Return on Investment

[AnnapSpider]

The school has spent millions of dollars upgrading Robins Center. They spend a million plus dollars on coaches salaries.
Are there any other schools our size in the country that can afford an investment like UR, and not get much? And, the administration sems satisfied with their ROI?

 

[Eight Legger]

 

[SpiderGuy]

You are correct. Unfortunately I believe there are a limited number of people who look at ROI. I'm a big believer in analyzing from that perspective. Buckle up for more of the same. On the other hand, the popcorn is very popular at the RC.

 

[MrTbone]

The school has spent millions of dollars upgrading Robins Center. They spend a million plus dollars on coaches salaries.
Are there any other schools our size in the country that can afford an investment like UR, and not get much? And, the administration sems satisfied with their ROI?

Let's start by defining "not get much." If this is code for "spent a lot
of money to not make the tournament" then I submit that is only one dimension to measuring this. If we had a tremendous program that made the tournament regularly but generated limited revenue would we similarly suggest a change in direction? I think these ROI commentaries try to reduce what the program means to some kind of arithmetic when that's not how most universities view them.

 

[AnnapSpider]

I'm asking Tbone, what are we getting? You can't get national exposure from a mediocre
program. And who cares if we have one of the nicest facilities in the U.S. if the product is
not particularly good?
Are you satisfied ?

 

[fan2011]

I interact with a lot of college age kids. I don't live in Virginia anymore, but when I tell these kids I went to undergrad at Richmond they respond like clockwork "The Spiders!" About 1 in 5 will then say, "Didn't they make a run in March Madness a couple years ago?" The Richmond brand is strong, the basketball brand is strong. More exposure would be good of course, but we are not lacking in recognition. I think it is due to our mascot, and the fact that we are mentioned during every 2 seed vs. 15 seed game.

 

[SpiderK]

I'm asking Tbone, what are we getting? You can't get national exposure from a mediocre
program. And who cares if we have one of the nicest facilities in the U.S. if the product is
not particularly good?
Are you satisfied ?

Exactly, we are serving hotdogs at Ruth's Chris.

 

[SpiderK]

I interact with a lot of college age kids. I don't live in Virginia anymore, but when I tell these kids I went to undergrad at Richmond they respond like clockwork "The Spiders!" About 1 in 5 will then say, "Didn't they make a run in March Madness a couple years ago?" The Richmond brand is strong, the basketball brand is strong. More exposure would be good of course, but we are not lacking in recognition. I think it is due to our mascot.

Sure would like to refresh those kids' and my memory every now and then.

 

[MrTbone]

I'm asking Tbone, what are we getting? You can't get national exposure from a mediocre
program. And who cares if we have one of the nicest facilities in the U.S. if the product is
not particularly good?
Are you satisfied ?

Here's what I get out of it - a chance to go enjoy/suffer through a game 1-2 times a week from November to early March when I couldn't otherwise get my wife and kids out of the house.

We all get different things out of it, my theory is that a presumption that national exposure or an excellent product may not be the primary or only goals for the university.

 

[SpiderGuy]

I interact with a lot of college age kids. I don't live in Virginia anymore, but when I tell these kids I went to undergrad at Richmond they respond like clockwork "The Spiders!" About 1 in 5 will then say, "Didn't they make a run in March Madness a couple years ago?" The Richmond brand is strong, the basketball brand is strong. More exposure would be good of course, but we are not lacking in recognition. I think it is due to our mascot, and the fact that we are mentioned during every 2 seed vs. 15 seed game.

"Didn't they make a run in March Madness a couple years ago?"

So 20% of the kids responded to you & think we made a run to March Madness a couple years ago.

Question 1 - Did they respond to you on this back in 2013?

Question 2 - Are we correct to assume the othe 80% didn't mention March Madness a couple years ago or didn't mention basketball?

 

[MrTbone]

I think you've missed the point of his post, which is that UR is very recognizable with a younger set of people who aren't at all affiliated with the university.

I think UR holds a comfortable position as a brand. Of course it would help the brand to get national exposure by making the Sweet 16 again, but it's not like we're unknown without it.

 

[SpiderGuy]

I think you've missed the point of his post, which is that UR is very recognizable with a younger set of people who aren't at all affiliated with the university.

I think UR holds a comfortable position as a brand. Of course it would help the brand to get national exposure by making the Sweet 16 again, but it's not like we're unknown without it.

Not really; didn't miss the point of his post. Just adressed it from a different angle than your intrepretation / response. Nothing wrong either way.

The bigger issue of ROI which to me, opens up the real question of how one measures that. That pie can be sliced and diced from different perspectives & from macro to micro angles. It can be broad brush stroked or analyzed from the pure analytics.

 

[MrTbone]

Understood. I still think the ROI thing isn't really what people here care about. Altruistically, I suspect we all "care" obtusely about the university making sound investments, but I suspect these have limited impact on the university's fiscal operations considering they are largely campaign driven. In reality, what we're talking about here is whether or not the team makes the NCAAs. That's the only ROI that folks here care about, by which I mean, a subset of posters on this board because not everyone here expects that, which is ok.

I don't know how you logically draw an ROI line to that kind of objective/result.

