goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Football => Topic started by: wabash909 on July 02, 2011, 11:58:05 AM

Title: We're rich!
Post by: wabash909 on July 02, 2011, 11:58:05 AM
:kstategrad:

KSU to have record athletics budget in 2012

Currie
Kansas State announced Thursday it will increase its operating athletics budget to $51.46 million for 2012, the largest in school history. The number represents a 9.4 percent increase from the 2011 budget.
K-State athletic director John Currie also said the finances are still being calculated from the 2010-11 year, but that he expects the athletic department to have had a balanced budget.
Currie said the budget increase for 2012 accounts for a 3.96 percent increase in tuition and fees, increased pay for coaches and various facility projects.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 02, 2011, 01:15:42 PM
:kstategrad: :kstategrad: :kstategrad: :kstategrad: :kstategrad: :kstategrad:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Bookcat on July 02, 2011, 01:52:09 PM
more with less


it's our tagline
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 02, 2011, 01:56:35 PM
 :emawkid:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 04, 2011, 09:22:32 AM
I love how this thread has 4 posts, but the field diatribe has lasted for about 15 pages...  Jezuscrist.  :shakesfist:
 :kstategrad:

Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: steve dave on July 04, 2011, 09:34:00 AM
I love how this thread has 4 posts, but the field diatribe has lasted for about 15 pages...  Jezuscrist.  :shakesfist:
 :kstategrad:



well, we actually should have a record athletic budget every single season....barring massive deflation. 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Kat Kid on July 04, 2011, 10:46:12 AM
Has this number been confirmed or is it a figment of Schulz's imagination?
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Pete on July 04, 2011, 11:09:50 AM
I honestly don't understand the Field thread...just gave up on it.

Regarding our budget, I'm quite pleased with the great fortunes that remaining in the Big 12 has brought us.  I now demand our leadership to REMOVE ALL non-con games from our schedule that are either 1) on the road, or 2) against teams we cannot easily defeat.  We have one fewer to work with now, and getting bowl eligible (THE most important goal for the football program every year) will be exceptionally difficult.


It's time to ACT like what we are...a "HAVE."  Let the "have NOTs" load their wares onto semi trucks and drag their asses across the country for non-con games.  We need wins, and they will be in scarce supply in the Big 12.  It's expensive to foot the bill for three schleps a season to play in our house.


What use is money if you don't use it to better yourself?
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 04, 2011, 12:25:03 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 

Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 05, 2011, 10:38:52 AM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



I'd like to see the numbers backing this up.  I had seen that smaller schools are really struggling to field teams and even taking $500k from us would be enough to buy Sinbad a new helmet or Kathy Ireland a new kicking tee.

That being said, I also understand the demand for these rummies is going up too and if we are in a bidding war with Texas to host NDSU that we will lose to their sexy money and cowboy hats.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Panjandrum on July 05, 2011, 01:05:39 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



I'd like to see the numbers backing this up.  I had seen that smaller schools are really struggling to field teams and even taking $500k from us would be enough to buy Sinbad a new helmet or Kathy Ireland a new kicking tee.

That being said, I also understand the demand for these rummies is going up too and if we are in a bidding war with Texas to host NDSU that we will lose to their sexy money and cowboy hats.

If you're winning and selling 45K+ tickets for these rummies, you can probably make the pot a little sweeter.  Also, getting some form of TV money for most of these games would make it a little easier too.

I think, however, we're going to see a lot of return trips to MAC and C-USA schools in our future at least every other year or so.  Which, honestly, isn't all that bad.  A lot of those can be Wednesday/Thursday/Friday night games that can net us more TV money.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: captaincrap on July 05, 2011, 01:19:34 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



I'd like to see the numbers backing this up.  I had seen that smaller schools are really struggling to field teams and even taking $500k from us would be enough to buy Sinbad a new helmet or Kathy Ireland a new kicking tee.

That being said, I also understand the demand for these rummies is going up too and if we are in a bidding war with Texas to host NDSU that we will lose to their sexy money and cowboy hats.

Getting teams to come here for 1 and done can cost us over $1M per game. Guaranteed games are getting crazy expensive.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: MadCat on July 05, 2011, 01:35:21 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



I'd like to see the numbers backing this up.  I had seen that smaller schools are really struggling to field teams and even taking $500k from us would be enough to buy Sinbad a new helmet or Kathy Ireland a new kicking tee.

That being said, I also understand the demand for these rummies is going up too and if we are in a bidding war with Texas to host NDSU that we will lose to their sexy money and cowboy hats.

