About the 9:00 minute mark

Dont have time to listen, why was he?

Expense cutting due to revenue sharing with players.

Trev himself explained the cost cutting he was brought in to do in his intro presser.

17:30 mark here he explains the money is drying up for support etc and will now go to players. He was hired to help cut fat to pay players.

I thought it was to cut the football program like he did at Nebraska-Omaha…

This isn't news. We are trying to get ahead of what's coming with having to pay players. It's a game changer $ wise for Athletic Departments. A huge new budget item that has never been there for an AD to have to pay for.

He's right. From my post on the football about the new NIL era...

The reality of the NIL era is that the business model has drastically changed and the sooner athletic departments change, the better off they will be.

Prior to NIL, major athletic departments were $150-200m revenue entities that paid almost nothing for some of its most valuable employees (athletes). You convinced athletes to come to your school by hiring expensive coaches, building the Taj Mahal of athletic facilities, and provide tons of staffers for white glove service to wipe everyone's ass.

Enter NIL and now players can indirectly receive compensation and pretty soon, universities will be able to pay players directly. What % of our AD budget should there be? If you look at major sports leagues (nfl, nhl, nba, mlb), player compensation is ~50% of revenue in almost all leagues. There could certainly be legitimate structural reasons college ADs shouldn't be at that %, but it's probably in the same ballpark.

If we assume A&M ultimately transforms its business model to pay athletes 50% of revenue, we're talking about >$100m annually which means that bucket of cash needs to come from somewhere. The very unofficial estimates I've seen have A&M's (and similar sized collectives) spending $20m annually.

We need to stop the mindless spending to upgrade already nice facilities and pay thousands of staffers. That isn't to say facilities and staffers aren't important, but do you think a recruit would rather earn $500k annually to play in decent facilities or $200k annually to play in an exceptional facility.

Olsen may need some upgrades, but it doesn't need an $80m remodel. Our football facilities are exceptional but would the $200m we just spent upgrading them be better spent on NIL?

Meanwhile over in Austin, their AD is hiring PROVEN winners with quality personalities to continue to be Goliath.

For amusement 11:50, schloss is great person for their culture

and the players and athletes need to feel the pain too

i.e. dropping sports

themissinglink said:

---

"do you think a recruit would rather earn $500k annually to play in decent facilities or $200k annually to play in an exceptional facility."

"Olsen may need some upgrades, but it doesn't need an $80m remodel. Our football facilities are exceptional but would the $200m we just spent upgrading them be better spent on NIL?"

---

Agree to a point. I think you need to be top 5 in facilities technology game, top 10 in overall facility capacity.

Olsen needs another 2,000 or so seats and a technology refresh. Like LSU hitting lab.

Our admins focus on buildings instead of collecting W's. If you build they sometimes don't come. If you have top 10 buildings AND stacking up championships they will come. The focus has to be on proven winners and proven talent when your talking about $500K per kid.

SonOf_an_Ag said:

---

Meanwhile over in Austin, their AD is hiring PROVEN winners with quality personalities to continue to be Goliath.

For amusement 11:50, schloss is great person for their culture

---

I'd like to hear the A&M after action review on how huge of a failure our hiring was.

…Or do they admit failing to retain him was the issue?

W said:

---

and the players and athletes need to feel the pain too

i.e. dropping sports

---

Yep. Some sports are gonna get cut

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting we don't need to improve certain facilities to either increase revenue or improve athlete development (like a pitching lab). I expect the number of facility improvements should be dramatically reduced compared to what we've seen in the past.

I kind of hope it all just implodes and we have to start all over.

tuition, room, board, books.

I don't care if the athletes get paid a dime over that

Don't like it, then don't play college sports

themissinglink said:

---

Absolutely. I'm not suggesting we don't need to improve certain facilities to either increase revenue or improve athlete development (like a pitching lab). I expect the number of facility improvements should be dramatically reduced compared to what we've seen in the past.

