2023 5 star recruit guaranteed $8mm in NIL

[Gary Indiana]

I think looking at context and details is important and with that in mind, I believe it is unique. To your hypothetical, you could be right, but bigger programs poaching successful coaches from smaller programs is nothing new. I also don't think blue bloods poaching blue bloods is anything new, nor does it say much about CU's situation.

Regardless, I think this is veering away from your initial post and the reason I responded. Dropping football doesn't make much sense, and for the life of me, I don't really understand why a fan would carry that mindset, but then again, you have been fairly outspoken about your level of interest in CFB as a whole.

I’m confused about your second sentence in relation to your thought that the Tucker situation was so unique. It doesn’t seem to support that.

To your second paragraph, it makes sense in that I believe we continue the trend at CU of waning fan support and less resources to work with. Again, the AD just borrowed $18M from the conference last year. With the transfer portal, NIL, and college coaches being able to jump whenever they want, I don’t see a scenario where our situation improves. It’s time to look at the trajectory of CFB and determine if it is financially responsible to keep investing in it.

 

[PAHIBuff]

How much of the wealth in Colorado is actually from Colorado or has ties to the University? I would guess very few, especially relative to the South where most of the money in the states are from there or have ties to the respective universities

Yep. Four richest folk in Box State are Phil Anschutz (Kansas), Pat Stryker (dropped out of Northern Colorado), John Malone (Yale), and Charlie Ergen (Tennessee).
I'm not sure if the guys have active ties to the Athletic Depts of their respective universities, but Stryker is a CSU contributor at times.

For home-grown rich guys, I think you'd have to look at the Leprinos and the Monforts......again, no CU ties there.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

I’m confused about your second sentence in relation to your thought that the Tucker situation was so unique. It doesn’t seem to support that.

To your second paragraph, it makes sense in that I believe we continue the trend at CU of waning fan support and less resources to work with. Again, the AD just borrowed $18M from the conference last year. With the transfer portal, NIL, and college coaches being able to jump whenever they want, I don’t see a scenario where our situation improves. It’s time to look at the trajectory of CFB and determine if it is financially responsible to keep investing in it.

I've already laid out why I believe the Tucker situation was unique, and I think it's entirely different from a coach actually being successful at CU getting poached.

Again, you want to cut football and focus on other sports. MBB is the most successful it's ever been over the last decade and it still doesn't have much support. There is no world in which the University of Colorado is able to fund those other sports without football.

 

[Gary Indiana]

I've already laid out why I believe the Tucker situation was unique, and I think it's entirely different from a coach actually being successful at CU getting poached.

Again, you want to cut football and focus on other sports. MBB is the most successful it's ever been over the last decade and it still doesn't have much support. There is no world in which the University of Colorado is able to fund those other sports without football.

You keep repeating that last line, and I’d agree with you if we were seeing great attendance or had the media deals of some other schools, but we had a $20M deficit in our AD last year.

Also, if football is necessary for other sports to survive you better notify the ADs of DU, George Mason, BU, Creighton, Gonzaga, DePaul, GW, Northeastern, Providence, St. Mary’s, Seton Hall, UVM, VCU, Wichita State, and Xavier.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

You keep repeating that last line, and I’d agree with you if we were seeing great attendance or had the media deals of some other schools, but we had a $20M deficit in our AD last year.

Also, if football is necessary for other sports to survive you better notify the ADs of DU, George Mason, BU, Creighton, Gonzaga, DePaul, GW, Northeastern, Providence, St. Mary’s, Seton Hall, UVM, VCU, Wichita State, and Xavier.

I keep repeating it because it's entirely true and you are continually glossing over it. So you are suggesting that the budget deficit is entirely due to football expenses and that the other sports are each operating in the black and can be sustainable without football? Please show your work on this. You also keep glossing over the new Pac 12 media deal which will provide more revenue to CUAD than they've ever had. That doesn't happen without football.

Are you really trying to compare CU to schools like Seton Hall, Gonzaga, Wichita State and Northeastern? Come on.