Getting teams to come here for 1 and done can cost us over $1M per game. Guaranteed games are getting crazy expensive.

I would be okay with our team getting pasted in order to make a cool mil, fwiw
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: 06wildcat on July 05, 2011, 01:57:43 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



Scheduling 1 FCS and 2 FBS teams come to BSFS every year is still quite affordable.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 02:03:06 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 05, 2011, 02:05:11 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



Scheduling 1 FCS and 2 FBS teams come to BSFS every year is still quite affordable.

Only if you get two home games and one roady with the FBS teams, though.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: 06wildcat on July 05, 2011, 02:54:05 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



Scheduling 1 FCS and 2 FBS teams come to BSFS every year is still quite affordable.

Only if you get two home games and one roady with the FBS teams, though.

It can be done without ever playing a road game. It will mean less profit on those three games overall, but it can still be done and the AD will still make money on those three games.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 05, 2011, 02:56:07 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



Scheduling 1 FCS and 2 FBS teams come to BSFS every year is still quite affordable.

Only if you get two home games and one roady with the FBS teams, though.

It can be done without ever playing a road game. It will mean less profit on those three games overall, but it can still be done and the AD will still make money on those three games.

I would rather use the money saved on facilities upgrades, though. If we can't win a road game against a shitty Sun Belt team, odds are we aren't going to be winning 3 Big 12 games anyway.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Panjandrum on July 05, 2011, 03:00:46 PM
It's the official number . . . and while I agree with Pete, the price tag for wins has gone through the roof. 



Scheduling 1 FCS and 2 FBS teams come to BSFS every year is still quite affordable.

Only if you get two home games and one roady with the FBS teams, though.

It can be done without ever playing a road game. It will mean less profit on those three games overall, but it can still be done and the AD will still make money on those three games.

I would rather use the money saved on facilities upgrades, though. If we can't win a road game against a crapty Sun Belt team, odds are we aren't going to be winning 3 Big 12 games anyway.

Agreed.  Going to a Sun Belt stadium shouldn't be an issue whatsoever since we should be winning those games without even thinking about it.

They key is number of home games a year.  I would assume since there are now going to be nine Big 12 games per year, we'll rotate five home, four home every other year.  We just need to find some way to ensure that we're playing the non-con roadie during the five game seasons, and getting three home games during the four home game seasons.  That will keep the revenue somewhat steady and not put us at too much of a competitive disadvantage.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 03:26:42 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 04:34:00 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   


How does that change the fact that KU's athletic budget is roughly $20 million more than K-State's? 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 04:38:43 PM
It doesn't, but you seem to forget (like you always do) that over the last 3 years, ku's athletic revenues have plummeted, and now if it weren't for a significant influx of direct support from the school and student fees, they would be operating at a loss.

Yet another free fall for ku.

Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 05, 2011, 04:40:43 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   


How does that change the fact that KU's athletic budget is roughly $20 million more than K-State's? 

You idiots are really not getting much for your money.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: captaincrap on July 05, 2011, 04:49:30 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   


How does that change the fact that KU's athletic budget is roughly $20 million more than K-State's? 

Not sure why this is a source of pride right now. I'd be demanding either less spending or more results. But to be proud of this budget producing what it has?  :confused:

Seems like K-State is showing you can go 12-1 vs KU and spend $20M less.  :kstatriot:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: CNS on July 05, 2011, 04:50:00 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   


How does that change the fact that KU's athletic budget is roughly $20 million more than K-State's? 

You idiots are really not getting much for your money.

Swimming, softball, etc. 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 04:51:22 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   


How does that change the fact that KU's athletic budget is roughly $20 million more than K-State's? 

You idiots are really not getting much for your money.


Two schools have won a national title and BCS Bowl in the same year:  Kansas and Florida


 :kstategrad:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: CNS on July 05, 2011, 04:51:40 PM
It doesn't, but you seem to forget (like you always do) that over the last 3 years, ku's athletic revenues have plummeted, and now if it weren't for a significant influx of direct support from the school and student fees, they would be operating at a loss.

Yet another free fall for ku.





It's called a recession.  

Mean while KSU's ath budget has increased record amts.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 04:52:17 PM
Yeah, that's what has caused the situation at ku, a "recession".

From 2008, to the worst athletic program in the Big 12 3 years later . . .  yet another free fall for ku.



Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 04:52:40 PM
It doesn't, but you seem to forget (like you always do) that over the last 3 years, ku's athletic revenues have plummeted, and now if it weren't for a significant influx of direct support from the school and student fees, they would be operating at a loss.

