UT vs SC revenue

#26
#26
dobre_shunka said:
Neyland isn't state of the art. The overwhelming portion of the stadium hasn't had more than paint for several decades. They've done more major upgrades than UT like the new endzone addition.
Click to expand...
That new endzone addition raises you guys to mid-bottom half of the SEC. Good job--you're stadium is still a sh!!thole.
 
#28
#28
DonDiego said:
That new endzone addition raises you guys to mid-bottom half of the SEC. Good job--you're stadium is still a sh!!thole.
Click to expand...
Um, I guess Neyland is "my stadium" since I've had season tickets there for almost 30 years and I attended many games as a student.
 
#29
#29
TN State law requires TN to have the lump sum of money available at the time of firing. You do no have to pay them the lump sum but it must be available. i dont know south carolina's state laws when it comes to this but im sure its different.. that is a very big hurdle unfortunately. We also told our biggest donor to kick rocks during the shiano debacle in 2017. Haslam hasnt really been involved in the University since. It would require us to be kissing hit boots for this to happen.
 
#31
#31
NEO said:
Ut academics are raping the sports side big time.

Have been for years.

Ut doesnt care about winning or the fans.
Click to expand...

Thread.

And good luck changing that. I think some on the other side actually like it this way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NEO
#32
#32
dobre_shunka said:
As long as UT priorizes admitting Tennessee residents, they aren't going to match Bama's incoming classes. Over two thirds of Bama's enrollment is out of state versus 30% for UT. Bama recruits students more like a private school and that lets them be more selective in admissions.

Question is should a state supported school be spending state tax revenue educating non-residents?
Click to expand...

....you do realize OOS students pay more, right?
 
#34
#34
landscapingvol said:
What you are missing is UT only cares about revenue not results
Click to expand...
That's like saying "Apple cares only about revenue, not producing a good cell phone."

The two are connected. Think about all of the revenue Tennessee has left on the table for having a crappy football program for over a decade.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sarms58
#35
#35
dobre_shunka said:
As long as UT priorizes admitting Tennessee residents, they aren't going to match Bama's incoming classes. Over two thirds of Bama's enrollment is out of state versus 30% for UT. Bama recruits students more like a private school and that lets them be more selective in admissions.

Question is should a state supported school be spending state tax revenue educating non-residents?
Click to expand...
Alabama's out of state enrollment has everything to do with their football program the best. Seriously. Their OOS enrollment didn't start exploding until about 10 years ago. There are so many kids from Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, even Yankee kids who like college football who want to go there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MUTigr92
#38
#38
BigOrangeMojo said:
I see throughout these threads that we have no money to fire a coach but South Carolina has no issue paying a larger buyout.

Over the last 15 years, UT has generated almost $1.7 billion ($1,689,071,758) in revenue. South Carolina has generated almost $1.4 billion ($1,394,267,174) in revenue. How can the school with almost $300M less in revenue ($20M per year) have the ability to terminate a coach while the other school does not?

I know we've paid a decent amount of buyouts but what we've paid to Fulmer, Butch, Dooley are a small percentage of the $300M difference in revenue. Both ahtletic departments have mentioned similar COVID related impacts on their financials.

Even at the worst period in our history and the best in theirs, there is a $300M revenue difference.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

A closer look at Will Muschampā€™s buyout and associated costs for USC with his departure

USCe also put in a mitigation clause in Muschamp's contract, unlike UT with Pruitt. So most likely they are not going to pay the full $13.2 million if they stretch out the payback over 5 years, and he'll be less likely to try to scam USCe with an analyst position after Arkansas wins their lawsuit against Bielema.
 
#39
#39
Probably easier to fire a 5th year coach than a 3rd year coach...not so much because of the buyout for the departing coach but because itā€™s going to drive up the cost of hiring a new coach - Youā€™ll be forced to include a higher guarantee/buyout for a proven coach or go with another unproven coach.
 
#40
#40
dobre_shunka said:
As long as UT priorizes admitting Tennessee residents, they aren't going to match Bama's incoming classes. Over two thirds of Bama's enrollment is out of state versus 30% for UT. Bama recruits students more like a private school and that lets them be more selective in admissions.

Question is should a state supported school be spending state tax revenue educating non-residents?
Click to expand...
Demographics. Of the 38,103 undergraduate, professional and graduate students enrolled at UA in the fall semester of 2019, 39.7% come from Alabama. 56.5% come from elsewhere in the United States.
 
#42
#42
I could be wrong about this, but because Spurrier resigned and wasnā€™t fired, Iā€™m guessing SC didnā€™t have to worry about paying off his contract. On the flip side, it seems like we have been paying off coachesā€™ contracts for the past decade.
 
#43
#43
BeardedVol said:
A closer look at Will Muschampā€™s buyout and associated costs for USC with his departure

USCe also put in a mitigation clause in Muschamp's contract, unlike UT with Pruitt. So most likely they are not going to pay the full $13.2 million if they stretch out the payback over 5 years, and he'll be less likely to try to scam USCe with an analyst position after Arkansas wins their lawsuit against Bielema.
Click to expand...

