@oldeherd , since the mods again did a poor job moderating and stopped a conversation . . .
No. Abilene Christian getting a one time gift of $45 million (and an additional $8 million the same year) does not mean their facilities are better than Marshall's.
Beefcake looked at one year's numbers in reaching his conclusion. If he were to reach the conclusion he tried making after next year's numbers, he would be forced to believe that ACU has better facilities than Marshall in football since they had revenue and expenses nearly twice as much. But that's not the case.
This isn't rocket science here. You can't logically make the conclusion that beefcake did for a few reasons, one of which is that a one year snapshot is extremely misleading.
Let me dumb it down for you.
Next year, ACU will show revenue and expenses around $65 million each. Marshall will be around $30 million. What Beefcake did was look at one year of numbers and make a judgement on that. He claimed that since Marshall didn't have as much of a budget as another school based on one year of numbers, it somehow represented the an accurate picture. After next year, he would have to argue that Marshall is doing an even better job because their budget is half as much as ACU's yet still have better football facilities than ACU.
What he (and you) fail to realize is how a one year snapshot is misleading.
Look at the big picture: who do you think will have the better football facilities assuming the budgets below?
2015:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2016:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2017:
ACU $55 million
MU $30 million
2018:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2019:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2020:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2021:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2022:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2023:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2024:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
Over that ten year span, ACU had a "budget" of $145 million. Marshall had a budget of $300 million. If all other factors are the same (which they aren't, hence my two other reasons why beefcake's conclusion was illogical), who should have better facilities? Marshall. Yet, if you look at just a snapshot of 2017 (one year), beefcake's attempt at logic states just the opposite.
oldeherd said:Something is missing in the "logic" in the above argument. If Abilene Christian gets $45 million plus millions more for a new football stadium, That certainly should mean that it will have better football facilities once that money is spent on said stadium. These massive sums spent on football facilities are NOT just a one year snapshot; rather they provide the spending institutions a decided, ongoing edge in facilities once the sums are spent on the stadium projects and the projects are completed. The massive sums spent by the schools mentioned, like Texas A&M, Oklahoma, OK State, etc. on renovating and upgrading, enlarging, etc, their respective stadium facilities are surely not meant to be a one year improvement, but will provide said schools with top level facilities for years, perhaps decades, to come.
Of course, from a budgetary argument, yes a one year significant gift of substantial $$$$ will be just that, a one year deal (unless the donor spreads the gift over several years for tax and other reasons). The large $$$$ gifts MU received from Justice and Cline for the IPF certainly don't mean that MU's athletic budget will be as substantial every year as it was in the year those gifts were received (absent other similar large gifts being received in the succeeding years, which would be nice from the Herd's standpoint).
Seems an argument of apples v. oranges: annual athletic budgets v. the ongoing, multi year benefit of a large athletic capital project coming to fruition. Surely the folks at Abilene Christian expect a multi year improvement in their football facilities from the amount of money received and being expended on same. Certainly not a one year "snapshot" benefit, to be sure!
No. Abilene Christian getting a one time gift of $45 million (and an additional $8 million the same year) does not mean their facilities are better than Marshall's.
Beefcake looked at one year's numbers in reaching his conclusion. If he were to reach the conclusion he tried making after next year's numbers, he would be forced to believe that ACU has better facilities than Marshall in football since they had revenue and expenses nearly twice as much. But that's not the case.
This isn't rocket science here. You can't logically make the conclusion that beefcake did for a few reasons, one of which is that a one year snapshot is extremely misleading.
Let me dumb it down for you.
Next year, ACU will show revenue and expenses around $65 million each. Marshall will be around $30 million. What Beefcake did was look at one year of numbers and make a judgement on that. He claimed that since Marshall didn't have as much of a budget as another school based on one year of numbers, it somehow represented the an accurate picture. After next year, he would have to argue that Marshall is doing an even better job because their budget is half as much as ACU's yet still have better football facilities than ACU.
What he (and you) fail to realize is how a one year snapshot is misleading.
Look at the big picture: who do you think will have the better football facilities assuming the budgets below?
2015:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2016:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2017:
ACU $55 million
MU $30 million
2018:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2019:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2020:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2021:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2022:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2023:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
2024:
ACU $10 million
MU $30 million
Over that ten year span, ACU had a "budget" of $145 million. Marshall had a budget of $300 million. If all other factors are the same (which they aren't, hence my two other reasons why beefcake's conclusion was illogical), who should have better facilities? Marshall. Yet, if you look at just a snapshot of 2017 (one year), beefcake's attempt at logic states just the opposite.
Last edited: