|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Aug 31, 2021 18:05:30 GMT -5
I think it would be helpful to outline the budget constraints that MB had to operate under during most of his relatively short tenure.
Budget for 2019-20 (7/1/2019-6/30/2020). MB started on July 1, 2019, and had no control or input into the budget for this year. This budget was prepared by ADNP.
Budget for 2020-21. (7/1/2020-6/30/2021) Preliminary budget would be approved in September 2019. This preliminary budget would set the number of scollies that would be offered by sport, and coaches' salaries. Given that MB would have been on the job for two months, he likely would have had limited input and impact into this budget This budget was blown up by COVID, and the college moving to a remote learning model midway through the spring 2020 semester, and continuing through the fall 2020 semester. Some staff were furloughed. The college had to borrow substantial sums to balance the books.
Budget for 2021-22. (7/1/2021-6/30/2022) Preliminary budget approved September 2020. This is a MB budget. However, this budget may reflect deferral of some projects and spending increases because of the substantial financial hit on the college's revenue resulting from COVID and the college having gone to a remote learning model for 2020-2021.
Budget for 2022-23. (7/1/2022-6/30/2023) The preliminary budget will be set next week. This is a MB budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 2, 2021 14:12:58 GMT -5
Excellent analysis. I wonder if the current MB budget year shows any discernable acknowledgement that the football program has outperformed it's peer programs on campus and in the PL. I imagine it might be tough to tell exactly and of course you can't starve the other programs to reward success in FB to any great degree.
It would be nice if a sport like football could earn it's own bonuses with having increased revenue from apparel sales, ticket sales, refreshments, on-field and program advertising, etc. be primarily directed to that program. Minor sports can't really do that but the revenue sports can and that approach allows for the building of sweat equity and aligns incentive with performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Sept 2, 2021 14:45:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the overview. From my seat, I think MB did a good job during his brief time with us. One could talk about hiring the right coaches as the most important part of his role and I won't disagree.
I think he was rebuilding the infrastructure while building a strategic approach to future needs. He was given a facility, but the basics like working in the community, video boards, new fields, etc. --all serve as valuable assets to attract, recruit and retain the right coaches and players. While it is difficult to give him more than an incomplete because of his time in the role, I think he helped position us to bring in a strong AD as his replacement, and give us a more complete set of resources to attract coaches that know how to win, understand Holy Cross, and can recruit the talent needed for today and the future.
Time will tell
|
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 2, 2021 17:07:20 GMT -5
Excellent analysis. I wonder if the current MB budget year shows any discernable acknowledgement that the football program has outperformed it's peer programs on campus and in the PL. I imagine it might be tough to tell exactly and of course you can't starve the other programs to reward success in FB to any great degree. It would be nice if a sport like football could earn it's own bonuses with having increased revenue from apparel sales, ticket sales, refreshments, on-field and program advertising, etc. be primarily directed to that program. Minor sports can't really do that but the revenue sports can and that approach allows for the building of sweat equity and aligns incentive with performance. I can only speak to my experience with budgets other than academia. But speaking generally, the budget for athletics that MB will present to the BoT next week will address the priorities for new/added funding that he has already telegraphed, publicly. It would be very, very rash for him to speak publicly about these priorities without having first reviewed these with select members of the BoT and securing their approval. He has spoken of the need to pay coaches more, to increase significantly the number of scollies in the Olympic sports, to provide more counseling for student-athletes, and to undertake significant facility upgrades and renovation. With respect to awarding bonuses for doing well, -- other than performance incentives set out in employment contracts, I doubt there are program bonuses generated from licensing deals and sales, for example. Take football, the cost of 60 scollies is $4.3 million. (And that doesn't factor the cost of offsetting scollies in women's sports because of Title IX.) Selling more media advertising, apparel, etc., isn't going to move the generated revenue needle very much, when compared to the program's expense. However, (and illustratively) if MB said, 'we have a guarantee game against a Div I autonomous school in each of the next five years, and an average payout of $1.2 million a game, that would move the needle and could be used to argue for spending more money on the football program. Or in another hypothetical, if a wealthy alum committed to giving the program a $20 million gift provided the school wins at least one FCS playoff game in three consecutive years, that could tempt the BoT into spending more money on football, because of the future reward. Clearly, some of the holds and freezes on certain spending that were imposed as the budget ran deeply into the red because of COVID impacts, have been removed. I think the video boards are evidence of that, and the increased number of athletic trainers and strength and conditioning staff are also evidence of that. |
