Budget issues revisited

by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2005 10:31 AM PDT in Football

We've talked about this before, but it's an article of Blindo faith that "UCLA cannot afford to pay for a big-time head football coach because (and this argument takes various forms): UCLA as a state school can't pay a big salary; the UC system is in a budget crunch and UCLA can't pay a big salary, etc."

We've already debunked this myth, but it's worth noting again.

The Orlando Sentinel has a very interesting and handy list of all D-IA programs. Here's the Pac 10 list

Pac-10    Totalrevenues    Totalexpenses    Women's revenue    Women's expenses    Football revenue    Football expenses
Arizona    35,296,096    34,997,213    2,253,185    7,556,495    13,266,117    9,916,953
Arizona State    34,996,041    35,276,972    1,042,015    7,644,823    17,669,149    11,409,157
California    38,031,463    43,407,775    5,067,437    8,744,686    12,548,856    10,685,345
Oregon    40,800,423    39,690,960    967,340    5,382,937    18,070,390    10,822,601
Oregon State    30,208,645    28,887,886    559,864    6,181,935    20,593,052    8,617,413
Stanford    35,830,158    32,935,038    2,242,312    12,230,978    9,920,845    10,262,787
UCLA    42,536,484    42,700,427    789,704    8,321,864    17,231,998    11,503,287
USC    53,017,260    53,017,260    762,474    8,935,916    26,244,364    15,377,942
Washington    42,551,520    41,389,893    2,895,101    7,536,761    28,569,263    12,640,090
Washington State    30,475,629    29,513,616    1,739,650    5,529,521    12,630,209    7,668,687

A few things worth noting

Overall, only USC's total revenue was higher.
Overall, only USC and Cal had higher total expenditures.
We had the second-lowest revenue from Women's sports, and spent the third most.

Washington State, Stanford, Cal and Arizona were the only four teams with lower football revenue.
Yet only USC and UW spent more on football.

We spent more on football than the following:
Georgia (it looks like most SEC teams spend much more, but even among the 7 SEC teams that spent more than UCLA, only LSU spent over $1.4 million more)
Notre Dame (and all other independents)
All Sun Belt, MAC, WAC, Conference USA and Mountain West teams
Every single Big XII team except Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech
Every single Big Ten(11) team except Ohio State
All ACC teams excpet Clemson

The source is 2003-04 Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act reports, Department of Education, so last year's figures may be slightly different.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

More than Notre Dame?

We spent more than ND on football? I don't know whether to be embarrassed for them or surprised for us. I guess this myth about money is dead.

by Bruin Roar on Aug 3, 2005 10:40 AM PDT reply actions

Stadium Rent is likely the difference

by McCloskey on Aug 3, 2005 10:48 AM PDT reply actions

Could be ...

What is interesting we are probably spending all this $ on football without doing the kind of fundraising ND and other schools do. From what I have head, UCLA is very sheepish about taking $ from big alum. boosters. In case basketball, finally the alums had it and forced Morgan Center to hire someone like Ben Howland. I wonder if it will take 1-10 Cal (Holmoe) like implosion for total alum intervention, forcing Morgan center to finally think outside the box, and hire a coach like Tefford.

by Nestor on Aug 3, 2005 10:51 AM PDT up reply actions

I think that depends on the Chancellor

by McCloskey on Aug 3, 2005 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

The Rose Bowl expenses

Good point on Rose Bowl operating expenses. However, the fact that we are spending so much money on football just goes to show the potential for having resources to have a big name coach is there. Plus, this should also raise questions about whether Rose Bowl is the ideal venue in terms of economics. Don't get me wrong ... I love the Rose Bowl, and would not trade anything else for it.

However, you have to wonder whether we are exploring all options, perhaps having an on-campus stadium would be a more efficient option economically for UCLA? The question is whether UCLA admins are taking all these factors into account? I don't have a lot of confidence in them given how thoroughly they botched up the football head coaching search. As Jason Whitlock wrote in now infamous article, it didn't seem like football minds were making football related decisions at UCLA. Tragic really.

by bluestreet on Aug 3, 2005 11:06 AM PDT up reply actions

possible, but the numbers just don't say

like with all things statiscal or accounting, schools can play games with their numbers (paricularly in order to comply with Title IX). Thus, it is well-known that many schools capitalize stadium maintenance accross the entire athletic budget. Whether we do this (and/or do it with rent) I don't know.

Another thing schools do is expense all non-football personnel travel expenses accross the entire budget (i.e., all non-players and coaches).