---

That is whats coming and Schloss decided he trusted his buddy CDC to ensure he has what he wants, when he wants it, how he wants it instead of the new regime here talking about formulations and costs cutting and sharing revenues etc etc.

TU will have to do the same thing but first priority is spending to win wherever and however it is required. We tend to trip over own D$#%s here getting lsot in calculations and formulations and schloss didn't trust it longer term.

I hope like most, it blows up in their face and after two bounces in regional's he gets fired. BUT we all know who controls the selection committees and media narratives etc so buckle up.

Just me, but I hope his BIG experience played into it.

themissinglink said:

---

He's right. From my post on the football about the new NIL era...

The reality of the NIL era is that the business model has drastically changed and the sooner athletic departments change, the better off they will be.

Prior to NIL, major athletic departments were $150-200m revenue entities that paid almost nothing for some of its most valuable employees (athletes). You convinced athletes to come to your school by hiring expensive coaches, building the Taj Mahal of athletic facilities, and provide tons of staffers for white glove service to wipe everyone's ass.

Enter NIL and now players can indirectly receive compensation and pretty soon, universities will be able to pay players directly. What % of our AD budget should there be? If you look at major sports leagues (nfl, nhl, nba, mlb), player compensation is ~50% of revenue in almost all leagues. There could certainly be legitimate structural reasons college ADs shouldn't be at that %, but it's probably in the same ballpark.

If we assume A&M ultimately transforms its business model to pay athletes 50% of revenue, we're talking about >$100m annually which means that bucket of cash needs to come from somewhere. The very unofficial estimates I've seen have A&M's (and similar sized collectives) spending $20m annually.

We need to stop the mindless spending to upgrade already nice facilities and pay thousands of staffers. That isn't to say facilities and staffers aren't important, but do you think a recruit would rather earn $500k annually to play in decent facilities or $200k annually to play in an exceptional facility.

Olsen may need some upgrades, but it doesn't need an $80m remodel. Our football facilities are exceptional but would the $200m we just spent upgrading them be better spent on NIL?

---

NIL will lead to compensation for athletes.

But those NIL funds will come from outside entities and not from universities themselves. Athletes will not get big paycheck of the kind that lure top name elite athletes. They might get a minimal paycheck from TAMU but it won't be the $1MM paydays that are in the news these days.

Universities (due to Title IX) will push that responsibility for the big payout to the affiliated Alumni groups...which is where the money is coming from anyway. Title IX would require women athletes to get paid the same as men athletes. To pay $X amount for elite men athletes, Universities would have to spend $X for women athletes. This would basically double the amount of base money required to just to recruit elite athletes in the big revenue sports like football and basketball. I don't think any material amount TV contract money or seat revenue will be spent on paying athletes directly. That money will be exclusively spent on coaches, facilities and 'experience' for athletes.

Quote:

---

But those NIL funds will come from outside entities and not from universities themselves. Athletes will not get big paycheck of the kind that lure top name elite athletes. They might get a minimal paycheck from TAMU but it won't be the $1MM paydays that are in the news these days.

Universities (due to Title IX) will push that responsibility for the big payout to the affiliated Alumni groups...which is where the money is coming from anyway. Title IX would require women athletes to get paid the same as men athletes. To pay $X amount for elite men athletes, Universities would have to spend $X for women athletes. This would basically double the amount of base money required to just to recruit elite athletes in the big revenue sports like football and basketball. I don't think any material amount TV contract money or seat revenue will be spent on paying athletes directly. That money will be exclusively spent on coaches, facilities and 'experience' for athletes.

---

While that is the case, those same big donors that the AD is asking to spend money on facilities are the ones writing the checks for NIL. If you ask for too much in facilities (and other costs), you are going to be disappointed in where your NIL fund is ranked. Revenue sport athlete compensation is way below market and over time, donors and institutions are going to find a way to bring them to market.

I agree about the complications of universities directly paying players, but with the new ruling, it it's happening. I'm not sure how it gets instituted, but in some manner universities will be paying players.