The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Get ready for some MACtion
Bay Area UMie
Sophomore
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:47 pm
Location: Silicon Valley/Bay Area

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by Bay Area UMie » Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:50 am

McKinney wrote: Sun Dec 06, 2020 1:38 am That said the finances should "make sense". Clearly the on-field performance has been a disaster for most of the FBS era. Surely this has had a negative impact on whatever attendance/interest was anticipated. And certainly, that has had an impact financially.

Bamford's comments to the Globe earlier this fall were interesting:
To the contrary, Bamford said, declaring the UMass football program was making financial progress before the pandemic. Last year, he said, the program received about $4.2 million, or nearly 47 percent, of its $9 million budget from university operating funds and student fees. That’s a marked improvement from the program relying in 2012 on school subsidies for $4.9 million, or 89 percent, of its $5.5 million budget.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/10/06/ ... ce-riches/

So if the budget has grown by $3.5M while the subsidy has only dropped $700k, then it suggests most of the revenue opportunities that FBS has brought have been used to expand the budget rather than offsetting institutional support. This is contrary to what was pitched in the transition (which downplayed growth for subsidy reduction). I can see why this extent of support could be seen as contentious in this climate. I don't see it as indicative of failure though.

This is nominally speaking, assuming you don't apply the time value of money against the subsidy. Per USA Today data: FBS athletic department expenditures have grown ~6.2% per year on average since 2013-14 to 2018-19 and UMass' has grown at ~7.6%. It also is not accounting for the relative size of the subsidy ($4.9M out of $939M in FY12 to $4.2M out of $1282M in FY19).
Interesting that Bamford publicly claims that the 2019 Football subsidy to the Athletic Budget was only $4.2m...publicly available data indicates it was $4.8m, looks like he is omitting $564k in "Tuition Wavers" which is a real economic cost to the Mass Board of Education...reporters need to be more inquisitive and careful about semantics and cost center accounting practices when reviewing football financials...don't just ask about the "impact on the Athletic Budget" but probe about all inclusive cost subsidies "impacting the total university" including costs captured in the total UMass, Amherst operating budget-the expense section called "Related Football Costs" where huge annual financing/interest costs ($2.7m), title 9 compliance scholarships/fees ($1.1m), facility operations ($1.1m), and advertising ($1m in 2019), among others are captured (see above post on how UMass reports "Related Football Expenses" on financial statements)...the total 2019 fees for all the line items in this expense category was according to UMass spending records $7.1m...so for perspective, GRAND total football costs/subsidies during 2019 are $12m-basically 3x the amount quoted in the article.

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by eldonabe » Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:56 am

Bay Area UMie wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:41 am Where are we headed? IMO, we are blindly marching to an inexorable fate of perpetual red ink and continued reputational damage unless the UMass Governing Board finally steps in and exerts its fiduciary duty by auditing/reviewing the current state of the program and acknowledging the painful, but obvious truth- that the costs to run this thing far outweigh the benefits. Ultimately, the Board needs to hold the current administration accountable for the huge shortfalls from the original pro-forma projections and other targeted objectives/benefits that haven’t to this point, nor will ever be achieved. The Board should also audit attendance figures to understand if per game attendance legitimately meets the NCAA 15k “paid” average annual/game targets to remain in the FBS subdivision. The UMass community needs to know if the UMass administration is applying some creative accounting or other means including counting complimentary tickets, counting band members and cheerleaders or the athletic department is purchasing tickets outright (see Miami of Ohio, or University of Maryland Athletic Department practices) to inflate attendance data to meet the 15k per game requirements. Not accusing anyone of improprieties or operating outside NCAA guidelines, just need to understand attendance figures, which are a good proxy for pure interest in the program. Yes, Bamford and Subbaswamy are victims of bad decisions from those who came before, but now-fairly or unfairly- they own this mess.
Clearly you spent some time on this Umie and it is hard to argue or dispute much of it. I do have a problem with this particular paragraph, but that is depending on the full context of your statement.

Has Umass met any of the expectations of the original arguments to move up to FBS? When this "idea" was introduced, my 5 year old daughter (at the time) could have told you the Gillette thing was going to flop and she probably could have given you 15 or 30 reasons. If you are asserting that the current administration should be held accountable for the original ask and proformas now - that is where I disagree. If you are speaking of a new bar that Bamford and others have set, then you are more on point.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with Umass being in FBS. I do think it is a bit embarrassing that they are this pathetic from a sports ego perspective; however, as the Flagship of this state they should be competing (I did not say be competitive on the field) with all the other State Flagship offerings - a quick glance says that almost every flagship in each state in the US has FBS level football. Unfortunately it is a "Keeping up with the Joneses" scenario, but that is the world we live in.

To say this entire experiment has been mismanaged may be the understatement of the century (I mean the last 100 years, not just the 20's). Clearly it can be done - see Costal Carolina and even Liberty. You can enter the world of FBS [very] late to the party and still become relevant. IMO Umass had a few more hurdles (Geography being the most glaring) than those mentioned to reach relevancy, but it could be done nonetheless.


Right now Umass really needs something to break for them other than football. Hockey has been a pleasant surprise and if they can stay relevant, that will help. Hoops needs to take the next step now. Umass needs desperately for them to get into the post season tournament again. The ladies hoops seem like they are finally finding some footing as well. That kind of ancillary success will help make Umass more a desirable destination for the "better" football recruits who are deciding between sub-80 ranked football schools - we are losing those players now in the recruiting wars.


The move to FBS was, is, and will be a loss leader forever, but it also is part of the complete package that Umass needs to offer to be part of the fraternity. It is all about expectations, they set much too high of a bar to sell this thing at the onset, and mass acceptance (no pun intended) of the current reality will go a long way to making this work, as much as it can under the circumstances.

Eventually Umass will have a decent run in football, the question will be "Can they sustain it?" once they finally have it.

dennisdent
Senior
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: Too close to the Beltway

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by dennisdent » Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:54 am

Bay Area UMie wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:02 am
dennisdent wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:03 pm
PreecherJenkins wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 1:19 pm BayArea- What a write up. Thanks for bringing real numbers to the table.

how much red ink did the four games this year cost versus not having games?
Sorry but those "real numbers" don't say anything. Here are the only "real numbers" that matter:

https://www.umass.edu/senate/sites/defa ... 0Final.pdf
Yes, I saw the Faculty Senate “Athletic Council” documentation dated 4/2/20 when conducting my admittedly non-exhaustive, one day research concerning UMass Football expenditures. I did not reference the specific FOOTBALL RELATED numbers listed in the “Statement of Revenue and Expenses” (my label, not UMass’...the top of their spreadsheet is labeled “fy19 athletics budget summary”) presented in the Faculty Senate report because: 1) they were only projected budgetary figures not actual reported expenditures for one year (2020), 2) the 2020 projections do not reflect the realities of the truncated season including the $1.9m lost guarantee from Auburn, lost gate receipts ($426k) and reduced road game travel costs (estimated budget $160k per game), and 3) the rev/exp document did not include aggregated totals over the very relevant nine year FBS period that I needed nor addressed capital expenditures and the debt related costs associated with facility improvements.

As a side, I think it is hilarious that “dennisdent” presents this limited, but arguably relevant budgetary data set presented to the Faculty Senate as “The Real Numbers,” and he/she offers absolutely no numerical references/calculations, accompanying commentary or conclusions and interpretations how "your numbers don't count"-thanks for the good laugh. That said, I am very happy to run some quick “back of the envelope” calculations on this Faculty Senate report/spreadsheet and present some brief conclusions to compare how “The Real Numbers”, stack-up to my original post that by inference “dd” suggests includes inaccurate or misleading data that "don't say anything."

