Basketball question from an outsider - facilities and staff

SoCon Champs - 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015

Moderators: BestOfBreed, dungeonjoe

Postby Jimbear on Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:40 pm

The "Campus Life Building" that includes the Ben-Jo and the Tony White Theater opened in the late 70s. Wofford had a very difficult time raising the money needed to build it and the original plans called for a much larger building with a double story lobby, etc. It was cut way back in order to get something up and running.

As I have said before, just step up and give the funds to make something happen. That is what Russell King did to bring baseball back on campus (with Switzer's great help). Wofford has been raising funds for new dorms, a new science building, a renovated Main, etc. etc. And growing the endowment from very little in the early 80s to over $150m + today. We only have 14000 living alumni. To accomplish what we have done just by being in the So Con is amazing.

Richard Johnson has a resposibility for all of the athletic programs and does a great job trying to balance what needs to be done. Give him a break but more importantly if you have the resources give the college a check.
Jimbear
 

Postby JoMo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:32 pm

Davidson's endowment as of last year -$422 million
Wofford's endowment as of last year -$132 million

So, yes, Davidson does have a significant advantage in endowment, however, Davidson's endowment is only large in comparison to most SoCon schools. Davidson ranks at #141 in terms of endowment size for US schools. Furman has the highest endowment of any SoCon school at $480 million.

More to the point here is the men's basketball spending of the entire SoCon for last year: with ratio relative to highest spender
Men's BB expenses Ratio
UTC $1,278,388 100%
CofC $1,261,143 99%
Davidson$1,144,821 90%
Furman $1,080,774 85%
UNCG $983,507 77%
Citadel $902,596 71%
Elon $763,855 60%
WCU $741,039 58%
GSU $687,595 54%
ASU $673,087 53%
Wofford $633,636 50%

Wofford ranks dead last in the SoCon in men's BB spending. However, spending does not lead to winning - ask Furman.
JoMo
 

Postby TURKEYCREEK on Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:52 pm

What's included in this spending category? Travel expenses, reimbursed or not? Recruiting expenses? Coaches salaries? It's hard to analyze the spending when we don't know for sure what comprises it.

Also, what were each SOCON's teams budget for basketball? Did they overspend or were they more discretionary?

I don't know the answers, just trying to raise some questions that may help provide some.
User avatar
TURKEYCREEK
2008 Bowl Pickem Co-Champ
 
Posts: 477
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: Taylors, SC

Postby beacon_fan on Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:43 pm

Jimbear wrote:Richard Johnson has a resposibility for all of the athletic programs and does a great job trying to balance what needs to be done. Give him a break but more importantly if you have the resources give the college a check.


well said Jimbear.
beacon_fan
 

Postby Rowdy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:06 pm

beacon_fan wrote:
Jimbear wrote:Richard Johnson has a resposibility for all of the athletic programs and does a great job trying to balance what needs to be done. Give him a break but more importantly if you have the resources give the college a check.


well said Jimbear.


Most intelligent post I've seen in some time.
Rowdy
 

Postby dude on Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:06 pm

That is an interesting list. I would assume that it does NOT include scholarships but DOES include salaries, travel, recruiting budget, and other miscellaneous costs.

If these numbers are correct, you're looking at a major gap in spending. I would think that salaries for assistant coaches and for recruiting are really important to the strength of a program. And then if you add in our scholarship deficit, though it's not huge, this further reduces our margin for error.

Regarding Benjamin Johnson Arena, I think it would be great if we could expand it or renovate it (adding some seats behind at least one basket), or even leave it as a practice facility and build a new place. But I do think it's possible for us to have winning teams there; someone mentioned Charleston's success in an outdated gym. It is honestly a pretty good place to watch a game -- easy to get good seats, close to the court -- and when the students are into it, the gym can get pretty darn loud. Also, the college has managed to dramatically renovate the building's lobby, so the feel of the location on the whole is much better, in my opinion.

New construction or major renovation of our basketball facilities would be an enormous expense. And as someone pointed out, Wofford has recently done a lot to the physical campus: the Old Main restoration, the "village", new baseball facilities, a new science building, renovation of Burwell upstairs (it's actually somewhat nice now!), and the makeover of the campus life building. Putting together a multi-million-dollar project (probably anywhere from $2 million to $15 million, depending on the goals of the project) is no small issue, I would imagine.

Still, surely, it would be great to see Wofford have an intimate, loud arena with more character and architectural presence than our current facility. And if this would help in recruiting -- and I imagine it might -- then it would certainly be a good step.
dude
True Terrier Fan
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:08 pm

Postby Rowdy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:39 pm

dude wrote:
And then if you add in our scholarship deficit, though it's not huge, this further reduces our margin for error.

i


Uh Dude, in the games I play, 20% is huge. I'm a competitive sailor on Lake Norman. And I'm always in the top two in my class. If I give my competition a 20% advantage, they whip me every time. 9 scholarships vs 11. Not huge?
Rowdy
 

Postby dude on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:31 pm

That's cool. Huge it is, then.

I didn't mean to downplay it. Clearly, I think any lack of scholarships reduces our margin for error and probably makes building team depth much tougher.

I would add, however, that I think lack of staff salaries and travel budget for recruiting may be as problematic.
dude
True Terrier Fan
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:08 pm

Postby Rowdy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:38 pm

dude wrote:That's cool. Huge it is, then.

I didn't mean to downplay it. Clearly, I think any lack of scholarships reduces our margin for error and probably makes building team depth much tougher.

I would add, however, that I think lack of staff salaries and travel budget for recruiting may be as problematic.


I think we're in total agreement.
Rowdy
 

Postby NCTerrier on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:02 am

I agree that spending and scholarships are a big detriment, but do you really think that is the only problem when it come to on-court performance?
NCTerrier
 

Postby Rowdy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:34 am

NCTerrier wrote:I agree that spending and scholarships are a big detriment, but do you really think that is the only problem when it come to on-court performance?


It may not be, but unless the playing field is somewhat level, how do you know there is a coaching problem? MY is operating with 2 scholarships short of his competition and from previous posts to this thread, $500,000 short in the budget versus the elite teams in the SoCo. Someone said you can look at Furman and see that throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it or something to that effect. But look at who spends the money in the SoCo, Davidson, C of C, Chatty, Greensboro, and you have a list of the premier b-ball teams in the conference. Lack of funding does mean something. Maybe a more proven coach than MY could make us winners, but we couldn't afford him either.
Rowdy
 

Postby 94cat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:34 pm

Rowdy wrote: Lack of funding does mean something. Maybe a more proven coach than MY could make us winners, but we couldn't afford him either.


I still have to wonder if, with regards to the basketball program, there's not just a sense of complacency within the AD office/basketball staff...RJ and MY. They've been there a looooong time and just used to things being the way they are.

Complacency happens, and it's a killer. I'm just saying...
94cat
 

Postby beacon_fan on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:58 am

94cat wrote:
Rowdy wrote: Lack of funding does mean something. Maybe a more proven coach than MY could make us winners, but we couldn't afford him either.


I still have to wonder if, with regards to the basketball program, there's not just a sense of complacency within the AD office/basketball staff...RJ and MY. They've been there a looooong time and just used to things being the way they are.

Complacency happens, and it's a killer. I'm just saying...


I do see where you are coming from, and it's a valid concern, but I just don't think this is the problem.
beacon_fan
 

Postby dude on Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:54 pm

Mike Young may have his flaws, but I do not think being complacent is one of them by any means.
dude
True Terrier Fan
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:08 pm

Postby drpnut on Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:58 pm

I was part of the b-ball program from 84-88 and am convinced the overall issue is bits and pieces of all that has been said here.

Should we win more? Yes. Can we win more? Yes. Is this winning tied only to money, scholies, etc? No. Is it tied to just Coach Young? No.

It really is a tough situation. Until we start winning more, the complacency will not change. Which leads us back to the issues. It is a wild circle. Someone has to N*T up and start makng some changes.

We have to change the culture and it it not always about the greenbacks.

Peace


P.S. Why not ask Norm Nixon, Sr. and Debbie Allen to drop down some seed money?
drpnut
True Terrier Fan
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Lyman, SC

PreviousNext

Return to Men's Basketball

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron