Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

CU Buffs hire former Minnesota OC Mike Sanford as their new OC

The Alabaster Yak said:
Well, I am waiting to see what this new coaching staff's salary pool has increased to because the quality has increased significantly. If the only way they were able to increase it to this point was to take a loan, I would say it's being used to improve something, arguably the most important thing to the success of the program. Maybe they also used it to help boost the recruiting infrastructure and hire new folks in that department. Both of those would qualify as investing in the program with the goal of seeing a good ROI.
Click to expand...
Except we know the loan was used to cover the deficit from the lower revenues in 2020 from Covid. The loan was used to cover losses. Our competition didn’t have to take out a loan to cover their losses.
 
If they didn't take out a loan to cover the losess. How did they pay for the losses? I am asking because I dont know. I am not a business person, but is it true that businesses take out loans to cover expenses before receiving revenues.
 
Let’s look at this a different way. Let’s assume that the terms really do matter. In this hypothetical, 11 of 12 schools decided the terms were unfavorable and opted against taking the loan.
 
bigbang2 said:
If they didn't take out a loan to cover the losess. How did they pay for the losses? I am asking because I dont know.
Click to expand...
The respective schools covered the deficit from other sources. Either from operating revenues elsewhere in the school or from existing liquidity.
 
Not Sure said:
The respective schools covered the deficit from other sources. Either from operating revenues elsewhere in the school or from existing liquidity.
Click to expand...

But every one was having financial problems not just CU. Where is CU going to find the money? From what sources? I am asking because I have no idea.
 
bigbang2 said:
But every one was having financial problems not just CU. Where is CU going to find the money? From what sources? I am asking because I have no idea.
Click to expand...
CU has a lot of resources. The school itself isn’t hurting for money. Quite the opposite, in fact. The annual operating budget for CU-Boulder is over $2Billion per year. The AD budget shortfall was something like $18MM. That’s less than one percent of the operating budget for the entire campus.
 
Not Sure said:
CU has a lot of resources. The school itself isn’t hurting for money. Quite the opposite, in fact. The annual operating budget for CU-Boulder is over $2Billion per year. The AD budget shortfall was something like $18MM. That’s less than one percent of the operating budget for the entire campus.
Click to expand...

But CU was losing money due to Covid like many universities accross the country. Operational budget is not the same as budget deficit. 18 million budget deficit is a lot. I know it is not popular, but I think Big Phil made the right decision. The fans won't like it, but long term it is the right decision. One way or the other CU would still have to get a loan to cover the AD. You also don't want to encourage irresponsible spending.
 
Not Sure said:
Let’s look at this a different way. Let’s assume that the terms really do matter. In this hypothetical, 11 of 12 schools decided the terms were unfavorable and opted against taking the loan.
Click to expand...
This.

It's one thing if 11 of 12 take the loan. It's another if 6 of 12 do.

And then there's the situation we're in. The only one of twelve to look at the terms and take this "great, wonderful deal."
 
Not Sure said:
So Phil is playing chess while the Presidents & Chancellors at USC, UCLA, ASU, UofA, Utah, Stanford, Cal, Oregon, Oregon State, UW and WSU are playing checkers. Seems legit.
Click to expand...
Chancellor’s or their equivalents across academia are recruited for opportunities elsewhere all the time, just like head football coaches. If he’s some sort of administrative wizard, one might ask why has Phil been at CU forever?

He’s an idiot.
 
Are we getting any exciting Portal additions soon? That means infinitely more to me than a loan. Rates have been historically low. It’s gonna be okay.
Will this influx of new coaches coax more talent in the door? This is the only thing I care about, aside from Turley working his 🪄magic in the weight room. LFG.
 
Bliff Cranch said:
Chancellor’s or their equivalents across academia are recruited for opportunities elsewhere all the time, just like head football coaches. If he’s some sort of administrative wizard, one might ask why has Phil been at CU forever?
Click to expand...
This.

If they're reasonably good at their jobs they get hired away by bigger, better funded universities. See: Gee, Gordon.
 
LesGrossman said:
If we aren’t parsing the balance sheet, cash flow, p+l, I don’t see how we can make a strong assessment of good or bad.

3.75 is cheap money and if they were smart (IF being the operating word here), then that loan could be a boon to anyone smart enough to use it correctly.

That said, if our financial acumen at the top level of CU is “pay some bills on credit” and the thought process stopped there without a greater plan for investment and growth, then we should roll a guillotine out.
Click to expand...
CU tries to run the A/D as a standalone P&L. Our competition runs it part of a bigger Sales & Marketing expense overhead. That is a huge difference.

College sports is no longer run as a stand alone business. It's instead the face of the University. Either you want that or you don't. Ivy League said no thanks.
 
buffaholic said:
CU tries to run the A/D as a standalone P&L. Our competition runs it part of a bigger Sales & Marketing expense overhead. That is a huge difference.

