Welcome to the HornSports Forum

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our Texas Longhorns message board community.

SignUp Now!

Asst Athletic Director Larrry Falk

Larry was anything but dead weight to many people.  In last weeks Crossfire I mentioned that Patterson was torn up because cutting the budget means letting some good people go.

 
Stanford supports 300 more athletes on almost $50 million less in expenses than Texas, even though the tuition part of theif grant-in-aid is four and a half times that of Texas. In spite of the higher number of athletes and the lower expenses, they have won the Director's Cup twenty years running.

Restructuring Bellmont means either hundreds more student athletes get the opportunity to experience of representing UT or that the athletic department can send tens of millions each year to the academic side to support thousands of students.

The restructuring is going to affect the lives of a lot of people in many ways. Patterson needs to also keep the big picture in mind.

 
Stanford is also a private university. Apples/oranges Randolph.

 
joeywa said:
Stanford is also a private university. Apples/oranges Randolph.
Click to expand...
The average expense to athlete ratio at all public colleges is $107,000. Patterson's program at ASU was at $132,000. Ohio State, even with higher debt service than Texas, is at $170,000.
Why does Stanford's status as a private school matter and why can all other schools, both public and private schools do more with less than Bellmont? Walk me through the apples and oranges and then explain where the extra $70,000 per athlete goes at Texas compared to how Ohio State runs their program.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you want to discuss tOSU or Stanford?

 
joeywa said:
Do you want to discuss tOSU or Stanford?
Click to expand...
Both. Start with Stanford. I get they do a lot of co-ed sports, so their number of total athletes is a lot higher, but they run their program, including the co-ed sports, at $50 million a year less. Overall they still have won the Directors Cup for twenty straight years, so their programs are winning on the field.
And I would love to learn why Ohio State can run their program at $70,000 per athlete less than Texas.

And if you can, explain where the $75 mil in unallocated expenses goes each year. I understand debt service is around $15 mm, but $60 mm in general expenses and overhead?! How many Old Mill throw pillows are we buying?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
How about we start with your sources for these figures?

 
Randolph Duke said:
Stanford supports 300 more athletes on almost $50 million less in expenses than Texas, even though the tuition part of theif grant-in-aid is four and a half times that of Texas. In spite of the higher number of athletes and the lower expenses, they have won the Director's Cup twenty years running.

Restructuring Bellmont means either hundreds more student athletes get the opportunity to experience of representing UT or that the athletic department can send tens of millions each year to the academic side to support thousands of students.

The restructuring is going to affect the lives of a lot of people in many ways. Patterson needs to also keep the big picture in mind.
Click to expand...
why do you care so much? How does it impact you personally?
Seems like you've got a 'tora tora tora' scoreboard somewhere to knock of people losing their jobs.

 
streettopeschel said:
why do you care so much? How does it impact you personally?

Seems like you've got a 'tora tora tora' scoreboard somewhere to knock of people losing their jobs.
Click to expand...
I care so much because I believe the University of Texas should be a leading university. The university should be about more than going 8-4 and getting into a chicken sandwich bowl. If we can do more to help prepare the next generation to have their opportunity in life, that is what we should be doing. The fact Bellmont even has a budget for $500 throw pillows from Old Mill is an embarrassment for a university that aspires to what UT aspires to. 

I have no scoreboard for people losing their jobs. Bellmont shouldn't be looked at as a jobs program. It should be looked at to administer the athletics department as efficiently as possible. If there is ten million dollars or ten thousand dollars that can reasonably be saved and either used to allow another athlete to compete for UT or if it can be sent to the academic side to help support undergrads, that is where the money should go. Bellmont using its revenues to support the its own outsized spending and to inflate its payroll has nothing to do with the mission of the university. Of all the changes  that can be made with the change of leadership, the most important is to make Bellmont innovative, creative and an example of how a college athletics program should be run.

I don't care about the jobs that may be lost. There are worse things than to have a top level organization's name on your resume and the kind of experience most other programs desperately need. If the people who are getting let go were top performers for UT, they will do even better at other organizations. This isn't an end for those people, it is an opportunity to help change other organizations for the better. The focus inside Bellmont has to quit being so much on the well being of the people inside Bellmont and start being more on serving the interests of the student athletes. If the interests of the athletes are being served, open the program up to more sports and more athletes. If they don't want to open the program up to more sports, send the money to the academic side. 

 
Randolph Duke said:
Both. Start with Stanford. I get they do a lot of co-ed sports, so their number of total athletes is a lot higher, but they run their program, including the co-ed sports, at $50 million a year less. Overall they still have won the Directors Cup for twenty straight years, so their programs are winning on the field.

And I would love to learn why Ohio State can run their program at $70,000 per athlete less than Texas.

And if you can, explain where the $75 mil in unallocated expenses goes each year. I understand debt service is around $15 mm, but $60 mm in general expenses and overhead?! How many Old Mill throw pillows are we buying?
Click to expand...
more athletes.  the denominator is bigger.  more sports equal less money to academic side.  just a guess?  haven't taken the time to sit down and research this a lot lately.

right now, the money that goes from athletics to academics is important since our myopic governor and lege won't let tuitions rise to meet expenses.  i do think joey has a point re apples and oranges.  stanford wins the directors cup because it has more sports, year after year.

not arguing here, just commenting.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Latest Texas Longhorns News

Scouting Report: Mississippi State

By HornSports Staff

Staff Predictions: No. 11 Texas Longhorns versus Mississippi State Bulldogs

By HornSports Staff

Texas vs. Mississippi State: By the Numbers

By HornSports Staff

About Us

Quick Links

Forum statistics

Threads
24,747
Messages
476,898
Members
5,703
Latest member
orange4Life

Follow Us

Back
Top Bottom