Yet another free fall for ku.





It's called a recession.  

Mean while KSU's ath budget has increased record amts.



...and yet, it's still ~$20 million less than KU's.  
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 04:53:54 PM
Yeah, that's what has caused the situation at ku, a "recession".

From 2008, to the worst athletic program in the Big 12 3 years later . . .  yet another free fall for ku.







Worst athletic program in the Big 12?  How many other Big 12 athletic programs have seven straight Big 12 titles (in one of the two main revenue sports)?  How many Big 12 trophies did K-State add to the trophy case last year?


 :confused:  :confused:  :confused:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 04:55:26 PM
Take out student fees and institutional support in FY 2010.

KU Athletics Net Revenues:  (2.5 million)  

K-State Athletics Net Revenues:  $10 million.  
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 05, 2011, 04:56:04 PM
Yeah, that's what has caused the situation at ku, a "recession".

From 2008, to the worst athletic program in the Big 12 3 years later . . .  yet another free fall for ku.







Worst athletic program in the Big 12?  How many other Big 12 athletic programs have seven straight Big 12 titles (in one of the two main revenue sports)?  How many Big 12 trophies did K-State add to the trophy case last year?


 :confused:  :confused:  :confused:

lol oh wow.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 05, 2011, 04:59:33 PM
Fans like Ben are the reason they have the worst athletic dept in the conf. 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 05:00:39 PM
Fans like Ben are the reason they have the worst athletic dept in the conf. 



How many Big 12 titles did K-State win last year?  It's a simple question. 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 05:02:26 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".

Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: CHONGS on July 05, 2011, 05:03:18 PM
This isn't about K-State.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Bookcat on July 05, 2011, 05:05:59 PM
Only ~$20 million more until you're as rich as KU. 


 :kstategrad:

ku needed every dime of the student fees and direct support from the school to avoid finishing the 2009-2010 school year over $2.5 million in the red.   WEF was $4 million in the red.   


How does that change the fact that KU's athletic budget is roughly $20 million more than K-State's? 

You spend that much more to get yur faces slammed 59-7. lmao
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Dugout DickStone on July 05, 2011, 05:07:35 PM
Fans like Ben are the reason they have the worst athletic dept in the conf. 



How many Big 12 titles did K-State win last year?  It's a simple question. 

See?  Clinging to one half of one sport is why the ku AD sucks so incredibly bad.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 05:09:06 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: CNS on July 05, 2011, 05:10:04 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 05:23:58 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 05:46:43 PM
Missouri's budget is about $62 million.

$3.5 million of ku's budget comes from direct support and student fees.

Based on the numbers, I doubt we read Manchurian AD announce anytime soon that ku athletics is weaning itself off of student fees and direct support, they can't afford to do it right now.

 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: wildcat1979 on July 05, 2011, 05:52:22 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 06:28:28 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic




Do you understand the difference between an athletic department's budget and an athletic department's profit? 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: wildcat1979 on July 05, 2011, 07:58:05 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic




Do you understand the difference between an athletic department's budget and an athletic department's profit? 

So you have a higher budget, make less profit, and can turn out one decent program?  High five. :facepalm:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: OregonSmock on July 05, 2011, 09:01:48 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic




Do you understand the difference between an athletic department's budget and an athletic department's profit? 

So you have a higher budget, make less profit, and can turn out one decent program?  High five. :facepalm:


KU's basketball program is elite.  The football program just won a BCS Bowl a few years ago.  The baseball/softball programs have a Big 12 title in the last few years.  We've got a golfer on the PGA Tour.  Multiple olympic athletes in track.  What does K-State have?  A mediocre football program with a head coach that's about to die? 
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 05, 2011, 09:02:18 PM
:lol:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Stevesie60 on July 05, 2011, 09:04:54 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic




Do you understand the difference between an athletic department's budget and an athletic department's profit? 

So you have a higher budget, make less profit, and can turn out one decent program?  High five. :facepalm:


KU's basketball program is elite.  The football program just won a BCS Bowl a few years ago.  The baseball/softball programs have a Big 12 title in the last few years.  We've got a golfer on the PGA Tour.  Multiple olympic athletes in track.  What does K-State have?  A mediocre football program with a head coach that's about to die? 

http://www2.kusports.com/news/2011/jul/05/jayhawks-last-big-12-directors-cup/ (http://www2.kusports.com/news/2011/jul/05/jayhawks-last-big-12-directors-cup/)
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: kim carnes on July 05, 2011, 09:07:21 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic




Do you understand the difference between an athletic department's budget and an athletic department's profit? 

