|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1
|
Orange Blooded [4035]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3527
Joined: 8/19/03
|
Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 12:10 AM
|
|
I posted this in a buried topic and thought I would share as a stand alone. My background includes developing budgets for many types of companies and locations, so I thought I would share some thoughts.
Some simply pull data and make an inference that Clemson spends less than x, y, or z school.
That may be correct or it may not be. Accounting at every school will be different.
There are many accounting issues that don’t highlight “true” spending. They may be directionally correct, but they also may have flaws. Stats can be used many ways to “prove” many points of view.
Some schools may share facilities and allocate the cost to one sport or another, thus potentially inflating the cost of one sport while undercosting the other sport. Then, there are OH costs that are misleading. Rent in Miami is clearly different than rent in Clemson. If Miami rents a building for $1m and the same building in Clemson is $.1m - it would appear that Miami spent $900k more on basketball than Clemson, but no real difference.
the same facility in Clemson - replicated in Syracuse, Miami, etc would be different cost, but exactly the same in facility. If a school has a major capital expenditure - say $30m for math sake - and the useful life is 30 years - then $1m per year is on the books. Or it could be done in less years. That will change the budget numbers.
If the going wage rate at Clemson is $10k lower than equal positions in Miami, Raleigh, Atlanta or South Bend, etc and there are 20 positions - then Clemson would have spent $350k less than the others (fringe cost added) - yet in reality - all are equal.
My point is, how schools account for their expenditures is irrelevant. The total budget cost is irrelevant.
What is relevant are specific items that one school has and the other does not. Those need to be listed and discussed. This is what we should be discussing
All budgets should be bottom up (built). There are no doubt positives and negatives in Clemson’s Basketball budget. There are also non monetary positives and negatives that must also be weighed. Aka, The PAW is now nationwide, recruiting should be easier than ever before (I did not say easy- I said easier). Dabo can help.
I hear what JK and others say about money spent, and directionally, it may be right, but it also may not be. It is not as simple as looking up the numbers and saying Clemson spends the 10th in the ACC - thus if we finish 9th, we over achieved.
The conversation should be - (example) other schools have an additional 3 people who do nothing but recruit - and to hire those - Clemson would need to spend $300k.
IMO anyway.
Btw - jK and I often disagree - but also do agree as well. We took a pledge to stay above the name calling and being rude, etc. please join us. I think we all want the same things, but in different ways. We can disagree without being rude. Sometimes - no response is the best option. All of us can do better.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [7191]
TigerPulse: 70%
Posts: 20374
Joined: 8/18/06
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 3:05 AM
|
|
Do you really believe this B.S. If schools like St. Mary ,Murray State ,Saint Peters, Texas Southern, even Richmond can make the Big Dance because of spending ,or facilities, well then you have heard the one about that ocean front property in Arizona.
Have you seen some of these lesser known teams not named Duke UNC, Villanova or Kansas. Better yet have you seen the talent level of the Miami's in the tournament who may spend a little more than Clemson on basketball facilities.
No, it's not facilities, it's recruiting .And the difference is most of these schools recruit basketball talent .Outside of P.J. Hall or a K.J. McDaniels, how many guys has Brad recruited that have the type of talent that can relate to schools like Ga. Tech or Louisville that can hang losses year in or year out on Clemson, or a Boston College ,which erased a 23 point lead by Clemson at Littlejohn just this year alone.
Explain that one if you can, and if you can convince me it's a budgetary issue, then I will make a dollar donation for every year Brad has gotten Clemson to the Big Dance in his 12+ seasons. That would be a whopping 3 dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7942]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10413
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 7:01 AM
|
|
Wow, how are you that far off from the point? Yes some smaller schools regularity make the dance representing a small conference. For whatever reason these schools have an advantage for basketball. Perhaps it’s location or taking jucos or being basketball first. Regardless Clemson does not have the same advantages so if you want to be a good basketball school investment is required.
Explained differently Clemson is good at football and UofSC not so much. Duke is good at basketball but not football. GT has always been better than UGA at basketball but not football. So if you a school who has been traditionally bad at a sport the way to bend the curve is investment making the sport a priority. Some think a new coach is the answer but if they do well they won’t stay so you are right back where you were or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7942]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10413
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 7:01 AM
[ in reply to Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree ] |
|
Wow, how are you that far off from the point? Yes some smaller schools regularity make the dance representing a small conference. For whatever reason these schools have an advantage for basketball. Perhaps it’s location or taking jucos or being basketball first. Regardless Clemson does not have the same advantages so if you want to be a good basketball school investment is required.
