The basketball schedule was killing ticket sales. I expect a big bump next year for both men's and women's hoops in the Big East.

 

[CL82]

From today's UConn Daily (thanks @JohnFSilver ):

UConn In a $42 Million Hole The Story: The athletic department released its budgetary performance yesterday as the school had to fill a $42 million budget with a university subsidy. The direct institutional support is one of the highest in the nation, if not the highest. WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW: The deficit will be a problem for the school going forward as basic revenue over expenses runs $42 million in the red. UConn's athletic budget is $84 million a year, which is the largest of the non-Power 5 programs. The school brings in approximately $42 million in revenue a year. UConn isn't a business and we do have to keep in mind that the goal of the athletic department isn't to turn a profit or even operate with no subsidy. The school spends $17 million in institutional aid a year (technically, it has to pay for the scholarships) and about $18 million in coaches' salaries. Because of some of the accounting, the deficit number isn't as eye-opening as it seems. That said, the athletic department hasn't been hitting its revenue targets in recent years and is going to remain challenged to do so for the near term. The subsidy in 2011 was $15 million, but the move to the AAC has seen expenses explode and revenue tank. That is why UConn is leaving for the Big East, not nostalgia. THE NUMBERS: Per the Hartford Courant, the football program brought in a paltry $3.3 million in revenue and $16.6 million in expenses for a deficit of $13.3 million. Men's basketball is losing nearly $4 million a year and women's basketball is losing $3.5 million. Now, those numbers include costs of scholarships and don't account for revenue from royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorships, which brought in $11.2 million. TICKET SALES DECLINING: The football team's ticket revenue dropped 20 percent in 2019 while men's basketball dropped 3 percent, meaning there was no Dan Hurley hire bump. The women's basketball team's ticket revenue is down an astounding 17 percent. Those are all concerning metrics as the school has to rent the XL Center and Rentschler Field from the state, and doesn't receive parking or concession revenue from games played in the Hartford area. The non-big three sports for UConn cost $25.8 million and brought in only $2.8 million in revenue with only $615,000 in ticket sales. That number includes men's hockey, which has struggled in attendance in Hockey East, and men's and women's soccer, which played home games away from campus as a new stadium is built. Also, baseball is selling season tickets as it enters a new stadium in Storrs this spring and will begin to bring in more ticket revenue as a result. EFFECT OF MOVE TO BIG EAST: It is going to be a big expense for the school, which had to forfeit $3 million of AAC revenue as a result of moving out of the AAC. UConn has to pay $17 million to exit AAC and $3.5 million to enter the Big East. Those expenses are going to crush the short-term balance sheet. BENEDICT IN THE SPOTLIGHT: The budget is a Dave Benedict problem. We see the bright red, but what was it against targets? How much is the athletic department missing on its budget? Just as coaches are responsible for wins and losses, it is the job of the athletic director to manage the budget. A structural deficit is always going to be in the budget, but we are assuming the athletic department is not hitting its revenue targets. How far off is it from its goals and what's being done to get to those targets? That's the question we have to ask. OUR THOUGHTS: UConn has already started to trim expenses under the hood as administrative salaries were cut and we all know the football team's coaches' salary pool is challenged and well below what other major athletic departments pay. The Huskies are hoping to get better ticket sales in the Big East and develop an attractive home schedule for football as an independent. UConn is also actively seeking out buy games, such as Clemson in 2021, that will fetch north of a million dollars. UConn is also playing a one-off at UCF for more than $1 million and will try to negotiate a TV deal for football. Inevitably, we will hear about cutting football as a magic bullet, but that doesn't solve the structural deficit and would have repercussions in alumni donations and reduce the power and brand of the athletic department. BOTTOM LINE: If the deficit concerns you — and it should — buy tickets to games. Watch the games on television. The only way the Huskies are going to get out of the deficit is to grow their customer base and season-ticket base and negotiate more revenue-friendly deals for stadiums. UConn's predicament is a revenue problem, and cutting isn't going to make anyone who watches the athletic program happy with the end result.

Wow, this was sticking in your craw a while [chuckle].

Sigh, where to begin. Let's start with Q&A:

1) Do you understand the difference between a single department operating at deficit and an institution being insolvent? If so what it is? (Because your posts sure seem like you don't.)

2) Do you believe that the athletic department making $42M less (arguably) than it earned means that it didn't pay expenses after they exceeded earnings?

3) If you do believe that UConn paid the excess of stated expenses over stated income, where do you think that money came from given that you've stated that UConn couldn't afford to pay $10M?

4) Have you ever read the UConn financial statements? In 2018 they had a $80M positive net change in position. To be fair, though, that is only one year and it is a dramatic change from 2017. In 2017 (restated) they had a positive net change $1.243B.

