Herman presser at 11am today (Jan 5)

[Randolph Duke]

Latest numbers show Alabama far outspends Texas on football

Those figures as are as of the end of the 2014-2015 fiscal year for each institution (Texas FY ends, Aug 31, Bama's is June 30).

The $51 million Alabama figure is highly suspicious, as it shows a huge one-year bump of more than $10 million. Instead of touting the number, i would have inquired what Bama threw $10 million at in FY 2014-2015. That number seems to be a one-time outlier and not a reoccurring expense. The tweet seems to have the underlying tone that since Alabama spend $51 million on football, others may need to do the same. That seems a bit specious, without explaining the actual long-term spending of Alabama and explaining the one-time outlier.

The data for Bama (for the school years beginning) 2011- $37 mil expenses, $82 million revenue; 2012 - $41.5 mil expenses, $88.7 revenue; 2013 - $41.7 mil expenses, $94.9 revenues; 2014 - $51 expenses, $97 mil revenues.Alabama's long term football expenses seem to be closer to $40 million than $50 million. Alabama might seemingly spend more on their football program than UT does, but in a per athlete basis, UT's athletics spending is far greater than Alabama's or Clemson's (or any other school's).

Alabama spends more than Texas, as per the EADA data, but Texas shows tens of millions of dollars as "unallocated expenses" where Alabama doesn't, so we are back at the problem of a few days ago where Texas' spending isn't as opaque as it should be. We have no know way of knowing what expenses Alabama is allocating to football that Texas is considering unallocated. We would have to either file Open Records Act requests for granular data, or possibly have a member of the media that covers UT athletics dig into the issue of UT's unallocated expenses.

I would have no problem arguing that UT's problem with its football program isn't that it doesn't spend enough and that UT should spend tens of millions of dollars more. Texas needs to eliminate bloat and waste, and reallocate resources to more productive pursuits other than continue to waste money on Bellmont's mismanagement.

The stale data the individual is using can be found here: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

I talked to the Dept of Education this morning, asking when the database would be updated with FY end 2016 data will be uploaded. The DOE is revamping the website and the more recent data will be publicly available later this month.

 

[TeamMayhall]

 

[MikeV73]

https://twitter.com/CoachTomHerman/status/819345289823846400

Interesting, just happened to be in Austin a few days after the huge game? Grad transfer😜?

 

[Juan]

 

[Juan]

Those figures as are as of the end of the 2014-2015 fiscal year for each institution (Texas FY ends, Aug 31, Bama's is June 30).

The $51 million Alabama figure is highly suspicious, as it shows a huge one-year bump of more than $10 million. Instead of touting the number, i would have inquired what Bama threw $10 million at in FY 2014-2015. That number seems to be a one-time outlier and not a reoccurring expense. The tweet seems to have the underlying tone that since Alabama spend $51 million on football, others may need to do the same. That seems a bit specious, without explaining the actual long-term spending of Alabama and explaining the one-time outlier..............

I will say this, those are some big numbers Alabama spends on football vis-à-vis Texas, big numbers ...the best numbers. Big gap.  Yuuge

 

[Randolph Duke]

I will say this, those are some big numbers Alabama spends on football vis-à-vis Texas, big numbers ...the best numbers. Big gap.  Yuuge

There is a story here somewhere, but I'm just not sure what it is at the moment and don't feel like fully running it down.

I checked the athletic department phone directories and Alabama has 33 total staff for their football program. Texas has 29, so the head count isn't really the issue. Even taking the $40 million figure for Alabama, salaries won't explain the difference in spending. Nor will recruiting expenses, game day expenses or any other obvious line item. Capital expenditures aren't added into the team expense budget, so I'm at a loss as to how Bama could be spending $40 million (let alone a one-time $51 million) when most other programs are spending around $24-$30 million. And most of the other top programs are comfortably in the range of $26 million, give or take $5 mil.

And I still have no idea why 50% of Bellmont's spending is "unallocated." That is some pretty shitty transparency. My guess on the transparency issue is that Texas is spending more on football than Bellmont is disclosing and the "unallocated" designation is being used to keep Title IX issues from coming into play.

Run the numbers and UT's overall athletics spending is a whopping $309,000 per athlete, while Alabama's is around $209,000 per athlete, so UT is spending FAR more on its athletics programs than Alabama is (the $309,000 number has been adjusted to account for the $10 million UT sends to the academic side each year). If the spending per athlete for UT football is truly trailing Alabama by such a large amount, on what athletics program at UT is the gusher of money coming out of Bellmont being directed? Since the facilities spending has been lacking and the amenities such as tutors, meals, etc couldn't come close to explaining where Bellmont is spending roughly $53 million/yr (That being the amount of spending UT Austin could cut and match Alabama's overall spending per athlete).

$53 million/yr is an enormous amount for Bellmont to be outspending Alabama in athletics and still underperforming so badly in so many sports. I would love to know how Mike Perrin is accounting for that $53 million/yr. $53 million is more than the entire athletics budget of about 86% of all NCAA D1 schools.

My overall point here is that Alabama isn't outspending UT. Alabama is just a much better managed athletics program than is UT Austin.

 

[North Texas Golfer]

There is a story here somewhere, but I'm just not sure what it is at the moment and don't feel like fully running it down.

I checked the athletic department phone directories and Alabama has 33 total staff for their football program. Texas has 29, so the head count isn't really the issue. Even taking the $40 million figure for Alabama, salaries won't explain the difference in spending. Nor will recruiting expenses, game day expenses or any other obvious line item. Capital expenditures aren't added into the team expense budget, so I'm at a loss as to how Bama could be spending $40 million (let alone a one-time $51 million) when most other programs are spending around $24-$30 million. And most of the other top programs are comfortably in the range of $26 million, give or take $5 mil.

And I still have no idea why 50% of Bellmont's spending is "unallocated." That is some pretty shitty transparency. My guess on the transparency issue is that Texas is spending more on football than Bellmont is disclosing and the "unallocated" designation is being used to keep Title IX issues from coming into play.

Run the numbers and UT's overall athletics spending is a whopping $309,000 per athlete, while Alabama's is around $209,000 per athlete, so UT is spending FAR more on its athletics programs than Alabama is (the $309,000 number has been adjusted to account for the $10 million UT sends to the academic side each year). If the spending per athlete for UT football is truly trailing Alabama by such a large amount, on what athletics program at UT is the gusher of money coming out of Bellmont being directed? Since the facilities spending has been lacking and the amenities such as tutors, meals, etc couldn't come close to explaining where Bellmont is spending roughly $53 million/yr (That being the amount of spending UT Austin could cut and match Alabama's overall spending per athlete).

$53 million/yr is an enormous amount for Bellmont to be outspending Alabama in athletics and still underperforming so badly in so many sports. I would love to know how Mike Perrin is accounting for that $53 million/yr. $53 million is more than the entire athletics budget of about 86% of all NCAA D1 schools.

My overall point here is that Alabama isn't outspending UT. Alabama is just a much better managed athletics program than is UT Austin.

I think you nailed it with the last two sentences at the end of your post.

This might be the best post you've made on this subject. Thanks.

 

[TeamMayhall]