Shout out to Cincinnati

[sloan1919]

2 hours ago, hightechbull said:

What happens in phase 2 is besides the point. Not saying it doesn’t need to be figured out, just not the topic of the conversation. The point is, profit can’t come before collecting underpants. Triple B is basically saying that the reason we don’t invest at a comparable level to other AAC schools (collect underpants) is because we don’t have have the same level of revenues (profit). I’m saying that there is a clear causal relationship between USF’s level of athletic investment and the revenue produced. Additionally, there will be a period (years) where the expenses significantly exceeds the revenue.
 

Another way to think of it is, our bottom of the AAC level of investment in athletics is roughly 50% of the average in the Big 12. We would need to make a significantly larger commitment to athletic spend to be invited to the club. Look at UCF, Cincy, Houston’s level of investment over the last few years. Now look at ours and Memphis. The schools that are spending in the $70m range got invited. The ones in the $50m range got snubbed.

Edited December 6, 2021 by sloan1919

[BullyPulpit]

4 hours ago, Outlaw said:

We are just starting to fund an IPF invest and invest in training out athletes with top level facilities and we have no OCS. They are increasing it, but if we want to be with the big boys, we need to financially spend with the top 25/50 programs in the country. It can be a gradual increase, but there actually needs to be support and funding for athletics from USF. Not a stupid billboard and claim we are here.

UCF took on some risks over the last decade and went all in. Part of that was related to necessity given the situation with the Citrus Bowl, but their leadership decided to go ahead and roll the dice on athletics. I was not a believer at the time, but I have been proven wrong. Their risk paid off. USF has risked nothing and, rightfully so, has not seen any returns. 

[Triple B]

14 hours ago, Triple B said:

An ocs isn't a requirement for making the football program successful. Your question was nonsensical if that's what it was about ....

 

9 hours ago, USFBULL_08 said:

Keep telling yourself that. Anyone who's been successful is the outlier.

So we were the outlier through 2010? You people crack me up .... outlier, funny stuff. Take all the programs with an ocs and split them into successful and unsuccessful and I'm confident you'll find the unsuccessful a higher percentage. An ocs will be awesome but lack of one is not responsible for where we are right now and is not critical to on the field success.

[Triple B]

5 hours ago, Outlaw said:

We are just starting to fund an IPF invest and invest in training out athletes with top level facilities and we have no OCS. They are increasing it, but if we want to be with the big boys, we need to financially spend with the top 25/50 programs in the country. It can be a gradual increase, but there actually needs to be support and funding for athletics from USF. Not a stupid billboard and claim we are here.

Are we not seeing that?

[Triple B]

51 minutes ago, BullyPulpit said:

The USF Foundation essentially gobbling up all potential donations in order to grow the endowment is a huge factor in all of this. UCF is using its athletics to prop up its academics, USF is the opposite. 

If they've taken funds that could have been used for Athletics and put them into Academics, that's another story ...

[Triple B]

9 hours ago, USFBULL_08 said:

Keep telling yourself that. Anyone who's been successful is the outlier.

 

57 minutes ago, Rocky Style said:

Keep in mind a lot of the status quo people had their minds blown in the last year or so.  In other words, no one knows what they are talking about even if they sound authoritative.

- USF will never have an OCS in our lifetime (serious chatter now happening)

- UCF will never pass us because of our media market and professional stadium 

- No one from the AAC will ever make the playoffs. 

Since the post you responded to was in response to my post, I'm assuming you're lumping me into the status quo people, which is wrong. The only one of those 3 that I can't deny I thought wasn't going to happen is the 3rd one .... thought it would never be allowed in a 4 team playoff system.

[michibull]

1 hour ago, BullyPulpit said:

UCF took on some risks over the last decade and went all in. Part of that was related to necessity given the situation with the Citrus Bowl, but their leadership decided to go ahead and roll the dice on athletics. I was not a believer at the time, but I have been proven wrong. Their risk paid off. USF has risked nothing and, rightfully so, has not seen any returns. 

I am with you on this. I used to laugh and say that UCF was being “irresponsible” with how they were spending on athletics; and that we were better than them because we were being “responsible” with our money. Man, talk about a lesson in business. It is very much risk/reward, spend money to make money.

[michibull]

21 minutes ago, Triple B said:

 

So we were the outlier through 2010? You people crack me up .... outlier, funny stuff. Take all the programs with an ocs and split them into successful and unsuccessful and I'm confident you'll find the unsuccessful a higher percentage. An ocs will be awesome but lack of one is not responsible for where we are right now and is not critical to on the field success.

So, I can agree that an OCS is not a requirement to succeed; BUT, there are many more benefits than just that. Of course you will find that the list of unsuccessful programs with an OCS is greater than the opposite, but that’s because there are only a handful of schools that DON’T have an OCS. I think we were mainly successful because of Leavitt and his hunger to win and his LOVE for his team and the university that gave him a chance to do and have something that rarely comes (first coach in school history). The lack of an OCS was a microcosm of an administration that really didn’t care about athletics. The OCS helps with income during good years to continue investment and pride (fan retention and student interest) during tough years. We didn’t have that, so it just compounded the issues we have had over the last decade. An OCS won’t guarantee, success, revenue or a P5 invite, but it will help and may very well be a requirement at this point in time. 

[sloan1919]

12 minutes ago, michibull said:

I am with you on this. I used to laugh and say that UCF was being “irresponsible” with how they were spending on athletics; and that we were better than them because we were being “responsible” with our money. Man, talk about a lesson in business. It is very much risk/reward, spend money to make money.

Can you help @Triple Blearn that lesson? 

[Triple B]

1 minute ago, michibull said:

So, I can agree that an OCS is not a requirement to succeed; BUT, there are many more benefits than just that. Of course you will find that the list of unsuccessful programs with an OCS is greater than the opposite, but that’s because there are only a handful of schools that DON’T have an OCS. I think we were mainly successful because of Leavitt and his hunger to win and his LOVE for his team and the university that gave him a chance to do and have something that rarely comes (first coach in school history). The lack of an OCS was a microcosm of an administration that really didn’t care about athletics. The OCS helps with income during good years to continue investment and pride (fan retention and student interest) during tough years. We didn’t have that, so it just compounded the issues we have had over the last decade. An OCS won’t guarantee, success, revenue or a P5 invite, but it will help and may very well be a requirement at this point in time. 

And that's all I'm saying. People trying to pin where we are right now on the lack of an ocs do not have a valid argument, IMO. Your other points make sense and I've never been against having one, just that it wasn't a necessity for success ...