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Sept 3, 2021 18:06:59 GMT -5
Excellent analysis. I wonder if the current MB budget year shows any discernable acknowledgement that the football program has outperformed it's peer programs on campus and in the PL. I imagine it might be tough to tell exactly and of course you can't starve the other programs to reward success in FB to any great degree. It would be nice if a sport like football could earn it's own bonuses with having increased revenue from apparel sales, ticket sales, refreshments, on-field and program advertising, etc. be primarily directed to that program. Minor sports can't really do that but the revenue sports can and that approach allows for the building of sweat equity and aligns incentive with performance. I can only speak to my experience with budgets other than academia. But speaking generally, the budget for athletics that MB will present to the BoT next week will address the priorities for new/added funding that he has already telegraphed, publicly. It would be very, very rash for him to speak publicly about these priorities without having first reviewed these with select members of the BoT and securing their approval. He has spoken of the need to pay coaches more, to increase significantly the number of scollies in the Olympic sports, to provide more counseling for student-athletes, and to undertake significant facility upgrades and renovation. With respect to awarding bonuses for doing well, -- other than performance incentives set out in employment contracts, I doubt there are program bonuses generated from licensing deals and sales, for example. Take football, the cost of 60 scollies is $4.3 million. (And that doesn't factor the cost of offsetting scollies in women's sports because of Title IX.) Selling more media advertising, apparel, etc., isn't going to move the generated revenue needle very much, when compared to the program's expense. However, (and illustratively) if MB said, 'we have a guarantee game against a Div I autonomous school in each of the next five years, and an average payout of $1.2 million a game, that would move the needle and could be used to argue for spending more money on the football program. Or in another hypothetical, if a wealthy alum committed to giving the program a $20 million gift provided the school wins at least one FCS playoff game in three consecutive years, that could tempt the BoT into spending more money on football, because of the future reward. Clearly, some of the holds and freezes on certain spending that were imposed as the budget ran deeply into the red because of COVID impacts, have been removed. I think the video boards are evidence of that, and the increased number of athletic trainers and strength and conditioning staff are also evidence of that. Good points. I was thinking of ways to respond to reports of concern being raised at the FB Golf Tournament about low coach pay, that would put the ball back in the coaches court by tying increased pay to increased performance that resulted in increased revenue. |
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Sept 4, 2021 6:28:03 GMT -5
I can only speak to my experience with budgets other than academia. But speaking generally, the budget for athletics that MB will present to the BoT next week will address the priorities for new/added funding that he has already telegraphed, publicly. It would be very, very rash for him to speak publicly about these priorities without having first reviewed these with select members of the BoT and securing their approval. He has spoken of the need to pay coaches more, to increase significantly the number of scollies in the Olympic sports, to provide more counseling for student-athletes, and to undertake significant facility upgrades and renovation. With respect to awarding bonuses for doing well, -- other than performance incentives set out in employment contracts, I doubt there are program bonuses generated from licensing deals and sales, for example. Take football, the cost of 60 scollies is $4.3 million. (And that doesn't factor the cost of offsetting scollies in women's sports because of Title IX.) Selling more media advertising, apparel, etc., isn't going to move the generated revenue needle very much, when compared to the program's expense. However, (and illustratively) if MB said, 'we have a guarantee game against a Div I autonomous school in each of the next five years, and an average payout of $1.2 million a game, that would move the needle and could be used to argue for spending more money on the football program. Or in another hypothetical, if a wealthy alum committed to giving the program a $20 million gift provided the school wins at least one FCS playoff game in three consecutive years, that could tempt the BoT into spending more money on football, because of the future reward. Clearly, some of the holds and freezes on certain spending that were imposed as the budget ran deeply into the red because of COVID impacts, have been removed. I think the video boards are evidence of that, and the increased number of athletic trainers and strength and conditioning staff are also evidence of that. Good points. I was thinking of ways to respond to reports of concern being raised at the FB Golf Tournament about low coach pay, that would put the ball back in the coaches court by tying increased pay to increased performance that resulted in increased revenue. Summer camps can be a significant source of revenue, most of which supposedly goes into the pockets of the coaches, and supposedly mostly/entirely to the assistant coaches as a supplemental to their salaries.. Stanford women's soccer runs 4-5 summer camps, five days each. In 2018, the cost to daycampers was $735; the cost to those sleeping on campus was $850. Five camps, average cost per camper of $800, and 80 girls per camp = $320,000. gross revenue. Not chump change. |
|
