Can't someone simply point out to the PTB
by Bellcon (2014-12-29 15:18:48)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Rock's House ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

 



in a cheap $20.00 power point presentation that hiring Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Pete Carrol or Chip Kelly for 15 Million dollars a year will make you more money and increase your bottom line more than continuing to go the hiring route that they have been using?

I prefer one successful coach at 15 million than Kelly and the other former coaches who were on the payroll all at the same time.




I'm certain of two corporations that will point it out
by quasimodo  (2014-12-29 16:59:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

under armor and NBC all have a big stake in ND winning/drawing eyeballs.

I'm sure they will be happy to point it out to the PTB if ND is looking like an unpopular also ran because of crappy coaching.

Corporations are none too kind about forcing their "partners" to shape up or they will cut them loose. We are not friends with UA or NBC, they invested in ND. If the investment isn't working out, they will press the PTB very hard to make it work out or terminate the agreements.

We can whine all we want but the PTB won't give a shit until it hits them in the pocketbook. UA and NBC will be glad to do so.

God, country, dollar bills.

Quasi


I don't know about Under Armor but NBC is more than happy
by wearendhockey  (2014-12-29 19:29:35)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

They've been at this for more than two decades now, much of it with mediocre or bad ND teams. Often with ratings that crater as the season drags on. As long as we throw them a night game a season and let them drag the games to 4+ hours (two things ND has absolutely no problem doing) NBC appears perfectly content. My guess is since most Notre Dame fans and alums are sheep (most of the posters here are notable exceptions) and will continue to shell out hard earned bucks for the crap Under Armor is going to market, they will be happy also. 2 decades of under achieving on the football field has not harmed the bottom line at all. My guess is unless that under achieving turns into repeated seasons of 5 or fewer wins, it never will harm the bottom line.


It actually doesn't -- and that's our problem.
by btd  (2014-12-29 15:39:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The true business case shows that ND makes as much money with 4 or 5 losses as it does with an undefeated season. That's our problem -- the admin has done the business case.

The reality is they probably don't make $10 to $20 million more per year if the team is a playoff level team. Thus, they really don't make a higher ROI. Instead, they probably at best only recover that increased investment.

The reason to invest the money -- the business case -- is the intangible benefits of being the best you are capable of being. To live up to the ideal of trying to be #1 in everything you do. That was ND's mission for about 90 years starting with the Rockne era. That mission no longer is held by ND. We are happy to "be in the conversation" / somewhere in the top 50.


I disagree. There is a significant increase in applications
by 1978Irish  (2014-12-29 17:35:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

when football team has a great season.

TV and radio revenues should increase. I don't know how these contracts are written, but if ratings go up. then revenues should also.

Merchandise sales increase significantly.

No shows at games decrease.


Applications don't change # of students. No shows still
by btd  (2014-12-29 20:17:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

pay the money to buy the ticket. The TV contract probably pays the same no matter what the ratings are. In short, your arguments are exactly why the revenue stream off football right now isn't significantly different when we are a five loss team versus an undefeated team.

I don't think licensing changes much either -- given we are #2 in spite having 4 or more losses 7 of the last 8 years. The Disney effect ND has means people buy largely independent of our current standing.


tv contract the same no matter the ratings?
by brnd  (2014-12-30 11:01:26)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Ridiculous statement


Then why did we fire Weis? *
by reagan84  (2014-12-29 16:14:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


My theory is our desire to be #1 drops slightly more each yr
by btd  (2014-12-29 20:14:13)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I also think it isn't apples to apples because Weis actually was quite literally .500 his last year and had the 3-9 year.

I think the admin figured Weis was incapable of meeting their half assed objective of one above average year out of every five and being 8-5 ish the other years.

As I have said before, the problem with Kelly is he is an above average college coach. Good enough that he likely will not drop below the bar to losing seasons like the other failed ND coaches did. Thus, he likely won't get fired sans a really prolonged string of 4 or 5 loss seasons or by suddenly proving he sucks even worse via a losing year.


It had been four years since he only lost that few.
by doolinbanjos  (2014-12-29 16:19:49)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I guarantee you, if Kelly loses, 9, 6 and 6 in the next three years, he will not be here.


I think your kidding yourself if you don't think it's
by Bellcon  (2014-12-29 15:53:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

financially beneficial to ND in the short and long term if they are a winning football program vs. what they are now.


I can be financially beneficial
by HTownND  (2014-12-29 15:56:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Without developing the right ROI for $10 million a year.