Explained differently Clemson is good at football and UofSC not so much. Duke is good at basketball but not football. GT has always been better than UGA at basketball but not football. So if you a school who has been traditionally bad at a sport the way to bend the curve is investment making the sport a priority. Some think a new coach is the answer but if they do well they won’t stay so you are right back where you were or worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9677]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 9378
Joined: 1/18/17
|
All I want is a coach who has vision, instead of a coach full of excuses.
1
Mar 29, 2022, 7:53 AM
|
|
That’s it.
That needs to be our next investment.
Anything else is a waste of time and money.
Put some new bells and whistles in the locker room? Big freaking deal. No one cares.
The end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
it's a bad argument anyway
Mar 29, 2022, 7:57 AM
|
|
if Clemson was all of the sudden to spend more money and move to #1 on that Yahoo list.. do you think they would become ACC champs?
dumping a buttload of money on the Collison floor will instantly get 12 more wins and beat UNC/Duke?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9677]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 9378
Joined: 1/18/17
|
Right. That’s why no one can really answer
1
Mar 29, 2022, 8:02 AM
|
|
Exactly where does this magical money need to be spent?
Sometimes they do answer that it is for “staff.”
Okay, I’ll go with that. But it needs to begin with hiring a new leader.
Brad may be a nice guy and a decent basketball coach, but he clearly does not have what it takes at Clemson.
We need a visionary leader. Not a complainer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7942]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10413
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: it's a bad argument anyway
Mar 29, 2022, 8:09 AM
[ in reply to it's a bad argument anyway ] |
|
if Clemson was all of the sudden to spend more money and move to #1 on that Yahoo list.. do you think they would become ACC champs?
dumping a buttload of money on the Collison floor will instantly get 12 more wins and beat UNC/Duke?
Did the football ops building or the IPF help our football team? Note we are not talking about the game day venue. If these player centric facilities did not result in wins then we wasted ~ $175MM and we should tear them down thus saving the maintenance costs. Does football need the highest paid coaching staff in the country? Do we really need 60 staffers to run a football program? Do we need a state of the art weight room or rehab facility? Get rid of the paw bistro and definitely dont need the on staff barber when Sport Clips is just down the road.
We can do as you suggest and cycle through coaches like GT or WF or Nancy St. with the results being few wins and a lot of buy out debt. You see good coaches will leave quickly and bad coaches will get paid.
So you passion is compelling but your plan is a loser. Ever heard a coot say why not us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9677]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 9378
Joined: 1/18/17
|
Football already had a winner in the leadership position.
1
Mar 29, 2022, 8:16 AM
|
|
You can spend Biden-level money on the basketball program and add any facility you want.
Without a positive, visionary leader…it would all be a waste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
do you think it was the football facility that won
Mar 29, 2022, 8:27 AM
[ in reply to Re: it's a bad argument anyway ] |
|
2 NC or the Head Coach?
Clemson's new 55 mil football facility was built in what, 2017? Dabo was already ..legitimately.. competing for ACC and NC titles before that thing was built.
Clemson spent 60+ mil on Basketball facilities in 2015... fancy new building get better results.
your notion that any other coach would be worse and set Clemson back is complete speculation. The motion that you have to pay a coach 8 mil to in order to win is just not correct.
Dabo and his assistants didn't get pay raises UNTIL they started wining. He was not the highest paid coach when he took over. It was well documented back then that he was getting paid pennies on the dollars for wins compared to his counter parts. I know sports are a different animal but typically you get rewarded based off success..
You can argue the football facilities don't "need" all these things but you can't argue they didn't earn them.
JK continues to put summaries of things that can improve Clemson basketball and i agree with all of them.
https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-forum/message/ive-outlined-this-numerous-times-30541866
BUT.. the lists never include "NEW COACH" which could trump all the other things in his list , combined.
I have never called for Brownell to be fired but also can't get on board with the theory that you can just throw money at something and it will get instantly better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7942]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10413
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: do you think it was the football facility that won
Mar 29, 2022, 8:52 AM
|
|
2 NC or the Head Coach? Clemson's new 55 mil football facility was built in what, 2017? Dabo was already ..legitimately.. competing for ACC and NC titles before that thing was built. Clemson spent 60+ mil on Basketball facilities in 2015... fancy new building get better results. your notion that any other coach would be worse and set Clemson back is complete speculation. The motion that you have to pay a coach 8 mil to in order to win is just not correct. Dabo and his assistants didn't get pay raises UNTIL they started wining. He was not the highest paid coach when he took over. It was well documented back then that he was getting paid pennies on the dollars for wins compared to his counter parts. I know sports are a different animal but typically you get rewarded based off success.. You can argue the football facilities don't "need" all these things but you can't argue they didn't earn them. JK continues to put summaries of things that can improve Clemson basketball and i agree with all of them. https://www.tigernet.com/clemson-forum/message/ive-outlined-this-numerous-times-30541866BUT.. the lists never include "NEW COACH" which could trump all the other things in his list , combined. I have never called for Brownell to be fired but also can't get on board with the theory that you can just throw money at something and it will get instantly better.
Its simple but you seem to be one of those cultist hung up on JK for some reason. The thought is CBB is a good enough coach to punch through if given the needed tools. If the tools are in place and he cant get it done then everyone will support a change. The thing is he gets it done in every single aspect of the program but winning so we need to fix that element instead of starting over in all the other aspects. How do we fix winning? Its easy in Basketball as one player can have an oversized impact unlike football. So how do we attract one high 4* player per year to what we already have? I would suggest an NIL would be the easiest way. FWIW any new coach is going to want an NIL program so they can compete so why not start with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [30766]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 34465
Joined: 6/22/03
|
JK provided a good summary of things
Mar 29, 2022, 9:02 AM
|
|
that could improve basketball last night which is why i posted his link. It was still on page 1.
I already posted i agree with all of them .. including NIL.
Doesn't mean any of them will work.. and... new coach could trump all of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1157]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 770
Joined: 2/25/19
|
Re: do you think it was the football facility that won
Mar 29, 2022, 10:08 AM
[ in reply to Re: do you think it was the football facility that won ] |
|
Bro for the love of god just go start the freaking basketball NIL program already. Again your "we could be worse" mentality is for losers man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 9:13 AM
|
|
This is where I always take it as a ROI question. And is it "worth" it.
Part of what it will take to get Clemson basketball to be an elite program is $$$$. Its called "putting you money where you mouth is"
Really, Clemson basketball was second (really worse) fiddle for a long time. Our investments were WAY behind even before joining the ACC. It catch up, we have to pay the inflation dollars. We have a decade or more under-supporting the sport. Others were "all in".
So we would have to outspend the carolinas consistently for years without any immediate ROI just to say "we sirious". Then hope that some power 5 cuts its basketball budget with a sweet-16 coach that has area ties. That is the UVA model. Bennett didn't land until they had already dropped 200m on the BB program and it still took 6-10 years for any success... and they were building from a decent, not a bottom rung program.
And here is the problem with all Clemson basketball even pre-Press:
The PAW is now nationwide, recruiting should be easier than ever before (I did not say easy- I said easier). Dabo can help.
The paw isn't a basketball symbol. Heck out football players wore another teams colors. Thinking that getting the football icon to win is basketball is the reason why our BB is not "all in"
Also, Clemz... FYI, land acquisition only hits if you have to procure the land. If you are using what you got, it is nothing. That is a reason why Georgetown plays in a NBA arena and why NC State aquired the Millennial Campus. You can avoid that cost if you want. Clemson and a lot of other bigger-state supported schools don't have that issues. Heck, in Louisville, you might have local taxpayers take up part of the cost. Upstate might be cheaper than *some places* it isn't as cheap as it was in the 80s. It is now far more urban than other schools outside the "downtown" options. So nixing land, then you are looking at steel and concrete costs and you might be surprised that some, not all, urban locations could have a material advantage. It might cost ATL less than say Clemson. Then you have engineering/const, and that would likely be a wash since most bigs go for nationally competitive firms.
But now back to ROI. Unless you are THAT major school with 50K students, no instate rival, and happen to be in the hotbed with a good rep, chances are you can't afford to chase every sport. Ask Maryland. They fit being the "only school" and were in a decent spot with a halfway decent rep and they went bankrupt. You can't chase everything.