 

[97spiderfan]

I think it is due to our mascot, and the fact that we are mentioned during every 2 seed vs. 15 seed game.

I remember Valpo and Bryce Drew making that great shot 20 years ago. I suppose that makes Valpo basketball brand really strong and relevant today. LaSalle made a Sweet 16 run, 2 years ago, their basketball brand is strong right???

We haven't done squat in 5 years that would raise even a small blip on a national radar, which in todays sports and media environment is an eternity.

 

[Eight Legger]

Understood. I still think the ROI thing isn't really what people here care about. Altruistically, I suspect we all "care" obtusely about the university making sound investments, but I suspect these have limited impact on the university's fiscal operations considering they are largely campaign driven. In reality, what we're talking about here is whether or not the team makes the NCAAs. That's the only ROI that folks here care about, by which I mean, a subset of posters on this board because not everyone here expects that, which is ok.

I don't know how you logically draw an ROI line to that kind of objective/result.

I think why we care about that is because it is a common-sense connection to assume (a dangerous word, I know) that when we moved up to a better conference, we did so to make the NCAA tournament more often... and when we signed a coach to a $12M contract, we did so to make the NCAA tournament more often...and when we renovated the Robins Center, we did so to help make the NCAA tournament more often... and when we started chartering all our flights, we did so at least in part to put ourselves in a better position to make the NCAA tournament more often.

Making the NCAA tournament is not only a great accomplishment, it is also a very financially rewarding one. And even for a well-endowed school, our athletic department operates on a budget. It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money just for the sake of spending it – with no hope of making money and achieving greater success.

Is it possible that we made all these financial investments solely with the goal of building a recognizable program that made money through ticket sales with no concern given to whether we win or lose or ever make another NCAA tournament? Of course it's possible. But it would seem highly unlikely, and quite frankly, stupid were that the case.

 

[MrTbone]

In the absence of information suggesting otherwise, it actually seems highly plausible that the university isn't solely or primarily concerned with making the NCAA (regularly). If that were their primary motivation, then they would have opted to go another direction than sticking with the status quo, or they feel like changing out puts us further from that goal. This isn't my opinion btw, just an observation.

 

[fan2011]

"Didn't they make a run in March Madness a couple years ago?"

So 20% of the kids responded to you & think we made a run to March Madness a couple years ago.

Question 1 - Did they respond to you on this back in 2013?

Question 2 - Are we correct to assume the othe 80% didn't mention March Madness a couple years ago or didn't mention basketball?

Wow, you are upset people don't know the exact year we made a run! That is ridiculous, can you even name half of the teams in the sweet 16 last year without looking it up? Some on this board will do whatever they can to make a positive into a negative.

 

[Eight Legger]

In the absence of information suggesting otherwise, it actually seems highly plausible that the university isn't solely or primarily concerned with making the NCAA (regularly). If that were their primary motivation, then they would have opted to go another direction than sticking with the status quo, or they feel like changing out puts us further from that goal. This isn't my opinion btw, just an observation.

You might be right, who knows. But if you are right and that is the case, I wonder how many of the people on this board and the other fans of our program would continue paying attention if they knew this to be true?

 

[SpiderGuy]

Wow, you are upset people don't know the exact year we made a run! That is ridiculous, can you even name half of the teams in the sweet 16 last year without looking it up? Some on this board will do whatever they can to make a positive into a negative.

Was just trying to point out the holes & gaps in your original post. It's not a positive nor negative thing.

 

[SpiderGuy]

I think why we care about that is because it is a common-sense connection to assume (a dangerous word, I know) that when we moved up to a better conference, we did so to make the NCAA tournament more often... and when we signed a coach to a $12M contract, we did so to make the NCAA tournament more often...and when we renovated the Robins Center, we did so to help make the NCAA tournament more often... and when we started chartering all our flights, we did so at least in part to put ourselves in a better position to make the NCAA tournament more often.

Making the NCAA tournament is not only a great accomplishment, it is also a very financially rewarding one. And even for a well-endowed school, our athletic department operates on a budget. It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money just for the sake of spending it – with no hope of making money and achieving greater success.

Is it possible that we made all these financial investments solely with the goal of building a recognizable program that made money through ticket sales with no concern given to whether we win or lose or ever make another NCAA tournament? Of course it's possible. But it would seem highly unlikely, and quite frankly, stupid were that the case.

Eight,

Really well articulated post!

 

[MrTbone]

You might be right, who knows. But if you are right and that is the case, I wonder how many of the people on this board and the other fans of our program would continue paying attention if they knew this to be true?

Yeah, again, it's not my opinion, but objectively one could come to this conclusion. It could be totally wrong, fwiw.

I don't know what the fan base reaction is. Again, it hasn't been vocal enough as a dissent to force a change, so one could again reasonably presume that fans are broadly not dissatisfied with what's happening. Dissatisfied should not be construed to mean satisfied either.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

And yet I've watched no less than 10 Richmond games on regional or national TV this year, despite us being mediocre. So...

 

[Eight Legger]

And yet I've watched no less than 10 Richmond games on regional or national TV this year, despite us being mediocre. So...