College sports is no longer run as a stand alone business. It's instead the face of the University. Either you want that or you don't. Ivy League said no thanks.
Click to expand...
Did you know they call CU the Harvard of the West?
 
ebeyg said:
Are we getting any exciting Portal additions soon? That means infinitely more to me than a loan. Rates have been historically low. It’s gonna be okay.
Will this influx of new coaches coax more talent in the door? This is the only thing I care about, aside from Turley working his 🪄magic in the weight room. LFG.
Click to expand...
I think it will be quiet for a bit since the enrollment period is full and there's the 2nd High School signing day coming up. CU will continue to recruit in the portal, but I wouldn't expect a lot of movement until after Spring Ball, where there will be more entries from all teams. Getting transfers here for the spring was huge, hopefully KD will be very particular from here because having a couple open scholarships could prove to be very strategic come summer.
 
When 11/12 say "no" and you're #12, it's safe to assume you're the outlier. When you've also had the worst football record among the 12 since you joined, it's safe to assume you're not the outlier because you're running things smarter than everyone else.
 
one more note about this loan, recall that some Pac 12 schools, including Stanford, actually dropped sports during Covid. CU didn't.

if we consider the possibility that taking the loan prevented us from dropping sports where peer institutions did, maybe the loan wasn't a horrible decision.
 
hokiehead said:
one more note about this loan, recall that some Pac 12 schools, including Stanford, actually dropped sports during Covid. CU didn't.

if we consider the possibility that taking the loan prevented us from dropping sports where peer institutions did, maybe the loan wasn't a horrible decision.
Click to expand...
We can’t drop any sports. We are basically at the minimum to be considered D-1.
 
hokiehead said:
one more note about this loan, recall that some Pac 12 schools, including Stanford, actually dropped sports during Covid. CU didn't.

if we consider the possibility that taking the loan prevented us from dropping sports where peer institutions did, maybe the loan wasn't a horrible decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah but how many varsity sports did Stanford have compared to CU before COVID? Pretty sure Stanford still has more varsity sports than anyone else in conference even after dropping some.

edit: looked it up and Stanford has 24 varsity sports (most in the conference), while CU has 13 (least in the conference). Even Cal, with all their budget issues, carries 23 sports.
 
Not Sure said:
We can’t drop any sports. We are basically at the minimum to be considered D-1.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's correct. we have 6 men's and 9 women's, I believe the NCAA would allow us to drop one women's sport.
SINKRATZ said:
Yeah but how many varsity sports did Stanford have compared to CU before COVID? Pretty sure Stanford still has more varsity sports than anyone else in conference even after dropping some.

edit: looked it up and Stanford has 24 varsity sports (most in the conference), while CU has 13 (least in the conference). Even Cal, with all their budget issues, carries 23 sports.
Click to expand...
not disagreeing, but wrt whether taking the loan was a good decision at the time it was made, my point is that if it saved an entire varsity sport at CU it may not have been a horrible decision. That Stanford had a plethora of varsity teams above the NCAA minimum speaks more to their fiscal situation and decisions made for decades leading up to Covid.
 
hokiehead said:
I don't think that's correct. we have 6 men's and 9 women's, I believe the NCAA would allow us to drop one women's sport.

not disagreeing, but wrt whether taking the loan was a good decision at the time it was made, my point is that if it saved an entire varsity sport at CU it may not have been a horrible decision. That Stanford had a plethora of varsity teams above the NCAA minimum speaks more to their fiscal situation and decisions made for decades leading up to Covid.
Click to expand...
Title IX prevents us from dropping any womens sports.
 
buffaholic said:
I would imagine that most institutions are just covering it without an expectation for the AD to pay it back, even at 0% interest. That's the whole point of this discussion, that CU expects the AD to do things that other ADs don't have to do, such as cover the full cost of "out-of-state" tuition even though the actual cost to the University is the same for all kids, regardless of what state they come from. Out of State tuition is what the market will bare, not what it costs to educate the kid.
Click to expand...
Why did t we just take out an 18 months same as cash loan? That’s what I do.
 
LesGrossman said:
If we aren’t parsing the balance sheet, cash flow, p+l, I don’t see how we can make a strong assessment of good or bad.

3.75 is cheap money and if they were smart (IF being the operating word here), then that loan could be a boon to anyone smart enough to use it correctly.

That said, if our financial acumen at the top level of CU is “pay some bills on credit” and the thought process stopped there without a greater plan for investment and growth, then we should roll a guillotine out.
Click to expand...
Just the numbers, best I can figure with online calculators: Say we borrowed $50,000,000 at 3.75%. Over 10 years to pay it back, we would pay a total of $60,000,000.

In light of the numbers at play with potential TV revenue upgrades at some point over the next 10 years, one would have to imagine that $10 million would not be a huge deal, especially if you can get some on-field improvement and bowl game revenue during at least some of those years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top