Had “dd” read the Faculty Senate document (perhaps he/she did and the simple addition and subtraction required to complete an “analytical” assessment is beyond his/her quantitative capabilities) here are the obvious conclusions as they apply to the 2020 fiscal health of the football program and nine year period of Institutional support:
Projected 2020 Institutional Support:
(Subsidies/Shortfalls that are 100% captured within the Athletic Department football specific operating budget/p&l/expense&revenue statements as opposed to captured on the UMass, Amherst campus wide operating budget/p&l/expense&revenue statements (much more on this important accounting statement distinction later):
  • $2.4m: Student Fees (mandatory fees from cash strapped students to fund football activities)
    $1.9m Direct Support from the University’s Operating Fund
    $.6m Tuition Waivers (a true economic cost that the Board of Higher Education absorbs)
Grand Total PROJECTED 2020 Subsidy: $4.9m
(once again this is what appears directly as the required 2020 subsidy on the UMass Football budget/p&L/expense&rev statements within the athletic department budget it does not include additional football related expenses allocated/captured on the UMass, Amherst campus wide operating budget/p&l/expense&rev statements-I will explain this nuance in more detail shortly).

So, how does the above $4.9m 2020 subsidy compare to my original nine year projected annual range of $4m-$6m-pretty close.
Importantly, however, the truncated 2020 season necessitates the following adjustments to the projected institutional subsidy for this year:
  • $1.9m: Auburn game cash payment guarantee lost
    $426K: Home game gate receipts lost
    $320k: Reduced costs for team travel (2 road games canceled at the budgeted rate of $160k per game)
Total Adjustment to Institutional Subsidy: +$2m

So, the total 2020 subsidy as it appears on the Athletics Department financials is probably more like $7m ($4.9m+$2m due to one-time 2020 truncated season adjustments)! But, the really frightening point is that the REAL ACCOUNTING/CASH subsidies from the University to support the football program are much higher due to very flexible NCAA accounting reporting rules and standards.

Unlike publicly traded or privately held firms, NCAA member athletic departments do not have to adhere to very strict Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) established by The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) or even guidelines for government entities called Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The financial disclosures made available to the NCAA by most FBS schools are not audited by outside accounting firms.

The NCAA defined guidelines for athletic department accounting practices are called Agreed to Procedures (AUPS) that give member athletic departments’ wide latitude on where, ie what specific cost center, athletic expenses are recognized within a university’s cost accounting system. This is particularly true for capital asset expenditures, advertising, debt payments and many other football ancillary and direct expenses. My brief research indicates that most FBS University accounting systems don’t recognize major football related expenses (stadium upgrades, debt payments, advertising, football camps, alumni football related outings and other items) within the athletic department financial statements/cost centers but are assigned/captured/recognized as expense line items on the University’s total administrative budget-misleading yes, if you are trying to do a traditional economic impact analysis, but well within the NCAA AUPS/accounting rules.

Why is this important? Because it appears that the UMass internal accounting system has adopted these perfectly legal, but not very transparent AUPS practices that allow for many football specific expenses not to appear as spending/expense line items on the athletic operating budget but on the total UMass, Amherst operating budget/cost center. I had mentioned in my first post that the Globe claimed numerous football related expenses were captured not in the UMass Athletic department cost center but on the total UMass, Amherst budget/p&l/expense&revenue statements. Absent hard data from state sources, I opted to be conservative and not include these football “related expenses” allocated to the UMass, Amherst budget in my original analysis-the one exception was annual interest payment for debt services.

Given additional consideration and the fact that the “real-numbers” are theoretically university sanctioned from the Faculty Senate, I now believe these expenses need to be included in the economic analysis to identify accurate annual and the total nine year spending aggregates. The bad news, it really makes the fiscal situation worse than I originally thought.