Again, there is no way to know, based on these numbers, if we do this.

by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2005 10:59 AM PDT up reply actions

I thought we were...

Still paying some of Toledo remaining contract...and also some of Lavin's. Is that commitment over now? I would think paying two football head coach's salary would be a difference maker, and a huge reason why we can't commit to a big name coach right now, since if we fired Dorrell we would still have to pay out the remainder of his contract. Maybe in a couple of years?

by SaulGood on Aug 3, 2005 11:25 AM PDT reply actions

Guys, I know it's fun

to speculate, but it's not that hard to do the research.

Remember, facts are your friends.

Toledo's buyout:

Toledo, 56, who compiled a record of 49-32 in his seven years as head coach, had six years remaining on his contract. The contract buyout consists of one year of the full package of $578,000 and five years at the base salary of $153,000.

Thus last year, and this year, the amount is slightly over 150,000. An amount I'd rather not pay for him to sit around and play golf, but in the scheme of the entire budget, it's not that much.

by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2005 11:31 AM PDT up reply actions

right...

It was more of a rhetorical question...

Anyhow, my point is that if we fire KD we would be paying 3 non-employed coaches salaries, which I would like to speculate would be close to 400K (+ initial buyouts), which is about 2/3s of KD's current salary...so this would be about 20~50% of what we would have to and be willing to pay a top tier coach. (Assuming a deal close to Urban Meyer's $2 million per) I just don't think that Guerrero would be willing to put up that kind of cash into a calculated risk if KD has 7 or 8 wins. Remember Howland essentially took less money for the prestige of UCLA basketball - a luxury our football team doesn't have. (I remember reading about this...couldn't find the article...) I would hope that if someone like Spurrier came along Guerrero would be more excepting of the alum's help but that just doesn't seem to be a possibility.

You may be right that it isn't a large percentage of the entire budget, but it is fairly sustainable when compared to the coaching budget. You guys can talk about 9 wins all you want but I don't think not achieving that goal would be enough to get him fired. Realistically, it would probably have to be something like a .500 season...which, for the record, I think is too bad. I would love to see an Urban Meyer equivalent in there.

by SaulGood on Aug 3, 2005 3:09 PM PDT up reply actions

Average "rent revenue"

accodring to the City of Pasadena is $140,000/game for the 2004 year

5 games = $700,000; 6 games = $840,000

However, the large size of the Rose Bowl means that there are much higher potential ticket sales (unfortunately we can't come close to filling it).

UCLA was probably able to secure a long-term deal in part because of the City's need for flexibility.

UCLA was able to require the City to make upgrades to the Rose Bowl facility. Specifically, capital improvements of $12.5 million.

If the average annual rent is $770,000, then over 16 years are essentially "rent free" because there is no need to make these capital improvements out of the Athletic Department budget.

Moreover, according to what I've read the City is largely responsible for maintenance and repairs, which again is an amount of expenditure that we don't have to pay.

Pasadena link (pdf)

by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2005 11:27 AM PDT reply actions

Lavin's remaining contract ...

I thought some of Lavin's remaining K, was offset by the salary he had been picking up from ESPN? Not sure where there was 3 or 4 years left in Toledo's - will have to look it up. Whatever that amount is ... if we line up someone like Leach or Hawkins, and look for alums for $$, I have no doubt cash will flow.

by bluestreet on Aug 3, 2005 11:28 AM PDT reply actions

Lavin's buyout

info:

Lavin's buyout consisted of one year at $578,000 (his full benefits package) and four years at $153,000 (his base salary).

According to the Daily Bruin the buyout is only decreased for money made "as a coach."

by Odysseus on Aug 3, 2005 11:35 AM PDT reply actions

How is Oregon State grossing that kind of money

Tough to believe they out-gross UCLA

Reser Stadium holds 43,000.
43,000 x 7 home games = 301,000

UCLA's 2003 Attendence was 56,636/game.
56,636 x 6 home games = 339,816

That's a $1 million Bruin advantage

Beavers went to the Las Vegas Bowl
Bruins went to the Silicon Valley Bowl.

Don't see how the Beavs grossed $3 million more.

by McCloskey on Aug 3, 2005 11:58 AM PDT reply actions

Buyouts

If they would do the job that they are supposedly hired for then this would not be a worry. Lavin gets his "package" per Daily Bruin unless he coaches. I want to see a winning program in football but also in all sports. They did a good job in a baseball coach didn't they. If KD goes how about Bobby Petrino?

by stuin bruin on Aug 3, 2005 10:34 PM PDT reply actions