UT vs SC revenue

[GVol1966]

There is no need to make a coaching change now.

Unless you count winning games a need

 

[HuntlandVolinColo]

That's pathetic! I thought we would be at least 3/4 of a billion higher than SCAR in revenue!

Must be all those "Cuck" shirts that they sell to the locals.

 

[Glocker_Alum_2005]

You’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.

Fulmer almost fired him last season.

 

[salutethehill]

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?

Who said UT doesn't have the financial ability to terminate a coach?
What the heck makes us think we know anything about what goes on behind closed doors?

 

[kcvols1]

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?

Out of state tuition is higher, so you get more revenue. Where’s the subsidy?

Also, UT has HOPE, which keeps in state talent at UT. The net result is more income from the lottery and a better quality student.

UGA has had that for 20 years or so. Now there’s kids getting into Harvard and Princeton that get declined at UGA.

 

[midtnvol2]

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?

Your missing the fact that just like most other schools it’s higher education entitlement. All of that money doesn’t stay with the football program. It pays for all UT Sports athletics, coaches salaries, scholarships, recruiting budgets, administrators and on and on. Plus the fact that a set percentage has to go to the education side of the university. The educational donations rarely if ever gets shared with athletics but AD revenue must be shared with education. All schools face this. Vanderbilt’s AD department gets to keep the smallest amount of any sec school that I know of. This is why their facilities are lagging way behind.