We're #1

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not sure whether you don't understand the point I was making, or you are just arguing for the sake of argument. 

Answer me this:  If regular donors shifted their donations away from the athletic dept to Riley's buyout, who would make up the difference?   Who?  (Hint:  It rhymes with "Ax Slayers".)   Or perhaps you think the people who funded Riley's buyout were one-time givers who would not have otherwise donated to DONU.  Is that what you think?   

Which of those two scenarios was it?  Or can you think of another source of funding for Riley's buyout?        

I'm not sure how to explain it differently.  

You're making up a hypothetical question to prove your statement that you stated as fact is true.

Interesting.

 

[NUance]

You're making up a hypothetical question to prove your statement that you stated as fact is true.

Interesting.

You are not answering a question because you are not able to.  

You argue like a little kid who says the same thing over and over without making any points.  Have you no logic? 

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Even Riley?  I'm trying to be neutral here but its really tough to justify that hiring, both at the time and in hindsight.  30 year coach with a .500 record and his claim to fame is he's nice

I'll admit, when Riley was announced I had to look him up. I live in Pac 12 country and I'd never known the name of the Oregon State head coach. But due diligence showed Riley turned around one of the worst programs in all of college football, brought good talent into one of the toughest schools for recruiting, strung together several winning seasons and bowl games (they weren't .500 seasons), out-coached Pete Carroll, Jim Harbaugh and Chip Kelly, won conference Coach of the Year, and the year before he came to NU was voted the second most underrated coach by his college coaching peers. No less than Les Miles, Kurt Warner, the Spielman family and Keyshawn Johnson saw fit to send their own kids to Nebraska to play under Riley.  There was a time when Alabama, USC, and other elite colleges were interested in hiring Riley, but he reportedly intended to play out his career in his hometown of Corvallis. So the idea that this respected and underrated coach wanted one last challenge, and would be handed the best facilities and football infrastructure of his life wasn't the craziest reason for optimism. Plenty of football insiders, including the recruiting services, thought Nebraska made a smart call in a tough HC hiring market. 

Since Eichorst reportedly tried to get Brett Bielema first, I don't think "nice" was the #1 priority. 

But yeah. It didn't turn out so well. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

You are not answering a question because you are not able to.  

You argue like a little kid who says the same thing over and over without making any points.  Have you no logic? 

I'm not the one who keeps repeating themselves with a "fact" they can't prove.

You also act like the two scenarios you posed are the only scenarios.  They aren't and your "fact" isn't true.  We have very large donors that constantly donate to the athletic department.  Sure, many of them also donate to UNL.  But, there is absolutely no evidence that shows their donations went down to UNL because they donated to firing Riley.  If you have the evidence of this, I would be interested in seeing it. If you don't, then you have no evidence to prove your "fact".

Tax payers did not spend a dime on the buy out packages for the coaches.

 

[NUance]

I'm not the one who keeps repeating themselves with a "fact" they can't prove.

You also act like the two scenarios you posed are the only scenarios.  They aren't and your "fact" isn't true.  We have very large donors that constantly donate to the athletic department.  Sure, many of them also donate to UNL.  But, there is absolutely no evidence that shows their donations went down to UNL because they donated to firing Riley.  If you have the evidence of this, I would be interested in seeing it. If you don't, then you have no evidence to prove your "fact".

Tax payers did not spend a dime on the buy out packages for the coaches.

Okay, so you're saying that donors gave just as much as they'd planned on giving[SIZE=12pt]—[/SIZE]then agreed to give an extra amount to fund the Riley buyout.  As I said above, if that is what actually happened, unlikely as it is, then you are correct.  

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Wow, I had to grab some popcorn to follow the back and forth from Nuance and BRB.  That's quite a debate.

I read the article in the OWH, and while it mentions the amount of $ paid out to recent coaches, it doesn't mention the source of the payout funds.  From what I remember when the coaches were fired, the money to pay the buyouts comes from a special "slush" fund within the University Foundation.  This special fund comes mostly from Athletic Department reserves when income is greater than expenses.  Yes, the Athletic Department is supposed to be non-profit and tax-exempt, but they can get by with minimal "income".

I have no idea if there were "special" donations done to fire Riley, Bo, or other coaches, but I don't think that's required at Nebraska.  They have enough funding between the AD funds and the slush fund at the University Foundation.

I think it's laughable to say that the Nebraska tax-payers are funding these buyouts.  The Athletic Department has been a self-funded endeavor for the past few decades, and doesn't utilize any funds from the general University.  The tax payer funds which go to the general University of Nebraska, are split among the 3 main campuses, and possibly the UNMC.

 

[Ulty]

If Nuance is trying to make the point that if donors had not contributed to the coaching buyouts, that their money may have gone toward some more desirable purpose, I don't think anyone would debate that logic. But that still has nothing to do with taxpayers.

The hypothetical of a taxpayer burden would only work IF the athletic department was not a self-sustaining business and IF UNL did not have rich and influential donors throwing money around and IF the athletic department were funded with public money. But if all of these hypotheticals were true, UNL would not have been in a position to invest so much into coaching salaries and facilities, and they would have taken a much more conservative approach to their hirings and firings, with more oversight. 

The very small handful of schools whose athletic departments make big profits are able to absorb these exorbitant salaries, including buyouts of sucky coaches. If these decisions had any impact whatsoever on public funding, they would be in a heap of trouble from the state. The school would simply not be allowed to be so cavalier with these coaching contracts if they were beholden to the taxpayer. The hypothetical, and this whole conversation, is silly.

 

[gossamorharpy]

I'll admit, when Riley was announced I had to look him up. I live in Pac 12 country and I'd never known the name of the Oregon State head coach. But due diligence showed Riley turned around one of the worst programs in all of college football, brought good talent into one of the toughest schools for recruiting, strung together several winning seasons and bowl games (they weren't .500 seasons), out-coached Pete Carroll, Jim Harbaugh and Chip Kelly, won conference Coach of the Year, and the year before he came to NU was voted the second most underrated coach by his college coaching peers. No less than Les Miles, Kurt Warner, the Spielman family and Keyshawn Johnson saw fit to send their own kids to Nebraska to play under Riley.  There was a time when Alabama, USC, and other elite colleges were interested in hiring Riley, but he reportedly intended to play out his career in his hometown of Corvallis. So the idea that this respected and underrated coach wanted one last challenge, and would be handed the best facilities and football infrastructure of his life wasn't the craziest reason for optimism. Plenty of football insiders, including the recruiting services, thought Nebraska made a smart call in a tough HC hiring market. 

Since Eichorst reportedly tried to get Brett Bielema first, I don't think "nice" was the #1 priority. 

But yeah. It didn't turn out so well. 

All of this is true.  I think the one glaring point you brought up, that I recall fondly, was having to look the guy up.... Feel like half the equation in a successful college hire is the combo of timing and hype for both sides.  Well respected, no doubt, but respect by peers doesn't always translate in your ability to inspire and get the best of your players- particularly when you're an older coach trying to connect with a much younger generation.  Not saying this was the case or not as clearly the players loved playing for Riley; but at its core, football is a brutal game and I do think guys in Frost- low 50s age range have a bit of a step up in the fire department in truly pushing your players.

To summarize the OP's main point tho, feels great being #1 again, in something

 

[NUance]

If Nuance is trying to make the point that if donors had not contributed to the coaching buyouts, that their money may have gone toward some more desirable purpose, I don't think anyone would debate that logic. But that still has nothing to do with taxpayers.

The hypothetical of a taxpayer burden would only work IF the athletic department was not a self-sustaining business and IF UNL did not have rich and influential donors throwing money around and IF the athletic department were funded with public money. But if all of these hypotheticals were true, UNL would not have been in a position to invest so much into coaching salaries and facilities, and they would have taken a much more conservative approach to their hirings and firings, with more oversight. 

The very small handful of schools whose athletic departments make big profits are able to absorb these exorbitant salaries, including buyouts of sucky coaches. If these decisions had any impact whatsoever on public funding, they would be in a heap of trouble from the state. The school would simply not be allowed to be so cavalier with these coaching contracts if they were beholden to the taxpayer. The hypothetical, and this whole conversation, is silly.

Wow, I had to grab some popcorn to follow the back and forth from Nuance and BRB.  That's quite a debate.

I read the article in the OWH, and while it mentions the amount of $ paid out to recent coaches, it doesn't mention the source of the payout funds.  From what I remember when the coaches were fired, the money to pay the buyouts comes from a special "slush" fund within the University Foundation.  This special fund comes mostly from Athletic Department reserves when income is greater than expenses.  Yes, the Athletic Department is supposed to be non-profit and tax-exempt, but they can get by with minimal "income".

I have no idea if there were "special" donations done to fire Riley, Bo, or other coaches, but I don't think that's required at Nebraska.  They have enough funding between the AD funds and the slush fund at the University Foundation.

I think it's laughable to say that the Nebraska tax-payers are funding these buyouts.  The Athletic Department has been a self-funded endeavor for the past few decades, and doesn't utilize any funds from the general University.  The tax payer funds which go to the general University of Nebraska, are split among the 3 main campuses, and possibly the UNMC.

Both of these are great points.  And I agree!   But in all that back and forth above no one bothered to discuss these basic issues.  Basic issues not even mentioned.  

Here is a decent article about the profitability of Husker athletics.  LINK   But I have some qualms about top level articles like this.  Profitability can be tricky to pin down.  What budget pays for facilities?  For retirement?  For medical?  If a member of the athletic staff teaches a class how are his expenses split between athletics/academics?  Did the accountants consider imputed interest on cash flows?  (There are probably a hundred other such questions.)  The accounting decisions made in handling these issues are why it's so easy to manipulate profit/loss numbers.   

The one issue that also wasn't mentioned in this thread is how the big boosters likely controlled the agenda.  I suspect there were a number of big boosters who held the AD's feet to the fire by saying they wouldn't donate anything if Riley remained at the helm.  Do I know this for sure?  No.  But that's the way the world works.  The people who control the purse strings call the shots.   And if it looked like our booster revenue was going to tank due to Riley's incompetence, well then, he gone.  

Thanks for playing along, fellows.  lol

 

[Ulty]

But due diligence showed Riley turned around one of the worst programs in all of college football, brought good talent into one of the toughest schools for recruiting, strung together several winning seasons and bowl games (they weren't .500 seasons), out-coached Pete Carroll, Jim Harbaugh and Chip Kelly, won conference Coach of the Year, and the year before he came to NU was voted the second most underrated coach by his college coaching peers. No less than Les Miles, Kurt Warner, the Spielman family and Keyshawn Johnson saw fit to send their own kids to Nebraska to play under Riley.  There was a time when Alabama, USC, and other elite colleges were interested in hiring Riley, but he reportedly intended to play out his career in his hometown of Corvallis.

Those are all great selling points for the guy, but due diligence would also show that the guy had a career .500 record and was never in any sort of championship discussion outside of Canada.

I never bought the idea that Riley turned around one of the worst programs ever (Bill Snyder he ain't). When he left Oregon State for a couple of years, Dennis Erickson quickly came in and took them to a BCS bowl. Riley returned and they went back to being a mediocre program. It is also disingenuous to say that he outcoached Carroll, Harbaugh, and Kelly. In what, one game? One big upset every year or two is not a career.

Yes, there was reason for optimism (one of the reasons being we were stuck with him for a couple years no matter what), but at no time did the evidence actually suggest that he was going to be wildly successful here.

 

[gossamorharpy]

Those are all great selling points for the guy, but due diligence would also show that the guy had a career .500 record and was never in any sort of championship discussion outside of Canada.

I never bought the idea that Riley turned around one of the worst programs ever (Bill Snyder he ain't). When he left Oregon State for a couple of years, Dennis Erickson quickly came in and took them to a BCS bowl. Riley returned and they went back to being a mediocre program. It is also disingenuous to say that he outcoached Carroll, Harbaugh, and Kelly. In what, one game? One big upset every year or two is not a career.

Yes, there was reason for optimism (one of the reasons being we were stuck with him for a couple years no matter what), but at no time did the evidence actually suggest that he was going to be wildly successful here.

There was 1 point and 1 point only in the Riley era where there was a glimmer of hope to suffest he could be successful and that's when we were 7-0, top 10, heading into a back to back stretch of wisconsin and ohio state.  Pretty sure it was a close game with wisconsin and hope was still there- then quickly dashed the next week against ohio state.  

 

[knapplc]

You could also say nobody cares about Women's College Volleyball.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Those are all great selling points for the guy, but due diligence would also show that the guy had a career .500 record and was never in any sort of championship discussion outside of Canada.

Yeah, but in hindsight it's also hard to say where Nebraska whiffed, or what better criteria would have landed back in 2014/15.

Jerry Kill had roughly the same career record as Riley did at OSU. (For that matter, so does Frank Solich at Ohio) 

Gary Anderson had a similar career record. Paul Chyrst was literally 19-19 as a head coach when he took the Wisconsin job. Tom Herman and Pat Narduzzi had zero wins as head coaches. McElwain was the prize catch for Florida, and was fired about the same time as Riley. We will see him next as the coach of Central Michigan. Maybe we shouldn't have fired Bo Pelini, but in hindsight no major conference team wanted the coach with the 67-28 career record at Nebraska. 

Athlon gave the Riiley hire a B+ rating at the time. Just saying. 

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Both of these are great points.  And I agree!   But in all that back and forth above no one bothered to discuss these basic issues.  Basic issues not even mentioned.  

Here is a decent article about the profitability of Husker athletics.  LINK   But I have some qualms about top level articles like this.  Profitability can be tricky to pin down.  What budget pays for facilities?  For retirement?  For medical?  If a member of the athletic staff teaches a class how are his expenses split between athletics/academics?  Did the accountants consider imputed interest on cash flows?  (There are probably a hundred other such questions.)  The accounting decisions made in handling these issues are why it's so easy to manipulate profit/loss numbers.   

The one issue that also wasn't mentioned in this thread is how the big boosters likely controlled the agenda.  I suspect there were a number of big boosters who held the AD's feet to the fire by saying they wouldn't donate anything if Riley remained at the helm.  Do I know this for sure?  No.  But that's the way the world works.  The people who control the purse strings call the shots.   And if it looked like our booster revenue was going to tank due to Riley's incompetence, well then, he gone.  

Thanks for playing along, fellows.  lol

Any professional accounting organization can keep funds, revenue, and expenses, segregated for the Athletic Department and the general university financials.  I am 99% certain that sports facilities are paid by the Athletic Department funds, and wouldn't be difficult to keep separate.

You are changing your point about Riley's firing and donors making the call, it was possible that a big donor or two were calling for his firing, but Eichorst was fired first, and Moos had an easy decision to make after being hired.  The hypothetical large donors still don't have any impact on whether tax-payer funds are being used for NU athletics, which aren't.

 

[Mavric]

I'm not sure whether you don't understand the point I was making, or you are just arguing for the sake of argument. 

Answer me this:  If regular donors shifted their donations away from the athletic dept to Riley's buyout, who would make up the difference?   Who?  (Hint:  It rhymes with "Ax Slayers".)   Or perhaps you think the people who funded Riley's buyout were one-time givers who would not have otherwise donated to DONU.  Is that what you think?   

Which of those two scenarios was it?  Or can you think of another source of funding for Riley's buyout?        

I'm not sure how to explain it differently.  

I believe the distinction trying to be made is the difference between taxes being used to pay for it and it being paid by people who also pay taxes.

Pretty much all the time when people say "taxpayers are paying for it" it is used to indicate that they are having to pay for it because they have to pay their taxes and their tax money is paying for something.  Thus, they don't have a choice in the matter - they are paying for it.  In your illustrations, it may be taxpayers who are actually paying the bill but it is something they are choosing to do.  They aren't being forced to do it.  And I don't think that's what most people are talking about when they say "taxpayers are paying for it."