Team$ has pointed out in several posts that the claims to sound fiscal management by the Doughnistas are totally bogus.
The USA Today college athletics financial database ( USA Today Database )includes columns for total revenues, total expenses and total subsidy. This last column is the killer. The database shows that UCLA's revenues and expenses balance to the dollar, which as we have pointed out before is totally bogus.
The database highlights how Morgan Center got to this result. The athletic department tapped other sources (aka "subsidy") for $2,775,664 to cover the expense over-runs.
Let's repeat that number- $2,775,664.
When Doughnut says that we have the funds on hand to give Howland $3,000,000, and when the university claims that none of Doughnut's salary comes from public sources, this is total horseshit. The athletic department is losing money. Doughnut's minions shuffle the funds around, so that the money from the subsidies go to other parts of the athletic department, and Doughnut's salary is covered by donors or other more respectable funds. This is all perfectly legal. It is also perfectly arbitrary.
As the USA Today story points out, the term "subsidy" in their report represents student fees, direct and institutional support and state money. Let's assume that most of the $2,775,664 comes from student fees. What would have happened if Doughnut had hired coaches who could be successful beyond reaching 3rd tier bowl games and not being NCAA tournament worthy on a consistent basis the past 6 years in basketball? What would have happened if he actually could fundraise, which is a severe deficiency, as Patroclus points out?
The result would have been more revenue, which would have meant less need to tap student fees to fund the Morgan Center shortfall. This would lead to one of two results- lower student fees (sounds good to me, as an alum) or the ability to direct the same amount of student fees to other areas to further the university's educational mission (sounds good to me, as an alum).
What does not sound good to me, as an alum, is having Doughnut climb on the backs of the students to balance his books, and then be praised by Block for fiscal management.
I could be a good fiscal manager, if I could be bailed out. Any of us could.
Every data point leads to a simple conclusion- Doughnut is not a sound fiscal manager. The emperor has no clothes.