Not sure I get the point. We should be happy that we get such great exposure despite being mediocre? We should be proud that our mediocre product is available for everyone to see? I don't think either is presenting the view of things that we want to put out there for general consumption, but maybe that's just me.

 

[fan2011]

I remember Valpo and Bryce Drew making that great shot 20 years ago. I suppose that makes Valpo basketball brand really strong and relevant today. LaSalle made a Sweet 16 run, 2 years ago, their basketball brand is strong right???

We haven't done squat in 5 years that would raise even a small blip on a national radar, which in todays sports and media environment is an eternity.

That is exactly what makes a brand strong, being memorable. Valpo's brand is much stronger because of that moment, you would never think of them otherwise. I would have never heard of FGCU if they had not had 'dunk city' in the NCAAs a few years back.

Nobody remembers La Salle's run three years ago. I met a guy at a house party two years ago who proclaimed himself a huge Big 5 fan. He literally didn't believe me when I mentioned La Salle making the sweet 16 the year before. He looked it up on his phone and was dumbfounded. Making the sweet 16 means nothing if no one remembers, and for some reason something about our run in 2011 has stuck in peoples minds. La Salle run did absolutely nothing for them, it didn't increase application numbers and still nobody knows who they are. Why the difference in outcomes between our two schools? Who knows.

Here are some possible reasons:

1) We have an extremely memorable mascot
2) We are mentioned every year in the 2 vs 15 seed games
3) We have been in the NCAAs or mentioned by the media as a bubble team in 4 of the past 6 years.

All these little things add up.

 

[SpiderGuy]

And yet I've watched no less than 10 Richmond games on regional or national TV this year, despite us being mediocre. So...

In the cable TV world, there are tons of games broadcast. It seems like each year brings about a new channel wanting to broadcast games. I think it's great we get TV time. It's also good for the lower D-1 conferences that are getting TV coverage that rarely had televised games before. I'm not sure all games broadcast are based upon team records.

 

[AnnapSpider]

I think why we care about that is because it is a common-sense connection to assume (a dangerous word, I know) that when we moved up to a better conference, we did so to make the NCAA tournament more often... and when we signed a coach to a $12M contract, we did so to make the NCAA tournament more often...and when we renovated the Robins Center, we did so to help make the NCAA tournament more often... and when we started chartering all our flights, we did so at least in part to put ourselves in a better position to make the NCAA tournament more often.

Making the NCAA tournament is not only a great accomplishment, it is also a very financially rewarding one. And even for a well-endowed school, our athletic department operates on a budget. It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of money just for the sake of spending it – with no hope of making money and achieving greater success.

Is it possible that we made all these financial investments solely with the goal of building a recognizable program that made money through ticket sales with no concern given to whether we win or lose or ever make another NCAA tournament? Of course it's possible. But it would seem highly unlikely, and quite frankly, stupid were that the case.

Eight Legger, thank you for articulating what I was driving at when I started this thread. Unfortunately, there is no black and white to this -as I'm sure we all do. But it's like the old adage in Major League Baseball, you fire the manager because you can't fire the whole team.

 

[localspider]

Interesting comments, any thoughts on future athletic donations, there will be a day in the near future when the current big time donors fade away. Unlike those that recall 2011 or better yet the Tarrant days, the Spider Club can only peddle the current product for donations. How exciting.......but does it matter?

 

[MrTbone]

So are you advocating firing CM? I guess that's the fundamental tenet of the thread.

I'm generally not in favor of it, I think the grass looks greener a lot of the time, but I also can appreciate the other side of the coin on this one.

 

[localspider]

All here want better results, granted some want better results without change. How is that accomplished?

 

[Eight Legger]

If I had to eat his remaining 5 years and had no obvious way to pay for that? No, I would not fire him. If there were a way to pay that off or his contract were shorter? Yes, I would fire him if we fail to win the A-10 title this year.

 

[97spiderfan]

It has been speculated that we had a big donor step up when we increased Mooney's salary. I'm sure that person or persons stepped up not because they wanted to be Mooney's buddy or thought he was a nice guy, but because they thought he would consistently take the program to the heights we achieved in 2010 and 2011.

I would have to imagine that whoever kicked in for that contract might be kind of pissed with their ROI right now.

 

[SpiderGuy]

It has been speculated that we had a big donor step up when we increased Mooney's salary. I'm sure that person or persons stepped up not because they wanted to be Mooney's buddy or thought he was a nice guy, but because they thought he would consistently take the program to the heights we achieved in 2010 and 2011.

I would have to imagine that whoever kicked in for that contract might be kind of pissed with their ROI right now.

Do agree with this, but there's always the unknown of what makes people tick and what their motivations may be.

 

[32counter]

The only ROI that has any importance to the upper brass of UR is the ROI on the total endowment fund along with its principal preservation.Nothing else matters.

Attempting to impute an ROI on our basketball program is about as ethereal as you can get.

 

[fatherspider]

And yet I've watched no less than 10 Richmond games on regional or national TV this year, despite us being mediocre. So...

What does that mean? Ive watched jmu 8 times too. What does that tell you? That there are more sports affiliates dying for programming, thats about it.