I don't know the answer, I just know it's possible that the margin between winning and losing might not justify a $10 million a year coach's salary.


Simple "logic". We are #2 overall right now with a losing
by btd  (2014-12-29 16:03:41)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

team. Thus, it isn't a stretch to deduce it is hard to increase the top line much indepenednt of wins and losses. However, you can lower the bottom line by adding more expense:

1) $5 million more per year for coaches
2) $5 million more per year for the overall budget (nutrition staff, whatever)
3) $5 million more per year for physical plant improvements in an infinite loop

That's $15 million off the bottom line. That means you probably have to add $45 million more to the top line to be breakeven. Adding $45 million more to a team already sitting at #2 overall is not trivial.

Thus, the ROI as mentioned at the start of this thread likely is 0. The NPV EVA at (5%) would probably be zero or negative. In pure dollars and sense it may not be a slam dunk ROI to pay for the elite program.

However, as I said, that should not be the sole criteria used in the business case. I would argue -- I do run a management consulting business -- that an EVA of $0 is justification to make the move because the true mission is to be the best we possibly can be and right now we cannot be the best we can possibly be. ND has it within their financial means to spend more without damaging the University. Thus, they should do what it takes to try and be the best they can be.


Understand your point but not the details
by Freight Train  (2014-12-29 17:26:06)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If $15MM represents the entire incremental expense, then breakeven only requires incremental $15MM in revenue. Perhaps not possible, which would be the issue, but why the $45MM incremental revenue?


Ok, I was thinking of the $15MM on contribution margin basis *
by Freight Train  (2014-12-30 00:15:03)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


You're assuming that an increase in gross revenue...
by Kbyrnes  (2014-12-29 19:21:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

...by $15 million leaves you $15 million to pay new expenses over and above the expenses that already vary with revenues. In other words, you're assuming that $15 million gross is $15 million net. Most likely, $15 million in additional gross revenues from ticket sales, merchandise sales, and food & beverage sales would be whittled down significantly by costs of goods sold, additional wages, and additional operating overheads related to the revenue generation. In this scenario, you also add a new coaching staff salary increment to the expense load. Maybe $45 million is too high, but you'll need more than $15 million in new gross revenues.


Yes. That's exactly what I meant. I just guessed 33%
by btd  (2014-12-29 20:10:05)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

profit margins on that incremental revenue. I have no idea what our margins are, but for the sake of argument our cost of goods sold is at least 50%, so we'd need to raise revenue by 30 million to recover the 15 million off the bottom line.

To be clear, I am not saying I don't think we should spend the money. I am just saying a pure financial argument would likely fail if someone tried to make one. It arguably would show breakeven or even a loss in terms of absolute dollars.


Is that really true?
by NDuffer  (2014-12-29 15:46:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Will it continue to be true if we have another 15 straight 4-5 loss years?


Sadly, we won't have 15 or even 10 straight
by btd  (2014-12-29 15:51:42)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Even with the pathetic string of morons we have had since Holtz we managed to go 9-3 or 10-3 or better once within every five year period. Thus, "hope" is restored by that one "good" season and the cycle repeats itself.

The only difference between Kelly and the others -- that is now in doubt -- is he is good enough to not have a losing season. His floor is 6-6. All the others managed to do worse to trigger being fired.


Wouldn't be nearly as effective as pointing out...
by BeastOfBourbon  (2014-12-29 15:30:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

about 30,000 empty seats in Notre Dame Stadium.

To quote Bob Dylan: "Money doesn't talk, it swears."


Don't look now, but we may be headed that way
by NJDoubleDomer  (2014-12-29 15:34:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Never can I recall a season where seats and parking passes were as readily available from official channels as they were this year.


Have we sold our 8.000 allotment of bowl tix? Last I heard
by Hog84  (2014-12-29 15:38:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

we had not yet done so.


You can get 10 seats adjacent in the "ACC/Big 10" section
by 88_92WSND  (2014-12-29 15:54:35)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

on the lower level...


Scott Malpass' investment performance is ruining ND football
by cj  (2014-12-29 15:21:27)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

We're so "flush" that the threat of withholding donations is a "mere bag of shells".


Good point. Fire him too! *
by Rosecrea  (2014-12-29 15:52:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


um should hire him away for millions & just finish us off. *
by cj  (2014-12-29 16:01:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


He may be the one guy ND compensates adequately *
by Rosecrea  (2014-12-29 16:55:08)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.