Forbes Best College Teams for the Money #5

[specialisthusky]

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm...uskies/?&_suid=135594635239009172774971781785

 

[Wise2]

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm...uskies/?&_suid=135594635239009172774971781785

This is not a good thing

 

[specialisthusky]

This is not a good thing

It sure would be nice to not be the school who invests the least of all bcs aq schools, yet that's where we stand.

 

[Pudge]

I agree. This is a little shocking ... but it makes sense.

We aren't protecting our BIG investment in Football. We definitely let ourselves & our University down. Blame Hathaway; Alert Manual. For those that say that our Attendance must sell-outs to spend more Capital, I say ... it goes hand-in-hand. You will get the Fans. You will advance to better Conferences. You will win in greater Percentages. You need to spend money though. It is like the Game theory we played in Marketing class: you spend money on Advertising & ProductDevelopment, it comes back in greater Revenues/Results.

 

[Fishy]

And we should not hire coaches who are dick-brained fossils.

 

[Pudge]

I hear Jeff Hathaway kept his own counsel on that hire. (SEE Robert Burton)

 

[Stinger92860]

How much of that has to do with the fact that the State of CT owns the Rent?

 

[Pudge]

How much of that has to do with the fact that the State of CT owns the Rent?

Yeah ... that's a good point. You would think YOU could leverage that as an Asset. Spend money/capital some other way. This I believe: We have done an awful job of Marketing. We have not thought outside the box at all. We watched our Conference peers (Rutgers, Louisville, and now Cincy) spend money on their Stadium ... and twiddled our thumbs.

This is an "ante" up world. We clearly didn't think Bigtime enough.

That includes the "fossil".

 

[Adios]

The Tarheels spent only $12 million more and get paid ~$15 million more. For the crappy coaches we have at the moment (hopefully just one more year), I would call it reasonable spending.

 

[CTMike]

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm...uskies/?&_suid=135594635239009172774971781785

Yay? ugh...

 

[upstater]

Can someone tell me what the parameters are? I read that article and was confused.

Forbes is notorious for bad numbers regarding college sports.

UConn spends more than anyone in the BE, by far and away. How in the world then are they not spending on football?

I think it's far likelier that UConn includes both revenues and expenses under the AD budget while other schools dump ancillary revenues and expenses into football to make it look bigger.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

And we should not hire coaches who are dick-brained fossils.

Shouldn't that sentiment apply to all help wanted solicitations...except when you have openings for dick-brained fossil?.

 

[Adios]

Can someone tell me what the parameters are? I read that article and was confused.

Forbes is notorious for bad numbers regarding college sports.

UConn spends more than anyone in the BE, by far and away. How in the world then are they not spending on football?

I think it's far likelier that UConn includes both revenues and expenses under the AD budget while other schools dump ancillary revenues and expenses into football to make it look bigger.

You may have a point considering the head coach's pay rate. More possibly thoughtless bad press for UConn. UConn needs to hire someone to handle misinformation spread around.

 

[upstater]

Forbes consistently does this. It likes to generate inaccurate lists about most anything.

 

[CL82]

People are just promoting the established narrative.

It does make you wonder if we had gone bowling the last two years, would we still be stuck in this hellhole.