Here are the football related line item expenses that are not captured on the athletic operating budget/p&l but appear on the total UMass, Amherst operating budget (source: Faculty Senate 4/2/20 Annual Athletic Council Report-see “Related Football Expenses” section on spreadsheet):
  • $525k: Other Football Expenses-summer and winter scholarship aid
    $2,670k: Debt Service on Football Facility (my original numbers assumed $1.3m, an understatement of roughly $1.3m per, or $12m over nine years)
    $1,116k: Annual Football Facility Operating Costs
    $1,175K: Additional Annual Female Scholarships (title ix compliance)
    $372k: Additional Gridiron Club Expenses (nutrition, technology other program enhancements)
    $500k: University Relations Marketing Assistance (advertising, student tailgates, BBQ)

Total 2020 “Related Football Expenses: $6.4m

To summarize, the annual subsidy across all university cost centers to fund 2020 FBS football activities appears to be $13.3m ($6.9m recognized on the Athletic Department operating budget/$6.4m captured on the UMass, Amherst total operating budget). And let’s not forget the impact these “related football expenses” have on the nine year aggregates. I conservatively estimated a range of $100m-$105m for the total investment over nine years of FBS participation, but many of these “Related” line items that I did not originally include appear to be legitimate recurring costs such as title 9 compliance expenses ($10m), facility operating charges ($10m) and I understated the debt service payments by half ($12m) and you could probably assume/include $500k per for advertising ($4.5m total over 9 yrs.), which might be understated because year 1/2/3 were probably higher ).

These reasonable back of the envelope calculations indicate a $135m-$140m investment over nine years. For what?...poor on field performance (much respect to the players and dedicated coaches), negative media exposure, missed budgetary projections and most importantly the lost opportunity to allocate and invest desperately needed funds in academic areas that directly improve the educational experience at UMass. In short, this whole FBS initiative appears to be nothing short of fiscal insanity.

In closing, I am not a practicing accountant so I certainly welcome one of the fine CPA’s or experienced MBA’s at an investment bank or corporate finance department who are part of the UMass community to complete a quick audit of my calculations for accuracy and to determine if I am in the ballpark so to speak. Additionally, I certainly welcome a member of the UMass Athletic department to anonymously add clarity to the financial data in this post and the previous one. And of course, I welcome some expert financial commentary from "dd" pinpointing why the numbers I presented "don't say anything"-I need another good laugh. All I am seeking is transparency, accuracy and truth. The financials look horrific.
I hit a nerve huh--okay, I'll take your bait...You never post on this message about how the football team is actually doing but come on here with this long winded diatribe, sounding like a pompous windbag. You must have WAY too much time on your hands...Send it to the AD, Boston Globe--why post it here??? I can tell you are looking for a fight from me, Jack or anyone who may question/disagree with your diatribe. I'm married to an accountant and she has way too much work to do than have time to come up with your worthless posts. By worthless, I don't mean the content, which is very interesting, but that you post it here, dude! This football message board is to bitch and moan, maybe a brief moment to enjoy something positive by the team, not have real, hard financial analysis :D. Send it to Bamford and come on here and let us know how he feels about your work. Coming after me on here won't make your ego feel any better--take this to someone in the AD and maybe they can tell you what a great job you did.... :wink:

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17645
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Mon Dec 07, 2020 11:16 am

Ugh, the Faculty Senate. They are the worst.
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

Bay Area UMie
Sophomore
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:47 pm
Location: Silicon Valley/Bay Area

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by Bay Area UMie » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:26 am

dennisdent wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 10:54 am
Bay Area UMie wrote: Mon Dec 07, 2020 3:02 am
dennisdent wrote: Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:03 pm

Sorry but those "real numbers" don't say anything. Here are the only "real numbers" that matter:

https://www.umass.edu/senate/sites/defa ... 0Final.pdf
Yes, I saw the Faculty Senate “Athletic Council” documentation dated 4/2/20 when conducting my admittedly non-exhaustive, one day research concerning UMass Football expenditures. I did not reference the specific FOOTBALL RELATED numbers listed in the “Statement of Revenue and Expenses” (my label, not UMass’...the top of their spreadsheet is labeled “fy19 athletics budget summary”) presented in the Faculty Senate report because: 1) they were only projected budgetary figures not actual reported expenditures for one year (2020), 2) the 2020 projections do not reflect the realities of the truncated season including the $1.9m lost guarantee from Auburn, lost gate receipts ($426k) and reduced road game travel costs (estimated budget $160k per game), and 3) the rev/exp document did not include aggregated totals over the very relevant nine year FBS period that I needed nor addressed capital expenditures and the debt related costs associated with facility improvements.

As a side, I think it is hilarious that “dennisdent” presents this limited, but arguably relevant budgetary data set presented to the Faculty Senate as “The Real Numbers,” and he/she offers absolutely no numerical references/calculations, accompanying commentary or conclusions and interpretations how "your numbers don't count"-thanks for the good laugh. That said, I am very happy to run some quick “back of the envelope” calculations on this Faculty Senate report/spreadsheet and present some brief conclusions to compare how “The Real Numbers”, stack-up to my original post that by inference “dd” suggests includes inaccurate or misleading data that "don't say anything."

Had “dd” read the Faculty Senate document (perhaps he/she did and the simple addition and subtraction required to complete an “analytical” assessment is beyond his/her quantitative capabilities) here are the obvious conclusions as they apply to the 2020 fiscal health of the football program and nine year period of Institutional support:
Projected 2020 Institutional Support:
(Subsidies/Shortfalls that are 100% captured within the Athletic Department football specific operating budget/p&l/expense&revenue statements as opposed to captured on the UMass, Amherst campus wide operating budget/p&l/expense&revenue statements (much more on this important accounting statement distinction later):
  • $2.4m: Student Fees (mandatory fees from cash strapped students to fund football activities)
    $1.9m Direct Support from the University’s Operating Fund
    $.6m Tuition Waivers (a true economic cost that the Board of Higher Education absorbs)
Grand Total PROJECTED 2020 Subsidy: $4.9m
(once again this is what appears directly as the required 2020 subsidy on the UMass Football budget/p&L/expense&rev statements within the athletic department budget it does not include additional football related expenses allocated/captured on the UMass, Amherst campus wide operating budget/p&l/expense&rev statements-I will explain this nuance in more detail shortly).

So, how does the above $4.9m 2020 subsidy compare to my original nine year projected annual range of $4m-$6m-pretty close.
Importantly, however, the truncated 2020 season necessitates the following adjustments to the projected institutional subsidy for this year:
  • $1.9m: Auburn game cash payment guarantee lost
    $426K: Home game gate receipts lost
    $320k: Reduced costs for team travel (2 road games canceled at the budgeted rate of $160k per game)
Total Adjustment to Institutional Subsidy: +$2m

So, the total 2020 subsidy as it appears on the Athletics Department financials is probably more like $7m ($4.9m+$2m due to one-time 2020 truncated season adjustments)! But, the really frightening point is that the REAL ACCOUNTING/CASH subsidies from the University to support the football program are much higher due to very flexible NCAA accounting reporting rules and standards.

Unlike publicly traded or privately held firms, NCAA member athletic departments do not have to adhere to very strict Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP) established by The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) or even guidelines for government entities called Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB). The financial disclosures made available to the NCAA by most FBS schools are not audited by outside accounting firms.

The NCAA defined guidelines for athletic department accounting practices are called Agreed to Procedures (AUPS) that give member athletic departments’ wide latitude on where, ie what specific cost center, athletic expenses are recognized within a university’s cost accounting system. This is particularly true for capital asset expenditures, advertising, debt payments and many other football ancillary and direct expenses. My brief research indicates that most FBS University accounting systems don’t recognize major football related expenses (stadium upgrades, debt payments, advertising, football camps, alumni football related outings and other items) within the athletic department financial statements/cost centers but are assigned/captured/recognized as expense line items on the University’s total administrative budget-misleading yes, if you are trying to do a traditional economic impact analysis, but well within the NCAA AUPS/accounting rules.