But they say a picture is worth a 1000 words so let's try that:

UConn is $4.6B entity with over $2B in cash and cash equivalents. To say that that it couldn't afford to pay Ollie is, at best, woefully uninformed and at worst willfully disingenuous.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Wow, this was sticking in your craw a while [chuckle].

Sigh, where to begin. Let's start with Q&A:

1) Do you understand the difference between a single department operating at deficit and an institution being insolvent? If so what it is? (Because your posts sure seem like you don't.)

2) Do you believe that the athletic department making $42M less (arguably) than it earned means that it didn't pay expenses after they exceeded earnings?

3) If you do believe that UConn paid the excess of stated expenses over stated income, where do you think that money came from given that you've stated that UConn couldn't afford to pay $10M?

4) Have you ever read the UConn financial statements? In 2018 they had a $80M positive net change in position. To be fair, though, that is only one year and it is a dramatic change from 2017. In 2017 (restated) they had a positive net change $1.243B.

But they say a picture is worth a 1000 words so let's try that:
View attachment 49976
UConn is $4.6B entity with over $2B in cash and cash equivalents. To say that that it couldn't afford to pay Ollie is, at best, woefully uninformed and at worst willfully disingenuous.

Couldn't afford is not a literal statement of inability to pay. Based on my budget expectations, and future expenses, retirement plan and overall expectations I can't afford a Ferrari. But, I actually could buy one. So it's not the same thing and you know it.

The AD is in a budgetary hole (exacerbated by things it can't control like its crappy deal with the state for XL and the Rent) and paying Ollie $10M would make that problem much worse. It's almost certain that it would need to recapture that $10M by paying other coaches less over the next several years or reducing scholarships.

That said it doesn't matter. He isn't owed anything and shouldn't be paid anything. There is no reason for UConn to change from that position, regardless of the budget. We could get a B1G invite tomorrow and I still wouldn't want to pay him.

 

[huskymedic]

Men's basketball is losing nearly $4 million a year and women's basketball is losing $3.5 million. Now, those numbers include costs of scholarships and don't account for revenue from royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorships, which brought in $11.2 million.

How do you not account the $11.2M. Looks to me like the BBall teams make $4.2M

That $11.2m revenue from royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorships is across all sports - not just the BBall teams.

 

[CL82]

Couldn't afford is not a literal statement of inability to pay. Based on my budget expectations, and future expenses, retirement plan and overall expectations I can't afford a Ferrari.

This made me smile. My dad used to say "I can afford to buy any car in the world... once."

The AD is in a budgetary hole (exacerbated by things it can't control like its crappy deal with the state for XL and the Rent) and paying Ollie $10M would make that problem much worse. It's almost certain that it would need to recapture that $10M by paying other coaches less over the next several years or reducing scholarships.

Not really. Buying out a coach is more like a capital expenditure than an annual expense item. (And we really should not accelerate the payment of the remainder upon termination, but that's a discussion for a different day.) Do you think if KO hadn't hadn't committed violations but the school decided to fire him they wouldn't have been able to come up with money? $10M is a lot of cash but UConn is sitting on $2B in cash and cash equivalents. Money is not an issue in the least. I know you get that. I'm not sure that other posters do.

That said it doesn't matter. He isn't owed anything and shouldn't be paid anything. There is no reason for UConn to change from that position, regardless of the budget. We could get a B1G invite tomorrow and I still wouldn't want to pay him.

Yep.

 

[CL82]

That $11.2m revenue from royalties, licensing, advertising and sponsorships is across all sports - not just the BBall teams.

A good question is how much of that money is attributable to the school's basketball success. I'd argue that most of goodwill/brand recognition is derivative of basketball.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This made me smile. My dad used to say I can afford to buy any car in the world... once.


Not really. Buying out a coach is like a capital expenditure that an annual expense item. (And we really should not accelerate the payment of the remainder upon termination, but that's a discussion for a different day.) Do you think if KO hadn't hadn't committed violations but the school decided to fire him they wouldn't have been able to come up with money? $10M is a lot of cash but UConn is sitting on $2B in cash and cash equivalents. Money is not an issue in the least. I know you get that. I'm not sure other posters do.

Yep.

I actually think they wouldn't have fired him if they couldn't fire him for cause. He would have been back until they got the total buyout down. Probably two years, at least one. In the wake of paying Diaco I don't think UConn was willing to give the AD the money. Could they have? Of course. I think it's the same reason Edsall is here on a half price contract. It's a willingness to pay rather than ability to pay issue. I'm not close to CT politics, but it probably plays a role.

Now we have the payout to the AAC as well. Once that comes down, and we see an uptick (hopefully) in ticket revenue and other AD revenue, I think they'll look for a new football coach at full price or at least fund the assistant positions properly. I suspect that they will be happy to get Geno's pay off the books and his successor will make a lot less.

