Marshall picked to finish 4th by media

[beefcake0520]

I'm "sour" for showing you how the conclusion you are trying to reach is illogical? Not "sour," but another "s" word- smarter.

I thought you took Sammy's advice and put me on ignore?

Speaking of advice, what advice were you given to rid yourself of the case of chlamydia that you caught? Did you get that taken care of?

Lol bwahahahahaha idiots are what idiots do. You seem to know a little too much about stds, just sayin. When you can form a complete thought and actually add something to the board, maybe some on here might take you seriously, otherwise you are welcome to keep your yap shut to hide your stupidity. Grow up.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

"Idiots are what idiots do?" That doesn't even make sense.

I explained why the conclusion you attempted to reach from the information you were using was illogical. You claimed that meant I was "sour." You still haven't tried justifying your illogical conclusion.

You claimed you had me on ignore. Liar.

You went on a penis-health message board to discuss your bout with chlamydia. Are you denying this or would you like proof of your STD? Would you rather talk about your "full urethra opening irritation" and your self-diagnosis of a fungal infection after your bout with chlamydia?

How about going to a doctor, taking a shower, or keeping your junk out of whores? That may help your issues.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

@beefcake0520 Why'd you go back and delete your post from an hour ago?

 

[beefcake0520]

I'm not interested in arguing with you, if you want to talk sports, we can talk sports, if you want to act childish, you can talk to yourself. Your call. Back to my original post that you disagreed with, why isnt budgets and facilities tied together?? Honestly, they do not have a choice but to be tied together. If you disagree thats fine, the only two schools off the top of my head that do ok with budgets similar to our in regards to facilities is USM and LT, will even go on to include 75% of g5 that do not match ours yet a good portion has a higher budget, that can be used to finance facility enhancements or new buildings, yet they do not. What we do have consider our funds is nothing to be smirky about, I believe most of us on here feel blessed to have the things we do such as a better than average stadium in g5, an ipf that a good portion wish they had. Why argue this? Very few schools outside of the aac and mtw can match it..speaking of football, not the other sports.

 

[TheGreenhouseEffect]

Dude take a Xanax, seriously you are one sour individual and off base on most of what you say

Nailed it. Please get that eerrbilly a script asap! Annoying and stoopid are not a good combo son.

 

[Y.A.G Si Ye Nots]

I'm not interested in arguing with you, if you want to talk sports, we can talk sports, if you want to act childish, you can talk to yourself. Your call.
.

No, moron. That was your call. I was talking sports. You tried taking jabs and changing the subject into being "childish" instead of refuting anything I said. Don't try to turn this around on me.

See, this is what I have explained before. I don't go after people first. If they do something first, then I will be relentless on them and expose them for the morons that they are. Others who may not have read the original post may not understand that, so it makes me look like the bad guy. So, not only are you the one who originally did what you accused me of, but then you went and deleted another of your posts, then acted like you were the one taking the moral high-ground when you were the one who caused this . . . not to mention your recent lie of having me on ignore.

So, you need to read what I just quoted of yours and ask yourself how you want it since you're the one who did it. If not, we can go back to discussing your chlamydia diagnosis and urethra hole fungal infection (that sounds painful; hope you ended up getting that treated like the chlamydia).

Back to my original post that you disagreed with, why isnt budgets and facilities tied together??

They are, but that isn't what you just simply presented. I'll show you why your comparison is illogical for multiple reasons:

1) You compared Marshall's overall athletic budget with the budgets of other schools, then made a football comparison based on it. What you don't understand is that other schools sponsor more sports than Marshall, so their budgets will be inflated based on that. For instance, New Hampshire has inferior football facilities to Marshall's, yet they had very close expenses last year. Why? Well, a big part of that is because New Hampshire sponsors three more sports than Marshall, including very expensive programs in men's and women's hockey. It isn't a stretch to believe that those extra sports cost at least $1 million for New Hampshire to sponsor each year. Get rid of those three extra sports in order to match the number of sports Marshall sponsors, and suddenly New Hampshire has millions to invest in an indoor facility. Ten years later, they have another $10 million to invest into a new locker room, weight room, etc.

2) You have no idea how the money in the overall athletic budgets gets distributed. For instance, Coastal Carolina's expenses last were weren't too far behind Marshall's. Yet, Marshall (at least currently) has better football facilities. But you don't know how much CCU invests into their program compared to Marshall. CCU may take more pride in investing in an all around athletic department. They have a kick-ass new baseball stadium (and additional facilities for baseball and softball). Instead of putting lipstick on a pig (Henderson Center), they decided to spend more and get a modern basketball venue.

Marshall may have nicer football facilities than most schools with similar budgets, but many of those other schools aren't sending their teams to play in a rented stadium 45 minutes from campus, aren't playing basketball in an outdated (and hot) arena, etc.

If Marshall spends 90% of their budget on football, while CCU spends only 20% on football, does that mean Marshall is doing more with less (or the same) as you are trying to claim? No.

3) You're looking at a one year snapshot. Doing that and reaching your conclusion isn't logical. Why? Because many institutions will see big fluctuations on spending/earning in some years. Look at what Texas A&M made in athletics in 2013- they weren't even in the top 20. Yet in 2015, they led the country. Does that mean the Aggies should be killing everybody in facilities based on just one year? Of course not. Their numbers were extremely inflated this year because they were given a huge amount in donations in order to renovate their stadium. They won't get that donation amount year-after-year.

In 2005, Oklahoma State earned more than $241 million. That is more than has ever been reported by a college athletics program. But it was because that was the year Boone Pickens made a $164 million donation to the athletic department. But if you made your argument based on the statistics that year, you would have had to argue that OSU should have the best facilities in every sport in the country since they were making more than $100 million more than any other school (not realizing that a one year screenshot isn't logical to reach that conclusion).

In 2013, Oregon reported an earning of $196 million. But that was because Phil Knight donated $95 million that year to the athletic department.

Next year, Abilene Christian will show earnings over $55 million which will almost double Marshall's earnings. How? A quarterback's parents donated $45 million for a new stadium, and other wealthy alums followed suit and donated millions more. Should little Abilene Christian suddenly have better football facilities because of that? No, but if you look at just a one year snapshot and assume that is the budget every year, you will illogically reach the conclusion that you did.

 

[oldeherd]

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!

 

[beefcake0520]

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!

You simplified my point, can't seem to get it through to those that call others "morons".