So you have a higher budget, make less profit, and can turn out one decent program?  High five. :facepalm:


KU's basketball program is elite.  The football program just won a BCS Bowl a few years ago.  The baseball/softball programs have a Big 12 title in the last few years.  We've got a golfer on the PGA Tour.  Multiple olympic athletes in track.  What does K-State have?  A mediocre football program with a head coach that's about to die? 
JFC you are embarrassing
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: sonofdaxjones on July 05, 2011, 09:24:26 PM
Last out of all Big 12 schools in the Learfield Directors Cup, Last in the Big 12 All-Sports Standings.

2 Conference wins in football the last 2 years, and one was garnered against a team and in a game where it was determined that the other team could have gone to a knee on every single offensive snap in the 4th qtr and still won the game.   




Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: I_have_purplewood on July 05, 2011, 09:47:50 PM
None.

But from top to bottom ku was the worst overall athletic department in the Big 12.

The only reason you don't care is because the Phognet talking point is to claim you only care about Football and Basketball. 

If things had been reversed, then the Ben talking point would be how "Lew is building a monster".





I went to a few baseball games while I was in school at KU, but I really only cared about two sports:  football and basketball. 


 :ck:

Your ath budget cares about much more.  not sure you can argue very effectively for/against your ath budget if you don't understand it.



Our athletic department generates more revenue in men's basketball than some schools do in football, which is why the budget is so high compared to schools like K-State and Mizzou.

That's funny, because I don't see you guys in this article...

http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2011/7/4/2258683/half-of-big-12-among-the-top-20-most-profitable-division-i-athletic




Do you understand the difference between an athletic department's budget and an athletic department's profit? 

So you have a higher budget, make less profit, and can turn out one decent program?  High five. :facepalm:


KU's basketball program is elite.  The football program just won a BCS Bowl a few years ago.  The baseball/softball programs have a Big 12 title in the last few years.  We've got a golfer on the PGA Tour.  Multiple olympic athletes in track.  What does K-State have?  A mediocre football program with a head coach that's about to die? 
JFC you are embarrassing

Why don't you go ahead and insert your foot in your mouth Kim Carnes;

Ryan "Rhino" Page (b. July 10, 1983) is a left-handed bowler on the Professional Bowlers Association (PBA) Tour, and was the 2008 PBA Rookie of the Year. (See PBA Bowling Tour: 2007-08 season.) He is also a former U.S. Amateur champion, winning the event in 2005. A San Diego, California native, Page now resides in Wesley Chapel, FL. Page attended the University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas.

 :runaway: :runaway: (ftp://:runaway: :runaway:)


Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: MadCat on July 06, 2011, 12:49:35 AM
Our budget is bigger!
We had options!
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Panjandrum on July 06, 2011, 01:11:28 AM
KU's basketball program is elite.  The football program just won a BCS Bowl a few years ago.  The baseball/softball programs have a Big 12 title in the last few years.  We've got a golfer on the PGA Tour.  Multiple olympic athletes in track.  What does K-State have?  A mediocre football program with a head coach that's about to die? 
JFC you are embarrassing

Don't claim Gary.  He improved dramatically after he left KU.

He also transferred to KU after a year at Washburn because he wanted to play basketball there, initially, more than he wanted to golf at KU.  So, you may want to rescind that comment.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Pete on July 06, 2011, 06:29:50 AM
Back on topic, dumbasses....

I know it's expensive to work "the formula," but it's worth it.  Get winnable HOME games and very few, if any, non-con roadies and just try to get bowl eligible every year.....the whole get a little bit better every day (year) thing. 


THAT is what we need to be doing.  The Big 12 has nine rough ridin' conference games.  Playing a "Miami" in the non-con is rough ridin' stupid in this conference.  It will get some Tucks and Reverse-Tucks all excited to turn on the tube once a year, and cost us a bowl game.


Consider the guaranteed home game fees our mother rough ridin' down payment on a bowl game.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: wildcat1979 on July 06, 2011, 08:01:44 AM

KU's basketball program is elite.  The football program just won a BCS Bowl a few years ago.  The baseball/softball programs have a Big 12 title in the last few years.  We've got a golfer on the PGA Tour.  Multiple olympic athletes in track.  What does K-State have?  A mediocre football program with a head coach that's about to die? 

Read up.
http://www.kstatesports.com/genrel/062011aab.html

I thought we were talking about current events?  If so, your post should read :  "The football program just finished dead last.  The baseball/softball programs were in the Big 12 cellar as well."

