For those questioning the $$$...(long - not for ADD folks)
- Thread starter VolMax
- Start date
VolMax
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2007
- Messages
- 2,135
- Likes
- 680
vols-1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 5,108
- Likes
- 606
Article dated 2011 says Tn womans basketball lost 714k.
Women Basketball Programs Lose Money as Salaries Break College Budgets- Bloomberg
Alumni_06
ALL VOL
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2008
- Messages
- 532
- Likes
- 218
There are many valid points about the state of UT finances with regards to athletics. While I remain skeptical of a Gruden hire to UT, can Tennessee really afford NOT to go after a big name coach?
I think about the 4-7 year impact of keeping Dooley and floundering in a year or two when it turns out we need a new coach. Accounting aside for a moment, the UT athletic budget over that average, aforementioned, 5.5 years will exceed a half-billion USD (that's with a "b"). It would seem to me that the aggregate economic impact (for UT and East Tennessee) of having 20-30 thousand empty seats at Neyland stadium 3-4 times a year (over that time span) far outweighs the buyouts and spend on new coaches.
*************************************************************
I would have someone question my math: If over an average 5.5 year period, UT averages 3.5 games per season with 25,000 empty seats (I'm not considering announced attendance), that's over 19 games and equates to nearly 500,000 empty seats (in total) over that period. If you divide that by the capacity of Neyland Stadium, that is the same effect as having five fewer home games over that same time span of 5.5 years. My understanding is that for a sellout home football weekend, the University nets about $7.5MM on average (this of course does not take into effect the economic impact of those sell out weekends). Therefore, the net difference to UT over that time span is nearly $38mm. Will a big name coach and staff, and Dooley-and-crew buyouts really be more expensive than that over that period? I doubt it.
It just doesn't make any economic sense for UT to allow the program to languish as it has. I suppose this is what Dave Hart means when he talks about being "in the football business..."
I think about the 4-7 year impact of keeping Dooley and floundering in a year or two when it turns out we need a new coach. Accounting aside for a moment, the UT athletic budget over that average, aforementioned, 5.5 years will exceed a half-billion USD (that's with a "b"). It would seem to me that the aggregate economic impact (for UT and East Tennessee) of having 20-30 thousand empty seats at Neyland stadium 3-4 times a year (over that time span) far outweighs the buyouts and spend on new coaches.
*************************************************************
I would have someone question my math: If over an average 5.5 year period, UT averages 3.5 games per season with 25,000 empty seats (I'm not considering announced attendance), that's over 19 games and equates to nearly 500,000 empty seats (in total) over that period. If you divide that by the capacity of Neyland Stadium, that is the same effect as having five fewer home games over that same time span of 5.5 years. My understanding is that for a sellout home football weekend, the University nets about $7.5MM on average (this of course does not take into effect the economic impact of those sell out weekends). Therefore, the net difference to UT over that time span is nearly $38mm. Will a big name coach and staff, and Dooley-and-crew buyouts really be more expensive than that over that period? I doubt it.
It just doesn't make any economic sense for UT to allow the program to languish as it has. I suppose this is what Dave Hart means when he talks about being "in the football business..."
Advertisement