I'd assume Muschamp and USC will probably negotiate out the offset for a lower buyout. It might knock a million or two off so it would be in line with Pruitt's buyout.
 
#44
#44
VFL1993 said:
I could be wrong about this, but because Spurrier resigned and wasnā€™t fired, Iā€™m guessing SC didnā€™t have to worry about paying off his contract. On the flip side, it seems like we have been paying off coachesā€™ contracts for the past decade.
Click to expand...

They essentially negotiated that Spurrier would get paid for the rest of the season plus some other perks and that Spurrier would donate buyout to the USC booster club.

I think Spurrier had a $3MM buyout at the time that would have been smaller had he completed the season. Fairly certain he got some good golf perks as part of settlement.
 
#45
#45
BeardedVol said:
A closer look at Will Muschampā€™s buyout and associated costs for USC with his departure

USCe also put in a mitigation clause in Muschamp's contract, unlike UT with Pruitt. So most likely they are not going to pay the full $13.2 million if they stretch out the payback over 5 years, and he'll be less likely to try to scam USCe with an analyst position after Arkansas wins their lawsuit against Bielema.
Click to expand...
SC appears to have drafted Muschamp's contract properly, unlike Tennessee did with Butch's.

You and I have gone 15 rounds before about Butch's contract, and I don't want to do that again, but the way it is written appears to suggest that he's mitigating his buyout if he merely makes an effort to mitigate it. That's probably by UT hasn't sued him. That article you linked to states that Muschamp's contract sets the minimum offset at 75% of the previous holder's salary at the new job. That's a great way to make sure that your fired coach gets a job that 1) he's not underqualified for and 2) they are paying him a market rate for.
 
#46
#46
05_never_again said:
Alabama's out of state enrollment has everything to do with their football program the best. Seriously. Their OOS enrollment didn't start exploding until about 10 years ago. There are so many kids from Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, even Yankee kids who like college football who want to go there.
Click to expand...

Interesting topic. I agree that Bama football has led to the increase in OOS admissions. Same thing happens to schools that hit it big in the NCAA tourney. They give big on merit scholarships to OOS kids (who are often better prepared than the in-state students). They are choosy in this approach going after suburban kids from Wash DC area, Long Island, NJ, Chicago, etc.

My daughter picked UT for Architecture and we live in No. Va. We were stunned the number of kids from our area that are going to Knoxville. They have a Virginias Admissions rep who does a very good job. The Volunteer Scholarship helps equalize the OOS pricetag. A lot of Chicago kids at UT as well. Maybe Rick Barnes' program will have to carry the flag for the UT brand for a while.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#47
#47
DonDiego said:
The obvious answer is no. Why would I, as an Alabama taxpayer (thank my God I ain't), want to subsidize someone from California or Pakistan?
Click to expand...
JC, how misinformed can one be? OOS students are profitable to universities, UT included. This is the kind of bs people type on the internet these days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1 and MUTigr92
#48
#48
BigOrangeMojo said:
I see throughout these threads that we have no money to fire a coach but South Carolina has no issue paying a larger buyout.

Over the last 15 years, UT has generated almost $1.7 billion ($1,689,071,758) in revenue. South Carolina has generated almost $1.4 billion ($1,394,267,174) in revenue. How can the school with almost $300M less in revenue ($20M per year) have the ability to terminate a coach while the other school does not?

I know we've paid a decent amount of buyouts but what we've paid to Fulmer, Butch, Dooley are a small percentage of the $300M difference in revenue. Both ahtletic departments have mentioned similar COVID related impacts on their financials.

Even at the worst period in our history and the best in theirs, there is a $300M revenue difference.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Youā€™re not missing anything. In my opinion, the issue is Stubbornness-Fulmer never felt he should have been fired. He will not fire Pruitt unless he is forced to. Everyone but Fulmer can see Pruitt is not the guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: onevol74 and vettefool
#49
#49
BigOrangeMojo said:
I see throughout these threads that we have no money to fire a coach but South Carolina has no issue paying a larger buyout.

Over the last 15 years, UT has generated almost $1.7 billion ($1,689,071,758) in revenue. South Carolina has generated almost $1.4 billion ($1,394,267,174) in revenue. How can the school with almost $300M less in revenue ($20M per year) have the ability to terminate a coach while the other school does not?

I know we've paid a decent amount of buyouts but what we've paid to Fulmer, Butch, Dooley are a small percentage of the $300M difference in revenue. Both ahtletic departments have mentioned similar COVID related impacts on their financials.

Even at the worst period in our history and the best in theirs, there is a $300M revenue difference.

What am I missing?
Click to expand...
Well we are paying our menā€™s basketball coach a bunch, due to his flirts with UCLA. Iā€™m hoping itā€™s worth it. I dont know how we compare with sc in other coach, staff payments.
 
#50
#50
dobre_shunka said:
As long as UT priorizes admitting Tennessee residents, they aren't going to match Bama's incoming classes. Over two thirds of Bama's enrollment is out of state versus 30% for UT. Bama recruits students more like a private school and that lets them be more selective in admissions.

Question is should a state supported school be spending state tax revenue educating non-residents?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should look at Mich re funding non residents..... international students everywhere
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top