What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CU Buffs hire former Minnesota OC Mike Sanford as their new OC

patebuff

Club Member
Club Member
Just the numbers, best I can figure with online calculators: Say we borrowed $50,000,000 at 3.75%. Over 10 years to pay it back, we would pay a total of $60,000,000.

In light of the numbers at play with potential TV revenue upgrades at some point over the next 10 years, one would have to imagine that $10 million would not be a huge deal, especially if you can get some on-field improvement and bowl game revenue during at least some of those years.
Going to bowl games more often than not would pay for that alone.
 

GawainBuff

Club Member
Club Member
Going to bowl games more often than not would pay for that alone.
That makes sense and doesn't even include the ancillary benefits of a better team and semi-regular bowl games: e.g., increased attendance, merchandizing, concessions, and the ubiquitous "brand value."
 

Da Lama

****ty hot take machine
Club Member
Going to bowl games more often than not would pay for that alone.
He said "Going to bowl games..."
Cracking Up Lol GIF
 

GawainBuff

Club Member
Club Member
So paying $10MM is ok when our peers don’t have to do the same thing?

guys. Seriously?
If taking a loan is necessary (due to the idiocy of the administration) in order to advance the program to a place where it makes money again (and hopefully continually) going forward, then it's a simple matter of economics.

The word "ok" is carrying a lot of weight in your question.

Is it "ok" for the CU administration to suck and not care about the Athletic Department? No.
Is it "ok" to resign the Athlletic Department to the lower caste of "have-nots" in the NCAA? No.
Is it "ok" that every other PAC12 school was provided the necessary money by its administration? No.
In a perfect world, would it be "ok" for CU Athletics to have to take a loan out just be relevant when no one else has to? No.
Do we live in a perfect world? No.
Do we prefer to simply suck because we are short of money? No.

Could a loan make economic sense? Yes.
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
If taking a loan is necessary (due to the idiocy of the administration) in order to advance the program to a place where it makes money again (and hopefully continually) going forward, then it's a simple matter of economics.

The word "ok" is carrying a lot of weight in your question.

Is it "ok" for the CU administration to suck and not care about the Athletic Department? No.
Is it "ok" to resign the Athlletic Department to the lower caste of "have-nots" in the NCAA? No.
Is it "ok" that every other PAC12 school was provided the necessary money by its administration? No.
In a perfect world, would it be "ok" for CU Athletics to have to take a loan out just be relevant when no one else has to? No.
Do we live in a perfect world? No.
Do we prefer to simply suck because we are short of money? No.

Could a loan make economic sense? Yes.
On your last point, please explain how a loan would make economic sense for us but not any other member of the PAC 12.

Simply put, it doesn’t.
 

GawainBuff

Club Member
Club Member
On your last point, please explain how a loan would make economic sense for us but not any other member of the PAC 12.

Simply put, it doesn’t.
The rest of the PAC12, apparently, had school admins which fronted the money to the Athletic Depts. CU Admin didn’t.

So, we did the math previously, discussing the economic impact of a loan, given the position CU admin put CU Ath. in:
GawainBuff said:
Just the numbers, best I can figure with online calculators: Say we borrowed $50,000,000 at 3.75%. Over 10 years to pay it back, we would pay a total of $60,000,000.

In light of the numbers at play with potential TV revenue upgrades at some point over the next 10 years, one would have to imagine that $10 million would not be a huge deal, especially if you can get some on-field improvement and bowl game revenue during at least some of those years.
Going to bowl games more often than not would pay for that alone.
*************
That makes sense and doesn't even include the ancillary benefits of a better team and semi-regular bowl games: e.g., increased attendance, merchandizing, concessions, and the ubiquitous "brand value."
*****************
 

Not Sure

Sets low bar, barely exceeds it.
Club Member
It made sense because CUAD lives in a different reality than other programs. It'd be nice to get the same financial support from the broader University, but that's a different conversation.
I applaud you on the next level mental gymnastics you had to go through to come to that conclusion. It makes sense because we are so screwed up and have such poor admin support that we would naturally be the only school to take the loan. Basically, it makes sense to Phil and is absolutely insane to anybody actually trying to run a successful D-1 college athletics program.
 

The Alabaster Yak

Club Member
Club Member
I applaud you on the next level mental gymnastics you had to go through to come to that conclusion. It makes sense because we are so screwed up and have such poor admin support that we would naturally be the only school to take the loan. Basically, it makes sense to Phil and is absolutely insane to anybody actually trying to run a successful D-1 college athletics program.
You have said for two days now that a loan doesn’t make sense because the rest of the conference didn’t need to take one. We have been trying to tell you that it makes sense for CU because they clearly don’t have the same financial support from the University as the other ADs do. It’s really that simple
 

Go Buffs

I sure miss Dallas and Idot Buff
Club Member
So paying $10MM is ok when our peers don’t have to do the same thing?

guys. Seriously?
You remind me of people who pay off their mortgage early just so they can be debt free, thereby losing the opportunity to invest that cash on investments at a higher rate than the borrowing cost. You also remind me in a weird sort of way of athletic programs that are unwilling to invest in coaches and facilities because they can’t see the value of victories from those investments. Please take your risk averse perspective elsewhere.

1643238265269.gif
 

SINKRATZ

PhD in Analogy
Club Member
Not Sure’s argument is like saying it’s stupid for an 18 year old kid to take out student loans for college because 11 of his friends got school paid for by their parents.
Is it? Or is it like saying that it’s stupid for Hawkins and MacIntyre to be using AD resources to give their kids a scholarship when they make millions of dollars a year and if they cared about the performance of the program they might instead pick up that tab so that limited resource (scholarship) could be allocated elsewhere?
 

The Alabaster Yak

Club Member
Club Member
Is it? Or is it like saying that it’s stupid for Hawkins and MacIntyre to be using AD resources to give their kids a scholarship when they make millions of dollars a year and if they cared about the performance of the program they might instead pick up that tab so that limited resource (scholarship) could be allocated elsewhere?
I mean, if you want to suggest the athletic department generally misuses the funds it has and that, specifically, is why they needed to take the loan, then I guess? Considering the AD has typically operated in the black, I’m not sure why that would be a good analogy, though
 

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
CUAD needed the money. The other programs didn’t. I don’t understand why this is so hard for you to comprehend
I'm with @Not Sure on this one. Taking the loan screams to the world that you're poor and don't give a fvck about supporting your athletic department. Then, saying you can't make hiring & firing moves for a year after because the political optics would be so bad after taking the loan reinforces what you screamed.

If the conversation is acknowledging that and saying it's "ok" from the perspective of accepting that being a 3rd rate sh!t show joke of a university when it comes to athletics is a basic fact so it's smart to take a loan vs being unable to pay AD employees & declaring the department bankrupt... then, yeah, it's "ok" and let's start talking about how not to be a 3rd rate sh!t show joke.

Yay.
 

SINKRATZ

PhD in Analogy
Club Member
I mean, if you want to suggest the athletic department generally misuses the funds it has and that, specifically, is why they needed to take the loan, then I guess? Considering the AD has typically operated in the black, I’m not sure why that would be a good analogy, though
Here’s how I see the analogy:

If the school (Hawkins and MacIntyre) really cared about maximizing the performance of the football program, then it’s stupid for them to force the AD to utilize the limited funds (scholarships) they have available to them rather than covering the cost of the AD loan (scholarship) themselves so those limited resources could be used elsewhere.
 
Top