 

[HuskyHawk]

A good question is how much of that money is attributable to the school's basketball success. I'd argue that most of goodwill/brand recognition is derivative of basketball.

Most? Outside of the state and students, sure. But I certainly bought a lot of Champion sweatshirts at the Co-op that had nothing to do with basketball. Unfortunately for the AD, that's institutional revenue even though sports clearly adds to that total. It also sucks that we pay the state rent and don't get the full revenue from the Rent and XL. That's ridiculous and makes the hole seem bigger.

Upstater made a passionate defense of the "charge" for scholarships as well, but I never fully accepted it. Room and board, certainly, that's a cost. But I don't think there is much additional faculty on campus because of athletes. So that part of the loss is inflated in these numbers.

I think that new on campus rec center is obscene. It's a grotesque luxury. Invite Planet Fitness to go in nearby and cut tuition. But when you can raise prices without impacting demand, this is what you get.

 

[CL82]

I actually think they wouldn't have fired him if they couldn't fire him for cause. He would have been back until they got the total buyout down. Probably two years, at least one. In the wake of paying Diaco I don't think UConn was willing to give the AD the money. Could they have? Of course.

I agree. I think KO would have gotten a year or two to turn things around. But if they felt that he had to go, they could have/would have pulled the trigger. Diaco is a great example of just that.

Now we have the payout to the AAC as well. Once that comes down, and we see an uptick (hopefully) in ticket revenue and other AD revenue, I think they'll look for a new football coach at full price or at least fund the assistant positions properly. I suspect that they will be happy to get Geno's pay off the books and his successor will make a lot less.

I'd love for the school to change the way they account for scholarship athletes effective next year. Getting that $17M in paper losses out of the athletic department budget would create a narrative of how UConn was leading a new paradigm rather than we just gave up.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Enough is enough. Cut Ollie a check for something reasonable so both sides think they won, and mend the rift.

 

[HooperScooper]

Enough is enough. Cut Ollie a check for something reasonable so both sides think they won, and mend the rift.

You keep saying that but both sides need to agree to a number. It takes two to tango. What is "reasonable"?

It's been reported that UConn offered Ollie a $3 million settlement and he said no. How much more should UConn offer him to make it "reasonable" and that he would accept?

 

[8893]

Couldn't afford is not a literal statement of inability to pay. Based on my budget expectations, and future expenses, retirement plan and overall expectations I can't afford a Ferrari. But, I actually could buy one. So it's not the same thing and you know it.

The AD is in a budgetary hole (exacerbated by things it can't control like its crappy deal with the state for XL and the Rent) and paying Ollie $10M would make that problem much worse. It's almost certain that it would need to recapture that $10M by paying other coaches less over the next several years or reducing scholarships.

This^

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You keep saying that but both sides need to agree to a number. It takes two to tango. What is "reasonable"?

It's been reported that UConn offered Ollie a $3 million settlement and he said no. How much more should UConn offer him to make it "reasonable" and that he would accept?

I don't trust "reported" numbers on this topic. My bigger fear is that UConn loses, which would mean UConn would have to pay the full check plus attorneys' fees, and the rift would be permanent.

I haven't seen a lot of employment related cases, but in the ones I have been around, it is very, very hard to get out of the liquidated damages through legal semantics like minor self-reported violations. I don't see a employment judge/arbitrator ruling that Ollie gets nothing, and if there is no other basis to determine what Ollie is due, the liquidated damages provision (i.e. buyout) becomes the starting point. If UConn loses this case, it would be really damaging to the university reputationally in addition to financially.

 

[tentoes4rings]

You keep saying that but both sides need to agree to a number. It takes two to tango. What is "reasonable"?

It's been reported that UConn offered Ollie a $3 million settlement and he said no. How much more should UConn offer him to make it "reasonable" and that he would accept?

I’ve always felt this was the fair settlement number. He didn’t earn that last extension and one season’s salary to help him transition into a new life seems very fair.

 

[8893]

I’ve always felt this was the fair settlement number. He didn’t earn that last extension and one season’s salary to help him transition into a new life seems very fair.

I thought he’d get more before a lot of the details came out, but that seems very fair now imo.

 

[Huskybass]

I’ve always felt this was the fair settlement number. He didn’t earn that last extension and one season’s salary to help him transition into a new life seems very fair.

I always thought that was the number, but over time is has gotten quite a bit lower. He would be fortunate to walk away with half that now.

 

[8893]

I thought he’d get more before a lot of the details came out, but that seems very fair now imo.

I always thought that was the number, but over time is has gotten quite a bit lower. He would be fortunate to walk away with half that now.

So...$2.25M it is!