 

[patebuff]

The issue is that all such moves will be tailored towards the needs and demands of the top 20 programs and not the top 120 programs as the power solely lies with the top 20 and there's a very real threat of them doing their own thing if they don't get what they want.

What would be considered tailor made for the top 20 programs in regards to NIL?

 

[PAHIBuff]

The PAC is ****ed…

<disclaimer- I know this will never happen>
If I’m the new incoming President of CU, I take a hard look at leaving the conference and dropping football.

At the current trajectory of CFB, how long until CU is just hemorrhaging money to keep a FB team afloat? With no hope of every really competing.

I’d focus on competitive Mens and Womens teams in Bball, Soccer, Lacrosse, and add both mens and womens hockey. You would have natural rivals in all of these sports right in state with DU, CC, AFA and could join the NCHC for hockey and immediately become one of the bigger fish in that pond.

Football just seems like an albatross in the changing landscape of college athletics. I can’t imagine the juice is worth the squeeze much longer for schools like CU with regard to football.

OK Gary, I'll go down this theoretical road with you with a Modest Proposal of my own. If CU did drop football and exit the PAC 12, it would absolutely need to be in a conference and I've found the perfect solution:

Big West Conference - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a non-football conference that's relatively competitive and its geographic make-up would surely satisfy the Californiaphiles of Allbuffs. Great hoop road trips to Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Davis, Irvine, etc, places we've all been (even me!) and find enjoyable. So, c'mon Buff fans, let's be leaders in sports again. As the great state that shunted the Olympics (for good reasons) in the 1970s, let's lead the college sports world and drop football and exit a P5 conference. Folsom could be "re-purposed" into a weekend craft market with local beers and occasional music performances. Who's on board?

 

[Gary Indiana]

I keep repeating it because it's entirely true and you are continually glossing over it. So you are suggesting that the budget deficit is entirely due to football expenses and that the other sports are each operating in the black and can be sustainable without football? Please show your work on this. You also keep glossing over the new Pac 12 media deal which will provide more revenue to CUAD than they've ever had. That doesn't happen without football.

Are you really trying to compare CU to schools like Seton Hall, Gonzaga, Wichita State and Northeastern? Come on.

Who would you compare our AD to? Oregon State? Kansas State? Honest question because you’re asking me to “show my work”, yet you haven’t addressed CU’s deficit or recent $18M loan. If CU football is such a boon for the AD, why are we in constantly operating on a deficit?

You’re also using a hypothetical Pac12 media deal that hasn’t even happened as evidence we’ll be better off. Not a strong argument.

 

[PAHIBuff]

Note on this subject: My post above( #67) is dead serious IF CU dropped football and left the Pac 12.

 

[Jens1893]

What would be considered tailor made for the top 20 programs in regards to NIL?

I do not know but my main point is that I wouldn’t bet on regulations there helping CU in a tangible way. The NIL genie is out of the bottle and you either adapt to the new reality or you get left behind.

 

[patebuff]

I do not know but my main point is that I wouldn’t bet on regulations there helping CU in a tangible way. The NIL genie is out of the bottle and you either adapt to the new reality or you get left behind.

The NCAA sure isn't regulating anything regarding NIL so I do think a governing body with a commissioner would be beneficial for majority of college football. Those top 20 programs will always have a leg up because they have access to more donors and NIL deals. That'll never change unless college adopts some type of professional model by paying players with a salary cap. Even then, those Schools will still have a leg up with NIL deals.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Who would you compare our AD to? Oregon State? Kansas State? Honest question because you’re asking me to “show my work”, yet you haven’t addressed CU’s deficit or recent $18M loan. If CU football is such a boon for the AD, why are we in constantly operating on a deficit?

You’re also using a hypothetical Pac12 media deal that hasn’t even happened as evidence we’ll be better off. Not a strong argument.

What do you want me to address? That in 2019, pre COVID, the football program operated at a close to $14m surplus, while MBB was at $2.1m surplus, and all other sports operated at a $13m deficit combined?

That in 2019, CU football had total revenues of $43.5m, while MBB, WBB and Other Sports had total revenues of less than $15m COMBINED. There is a "Non Program specific" category that is operating in the red at a high clip, which I imagine is something like facilities, non program specific employees, etc.

I am using a hypothetical Pac 12 media deal that hasn't happened yet because it's going to happen and it's going to be significantly more than the current one.

COVID hit the football program and therefore the AD hard. The CUAD clearly doesn't get the support from the broader University that other Pac 12 ADs do, so they opted to take the loan. Whatever, I wasn't present for the conversations and cost/benefit analysis they ran when determining whether they should take the loan. Were you?

One thing is very clear... A ****ty CU football program still funds the entire AD, with the exception of MBB that lives on a fairly thin profit margin. But yes, they should totally drop the football program because you have become disenchanted with the sport of college football and CU's competitiveness in the new landscape going forward.

 

[Jens1893]

The NCAA sure isn't regulating anything regarding NIL so I do think a governing body with a commissioner would be beneficial for majority of college football. Those top 20 programs will always have a leg up because they have access to more donors and NIL deals. That'll never change unless college adopts some type of professional model by paying players with a salary cap. Even then, those Schools will still have a leg up with NIL deals.

But would it tangibly help?

I see it as another tool to help in recruiting only that now essentially paying players is de facto legal for the first time ever and you don’t need to do it under the table or blow that money on your infrastructure (which was obviously also used as a recruiting tool).

 

[Gary Indiana]

Hmm, what’s changed since 2019 at CU and for CFB as a whole that would shift my thinking on the future of CFB? Maybe all of the things that I mentioned in my original post (NIL, transfer portal, coach buyouts, diminishing fan base etc)

The present day and near future for CU FB looks a lot different. Operating costs are going up significantly and attendance revenues look to be going down. Even if CU had an inclination as to how to construct an NIL and recruiting operation, we have no donors who are willing or able to fund it at the level it would take.

 

[Creebuzz]

I think you will see some fallout where some schools drop football. A lot of dominoes would have to fall for CU to do that. It’s still in a power five conference after all. I think the bigger threat is that football becomes a regional sport, due to poor competitive balance with the southeast.

Regarding donations, you don’t have to have big ties to the university to donate to it. Many of the biggest donors to Florida colleges are not native Floridians or alumni. People settle in a state and often want their adopted home school to do well. CU tapped into that with the medical school, and could do so with athletics.

 

[patebuff]

But would it tangibly help?

I see it as another tool to help in recruiting only that now essentially paying players is de facto legal for the first time ever and you don’t need to do it under the table or blow that money on your infrastructure (which was obviously also used as a recruiting tool).

It works if the rules and regulations are set up in way that discourages cheating in a meaningful way. If it is set up where those top 20 programs can continue to bypass rules and receive slaps on the wrists, then all of this doesn't matter.

I do get the sense that majority of those programs and University's do want these regulations because they see this is not sustainable for the future of the sport.

 

[Jens1893]

It works if the rules and regulations are set up in way that discourages cheating in a meaningful way. If it is set up where those top 20 programs can continue to bypass rules and receive slaps on the wrists, then all of this doesn't matter.

I do get the sense that majority of those programs and University's do want these regulations because they see this is not sustainable for the future of the sport.

I’m not sure if that’s the reason they want the regulations.

 

[patebuff]

Hmm, what’s changed since 2019 at CU and for CFB as a whole that would shift my thinking on the future of CFB? Maybe all of the things that I mentioned in my original post (NIL, transfer portal, coach buyouts, diminishing fan base etc)

The present day and near future for CU FB looks a lot different. Operating costs are going up significantly and attendance revenues look to be going down. Even if CU had an inclination as to how to construct an NIL and recruiting operation, we have no donors who are willing or able to fund it at the level it would take.

I think the School and the state has proven it will support a winning program. CU won't be an elite but they could get in that next level with right vision from the School and coaches.

 

[patebuff]

I’m not sure if that’s the reason they want the regulations.

I don't doubt that there are some that fall in that category.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Hmm, what’s changed since 2019 at CU and for CFB as a whole that would shift my thinking on the future of CFB? Maybe all of the things that I mentioned in my original post (NIL, transfer portal, coach buyouts, diminishing fan base etc)

The present day and near future for CU FB looks a lot different. Operating costs are going up significantly and attendance revenues look to be going down. Even if CU had an inclination as to how to construct an NIL and recruiting operation, we have no donors who are willing or able to fund it at the level it would take.

Again, you are not addressing how any of that supports your assertion to drop football and focus on other sports. Dropping football doesn't mean it's revenue goes to women's lacrosse. Power 5 football programs aren't going to be dropped because of NIL.

 

[Gary Indiana]

I think the School and the state has proven it will support a winning program. CU won't be an elite but they could get in that next level with right vision from the School and coaches.

I guess the twenty year drought makes me actually wonder if that day will come. With player and coach mobility today, paired with the disparity in compensation, I just don’t have a lot of faith that we have a real bright future in this new landscape.

 

[Gary Indiana]

Again, you are not addressing how any of that supports your assertion to drop football and focus on other sports. Dropping football doesn't mean it's revenue goes to women's lacrosse. Power 5 football programs aren't going to be dropped because of NIL.

What I’m proposing is that the school should take a hard look at what an AD looks like without FB and then determine if it is in our best interest to scale down our operating costs and focus on a small handful of sports instead. You know, come up with a viable and profitable path forward for the school.

It feels like your take is…

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

What I’m proposing is that the school should take a hard look at what an AD looks like without FB and then determine if it is in our best interest to scale down our operating costs and focus on a small handful of sports instead. You know, come up with a viable and profitable path forward for the school.

It feels like your take is…

Your plan to make the AD more profitable is to get rid of the only massively profitable sport, and yet, MY take is the bad one?

 

[Gary Indiana]

Your plan to make the AD more profitable is to get rid of the only massively profitable sport, and yet, MY take is the bad one?

The latest indicators are not showing how massively profitable CU is in this new landscape. You’ve quoted figures from three years ago when there was a lot of buzz around a new coach and returning players. That’s all gone. We now have half our team transferring in the off-season, including in-state legacy players leaving us for the Cyclones.

Since the 2019 figures that you quoted we’ve posted a $20M deficit in 2021 and borrowed $18M from our own conference, which none of the other 11 schools did, BTW. Not a great sign that we are “massively profitable” when we can’t keep pace with our peers.

Your plan is to simply push forward and pretend like it’s the early 2000s. Okay.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

The latest indicators are not showing how massively profitable CU is in this new landscape. You’ve quoted figures from three years ago when there was a lot of buzz around a new coach and returning players. That’s all gone. We now have half our team transferring in the off-season, including in-state legacy players leaving us for the Cyclones.

Since the 2019 figures that you quoted we’ve posted a $20M deficit in 2021 and borrowed $18M from our own conference, which none of the other 11 schools did, BTW. Not a great sign that we are “massively profitable” when we can’t keep pace with our peers.

Your plan is to simply push forward and pretend like it’s the early 2000s. Okay.

In 2021, football still almost broke even ($355k deficit), even though the ticket sales are on the books for $23k instead of around $15m like they were in 2020. You understand that COVID and the lost season of ticket sales (2021 ticket sales were non existent) is the entire reason CU football wasn't profitable in 2021 and the reason there was a $20m AD deficit, right? Football also had the smallest deficit of any sport this past year.

Even using your logic about declining attendance, if CU lost HALF it's ticket revenue from the reported 2020 sales (about $7.5m), which isn't going to happen, they are still the most profitable sport in the athletic department by a wide margin. And, once again, that doesn't include looking forward to the new media deal in 2 years.

A simple dive into the accounting shows that CU football is, was and always will be the funding entity of all other sports, regardless of whether they are winning 4-5 games/year or winning 8-10 games/year. So yeah, my plan is to push forward, incrementally increase the investment in and attempt to make your only profitable sport more attractive and even more profitable. Your plan is to get rid of it because we can't compete with Alabama.

 

[Gary Indiana]

In 2021, football still almost broke even ($355k deficit), even though the ticket sales are on the books for $23k instead of around $15m like they were in 2020. You understand that COVID and the lost season of ticket sales (2021 ticket sales were non existent) is the entire reason CU football wasn't profitable in 2021 and the reason there was a $20m AD deficit, right? Football also had the smallest deficit of any sport this past year.

Even using your logic about declining attendance, if CU lost HALF it's ticket revenue from the reported 2020 sales (about $7.5m), which isn't going to happen, they are still the most profitable sport in the athletic department by a wide margin. And, once again, that doesn't include looking forward to the new media deal in 2 years.

A simple dive into the accounting shows that CU football is, was and always will be the funding entity of all other sports, regardless of whether they are winning 4-5 games/year or winning 8-10 games/year. So yeah, my plan is to push forward, incrementally increase the investment in and attempt to make your only profitable sport more attractive and even more profitable. Your plan is to get rid of it because we can't compete with Alabama.

Can’t compete with Bama? We can’t compete with anyone? The football team has been an absolute embarrassment to the institution, with the exception of 2016, for well over a decade and counting.

I guess we shall see going forward what increasing spending on football yields. You think it’ll be beneficial, I believe it’ll be detrimental. Time will tell.

 

[The Alabaster Yak]

Can’t compete with Bama? We can’t compete with anyone? The football team has been an absolute embarrassment to the institution, with the exception of 2016, for well over a decade and counting.

I guess we shall see going forward what increasing spending on football yields. You think it’ll be beneficial, I believe it’ll be detrimental. Time will tell.

You have really moved the goal posts since this morning. You tried making the argument that because the football program will never compete with the institutions that can offer $8m/year over 3 years to top recruits, that it no longer makes economic sense to field a team and therefore should be dropped. I have pointed out how that isn't the case and that dropping it to focus on other sports doesn't make any sense. Nothing you're saying is based on anything factual or legitimate.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

i dunno. i hate this but it may be the new reality. the football program is basically supposed to pay for everything else through tv and gate. but we aren't competitive and the p12 tv deal is not competitive. add NIL and it gets even more grim. without some new rules in place for NIL, there are going to be about 15-20 football programs capable of competing for championships and we are not one of them by a wide margin.

i find all of this to be off putting in terms of my fan support. i have nothing against centering the revenue plan around men's bb if that is what is best, but this isn't meeting my expectations for fb success in any case.

Not competitive....? Were not first, but were not last either.

Media
1. Big Ten: $768.9 million
2. SEC: $728.9 million
3. Pac-12: $533.8 million
4. ACC: $496.7 million
5. Big 12: $409.2 million

Here's how much each Power 5 conference made last year

The 990s are in, which means we get a peek at the finances of each conference in major college athletics. The documents cover Fiscal Year 2020 which,

footballscoop.com

You are probably right that 15-20 programs are going to break off. And they will probably start some kind of super league too.

 

[patebuff]

What I’m proposing is that the school should take a hard look at what an AD looks like without FB and then determine if it is in our best interest to scale down our operating costs and focus on a small handful of sports instead. You know, come up with a viable and profitable path forward for the school.

It feels like your take is…

The AD will be non-existent before this ever happens. This is a non-starter and frankly not even worth anyone's time to discuss.

What about all the money they owe on football facilities? How do you pay for that without football?

 

[Gary Indiana]

You have really moved the goal posts since this morning. You tried making the argument that because the football program will never compete with the institutions that can offer $8m/year over 3 years to top recruits, that it no longer makes economic sense to field a team and therefore should be dropped. I have pointed out how that isn't the case and that dropping it to focus on other sports doesn't make any sense. Nothing you're saying is based on anything factual or legitimate.

Go reread my original post. I said if I’m the incoming President I take a hard look if it makes sense to field a team. The future doesn’t look bright.

It sounds like you’re more than happy to be the cuck for USC and Oregon. Good for you. I’ll be sure to revisit this thread in a few years to see where we stand and boy would I love to be wrong.