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: MeatSauce on July 06, 2011, 08:35:14 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2011, 08:49:07 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/


Metro population - 127K???  Does that include Junction City and Salina?
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: steve dave on July 06, 2011, 08:56:02 AM
http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/27/best-places-11-small_slide_2.html

Campus looking amazing as usual as Forbes pimps it as the richest and best place on earth  :gocho:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 06, 2011, 08:56:13 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/


Metro population - 127K???  Does that include Junction City and Salina?

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.k-state.edu%2Fpresident%2Fimages%2Fgallery%2Fschulz-12.jpg&hash=d1513841605329336f151df77937b87aee451def)
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2011, 08:57:45 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/


Metro population - 127K???  Does that include Junction City and Salina?

Was wondering about Junc city too.  When I was in school(about 9 yrs ago) pop was always just below 50K.  I remember because that was the reason I heard several times we didn't have public trans was that we were under some threshold of pop required to get fed funding for it, and that threshold was 50K.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Kat Kid on July 06, 2011, 09:11:59 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/


Metro population - 127K???  Does that include Junction City and Salina?

Was wondering about Junc city too.  When I was in school(about 9 yrs ago) pop was always just below 50K.  I remember because that was the reason I heard several times we didn't have public trans was that we were under some threshold of pop required to get fed funding for it, and that threshold was 50K.

That was the reason.  The reason we don't now is because the City Commission didn't want to pay for the start-up fees and were worried about wasting the taxpayer's money.  So enjoy calling in your 24 hr advance notice called in aTa pickups.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on July 06, 2011, 09:18:31 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/


Metro population - 127K???  Does that include Junction City and Salina?

Was wondering about Junc city too.  When I was in school(about 9 yrs ago) pop was always just below 50K.  I remember because that was the reason I heard several times we didn't have public trans was that we were under some threshold of pop required to get fed funding for it, and that threshold was 50K.

That was the reason.  The reason we don't now is because the City Commission didn't want to pay for the start-up fees and were worried about wasting the taxpayer's money.  So enjoy calling in your 24 hr advance notice called in aTa pickups.

Maybe you guys should vote for a new city commission.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Kat Kid on July 06, 2011, 09:39:47 AM
....and getting richer.  (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/article_ffad50ca-aee4-5432-86ab-1d4910c483dc.html)Take a bow, MHK.



http://www.forbes.com/places/ks/manhattan/


Metro population - 127K???  Does that include Junction City and Salina?

Was wondering about Junc city too.  When I was in school(about 9 yrs ago) pop was always just below 50K.  I remember because that was the reason I heard several times we didn't have public trans was that we were under some threshold of pop required to get fed funding for it, and that threshold was 50K.

That was the reason.  The reason we don't now is because the City Commission didn't want to pay for the start-up fees and were worried about wasting the taxpayer's money.  So enjoy calling in your 24 hr advance notice called in aTa pickups.

Maybe you guys should vote for a new city commission.

This is the new city commission.  Tucks voted them in.

So far:  repeal of renter's inspection (to the delight of property companies and landlords), repeal of the ordinance including gays as a protected class to file grievances for workplace discrimination, ending the city/county health board.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: mcmwcat on July 06, 2011, 10:08:03 AM
public transit is for poor dirty unhealthy cities.  in Manhattan we all own cars and/or bikes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_metropolitan_area

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F51%2FManhattan_Micropolitan_Area.png%2F300px-Manhattan_Micropolitan_Area.png&hash=3487f13ff24e24a039be2525c7efee40e151d82b)
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Kat Kid on July 06, 2011, 10:47:35 AM
public transit is for poor dirty unhealthy cities.  in Manhattan we all own cars and/or bikes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_metropolitan_area

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F5%2F51%2FManhattan_Micropolitan_Area.png%2F300px-Manhattan_Micropolitan_Area.png&hash=3487f13ff24e24a039be2525c7efee40e151d82b)


townie tucks hate the thought of their hamlet getting big-timey.  See: endless bitching about lines at the Chef, their refusal to venture in to Aggieville after 10am etc.
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Scary Smart on July 06, 2011, 10:56:47 AM
Oops, just realized I reposted on the hoops board.  :flush:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: mcmwcat on July 06, 2011, 10:57:38 AM
townie tucks helping make manhattan the #1 city in america   :cheers:
Title: Re: We're rich!
Post by: Deez Nutz on July 06, 2011, 03:31:48 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi460.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fqq328%2Fhothworld%2FKSUMONEY.jpg&hash=1b16d44a34831631275c4917a72256ee80468e00)

 :emawkid: