Pensky goes to Tennessee

it appears that you’d rather spend as little money on coordinators and wait for RE to leave before trying to be relevant again. Unfortunately, if we took that route the football program would be in a worse state than now.

Your argument is as good as mine whether locksley is worth the money, because that is all in each of our perspectives until we see him play, and more importantly wait a year to see his recruits start to play. I’m not sure where you get the idea though that Locksley is worth not even half of what we are paying him. He is not just an Offensive Coordinator, he is a recruiting coordinator as well. Other schools pay people to do that as there sole job, and they get paid six figure salaries to do so. Locksley is arguably one of the best DC area recruiters in the nation, I don’t think there is any arguing that. So much so that he had Cyrus Koindijio (sp) having New Mexico in his top 3 last year. So I’d argue that Locksley is worth the money if he is pulling top talent to MD so we can field a team that competes every single weekend.

I’ll take hte fault for reading your statement wrong on the 25k though, I thought you were talking you’d rather have the 500k spent on another program. I’ll still argue though, as Charlotte did above, we need to focus on getting our revenue generating sports competitive again so we are then able to hire and retain who we need to in the non-revenue generating sports. (I use the term revenue…but really, profit bearing sports).

You didn’t use it correctly.

The term relates to the concept of sunk costs. Once you make an expenditure you can’t get back, it is a sunk cost. To continue spending money on a failed experiment just because of that initial sunk cost is “throwing good money after bad.”

The idea of spending money to replace our football coaches is inherently NOT “throwing good money after bad” because we are spending the money to correct a failed experiment—not to perpetuate it.

Your entire position is based on nothing but baseless conjecture—that Locksley’s market rate was significantly lower than what we offered, and that Locksley will not be successful. I have seen no evidence in support of the former.

As to the latter, it is certainly a possibility. Investments are risks—sometimes they don’t work out, and you take a loss on the investment. But that was the point of my original post—at least with this investment, there is a CHANCE at a profit—which is not the case with increased spending on the women’s soccer team.

I thought he was arguing over the 500k, not 25k.

I wasn’t even thinking there, I couldn’t get out of my head how little we spent on recruiting. God yes do we need a better field at the football stadium, it is complete garbage. What is even worse is that we have turf and grass management as a major, and that department has attempted to offer there services for free to help take care of the field. What did the athletic dept do? Deny it of course!

Football is called a “revenue” sport for a reason. (It would be more correct to call it a “profit sport” but whatever). It makes money.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2011/02/24/acc-football-not-cash-cow-like-sec-and-big-ten/

In 2009-10 we spent $9,863,748 on our program. We generated $11,540,368 in revenue. In other words, for every $1.00 we spent on football, we received approximately $1.17 (for a 17 cent profit on each dollar spent).

I don’t think we have maxed out our profits (in other words, I don’t think we are yet at the point of diminishing marginal returns). Georgia Tech, for example, made $1.60 for each $1.00 spent, and they spent about $6 million more than we did that year.

Judging by your unwillingness to provide anything but hyperbole and opinion, I doubt you’ll say anything but “those are accounting tricks, you idiot.” But I figured it was worth a shot.

They aren’t an expense that only pays off once. They have recurring revenues each year from rental fees. Therefore, the lxuury suites do pay for themselves, the argument should rather be on how fast you think that will occur.

The fact that you think an investment leads to larger overall deficits is nonsense. In the short term it will show a defecit for the up front investment, but in the long term the revenues generated will help the overall profit line.

When making an investment, you don’t look for short term profitability, you look for long term profitability. If your only goal is short term success your program will never be sustainable.