If for every $1M I spend on football nets me 0.01 championships and every $1M on basketball nets me 0.00000001, fund the ROI getter. it is strategic.
All I want from the basketball program (as a basketball supporter) is to build a good foundation, fight like heck, not play in the Shyatt invitational, not cause the NCAA to look into it/football and cause chaos for the blue bloods. Be better than the ROI that I put in and we are good to go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11428]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 13601
Joined: 10/27/04
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 10:30 AM
|
|
I think a coach at Clemson's level should at least show some consistency before getting all that. If Brad had gone to three NCAATs out of four years, then give him all he needs, but show some consistency first.
Oliver Purnell should have started getting all that quicker consider how they were three years straight in the NCAAT. If he got all that he was asking for then Clemson would have started winning NCAAT games and ACCTs once in awhile.
Clemson is just not going to get that far on a consistent level under Coach Brownell. It's just going to happen. It's the equivalent of throwing a station costume on a mule. The mule is always going to end up showing up...
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7942]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 10413
Joined: 11/28/03
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 10:41 AM
|
|
I think a coach at Clemson's level should at least show some consistency before getting all that. If Brad had gone to three NCAATs out of four years, then give him all he needs, but show some consistency first.
Oliver Purnell should have started getting all that quicker consider how they were three years straight in the NCAAT. If he got all that he was asking for then Clemson would have started winning NCAAT games and ACCTs once in awhile.
Clemson is just not going to get that far on a consistent level under Coach Brownell. It's just going to happen. It's the equivalent of throwing a station costume on a mule. The mule is always going to end up showing up...
CBB has pretty much achieved what is expected based on our program history and funding. A case can made that most years he has over achieved based on those two factors. So you statement that CBB cant be consistent is not based in fact and only based on your desire for a coaching. My guess is the fact that you did not attend Clemson and have never set foot on campus clouds your view of the situation.
As far as OP, he did make the dance three years but could not win a single freaking game. Had we invested then perhaps he would not have needed to jump ship but that is water under the bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree
Mar 29, 2022, 11:13 AM
[ in reply to Re: Basketball spending - school comps are flawed to some degree ] |
|
Actually Brad has been fairly consistent. Between about 17-25 wins, kinda bouncing there. His floor and ceiling. That is a major improvement as we haven't always been great but we haven't been horrifically and comically bad either. Kinda the old adage, to finish first, first you have to finish. That is kinda where we are. An also ran but dang being a mule is still better than being a dead horse (did you know that Georgetown went winless in the BigEast this year?)
Starting post renovation it was 17 wins, 25 wins, 20 wins, 16 wins, 23/24 equivalent wins (based on a 34 game season for 2021), 17 wins. All were between 8-11 wins in conference. Heck a normal year in 2021 would have likely given us a chance for 14 wins in conference.
OP got to three straight but it really wasn't any better seasons. He was riding our only really NBA veteran talent since Buckner. I mean OP's best season wasn't much better than Brad 2021 season. Worse, he was a gimmick, not sustainable program building. Heck he even had a first round ACC exit in two of the three ncaa seasons to some low teams. He helped the Clemson name get out of the Shyatt but not the program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12771
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Our basketball program gets compared to SCar football
Mar 29, 2022, 11:41 AM
|
|
often on here in terms of historic success and performance. So I'm curious, based on our success in football versus SCar's lack of success, how our respective program budgets in that sport compare over the past decade? The point of the question is to draw a correlation between funds invested in a program and how successful it is in the field of play, thus how impactful 'more resources' actually is in terms of emphasis on a program's status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Our basketball program gets compared to SCar football
Mar 29, 2022, 11:55 AM
|
|
No, we are Vanderbilt football (and Brad is keeping us at 4-6 wins), and we were only an injury away from fielding a member of the womens track team this season.
There is nothing like Coot football. No program in any sport has both cheated, spent money, and wasted it away quite like the coots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [16227]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12771
Joined: 11/14/09
|
Re: Our basketball program gets compared to SCar football
Mar 29, 2022, 12:33 PM
|
|
My question was directly about our in-state rival's budget for football compared to ours over the years. I thought the OP might have some figures to share there to compare numbers, which could be compared to on field success. The discussion was about a program's financial support from its institution, and how tricky it can be to decipher. That Brownell has kept our program at a Vanderbilt football level over twelve years seems like a different topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 19
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