Why is this important? Because it appears that the UMass internal accounting system has adopted these perfectly legal, but not very transparent AUPS practices that allow for many football specific expenses not to appear as spending/expense line items on the athletic operating budget but on the total UMass, Amherst operating budget/cost center. I had mentioned in my first post that the Globe claimed numerous football related expenses were captured not in the UMass Athletic department cost center but on the total UMass, Amherst budget/p&l/expense&revenue statements. Absent hard data from state sources, I opted to be conservative and not include these football “related expenses” allocated to the UMass, Amherst budget in my original analysis-the one exception was annual interest payment for debt services.

Given additional consideration and the fact that the “real-numbers” are theoretically university sanctioned from the Faculty Senate, I now believe these expenses need to be included in the economic analysis to identify accurate annual and the total nine year spending aggregates. The bad news, it really makes the fiscal situation worse than I originally thought.

Here are the football related line item expenses that are not captured on the athletic operating budget/p&l but appear on the total UMass, Amherst operating budget (source: Faculty Senate 4/2/20 Annual Athletic Council Report-see “Related Football Expenses” section on spreadsheet):
  • $525k: Other Football Expenses-summer and winter scholarship aid
    $2,670k: Debt Service on Football Facility (my original numbers assumed $1.3m, an understatement of roughly $1.3m per, or $12m over nine years)
    $1,116k: Annual Football Facility Operating Costs
    $1,175K: Additional Annual Female Scholarships (title ix compliance)
    $372k: Additional Gridiron Club Expenses (nutrition, technology other program enhancements)
    $500k: University Relations Marketing Assistance (advertising, student tailgates, BBQ)

Total 2020 “Related Football Expenses: $6.4m

To summarize, the annual subsidy across all university cost centers to fund 2020 FBS football activities appears to be $13.3m ($6.9m recognized on the Athletic Department operating budget/$6.4m captured on the UMass, Amherst total operating budget). And let’s not forget the impact these “related football expenses” have on the nine year aggregates. I conservatively estimated a range of $100m-$105m for the total investment over nine years of FBS participation, but many of these “Related” line items that I did not originally include appear to be legitimate recurring costs such as title 9 compliance expenses ($10m), facility operating charges ($10m) and I understated the debt service payments by half ($12m) and you could probably assume/include $500k per for advertising ($4.5m total over 9 yrs.), which might be understated because year 1/2/3 were probably higher ).

These reasonable back of the envelope calculations indicate a $135m-$140m investment over nine years. For what?...poor on field performance (much respect to the players and dedicated coaches), negative media exposure, missed budgetary projections and most importantly the lost opportunity to allocate and invest desperately needed funds in academic areas that directly improve the educational experience at UMass. In short, this whole FBS initiative appears to be nothing short of fiscal insanity.

In closing, I am not a practicing accountant so I certainly welcome one of the fine CPA’s or experienced MBA’s at an investment bank or corporate finance department who are part of the UMass community to complete a quick audit of my calculations for accuracy and to determine if I am in the ballpark so to speak. Additionally, I certainly welcome a member of the UMass Athletic department to anonymously add clarity to the financial data in this post and the previous one. And of course, I welcome some expert financial commentary from "dd" pinpointing why the numbers I presented "don't say anything"-I need another good laugh. All I am seeking is transparency, accuracy and truth. The financials look horrific.
I hit a nerve huh--okay, I'll take your bait...You never post on this message about how the football team is actually doing but come on here with this long winded diatribe, sounding like a pompous windbag. You must have WAY too much time on your hands...Send it to the AD, Boston Globe--why post it here??? I can tell you are looking for a fight from me, Jack or anyone who may question/disagree with your diatribe. I'm married to an accountant and she has way too much work to do than have time to come up with your worthless posts. By worthless, I don't mean the content, which is very interesting, but that you post it here, dude! This football message board is to bitch and moan, maybe a brief moment to enjoy something positive by the team, not have real, hard financial analysis :D. Send it to Bamford and come on here and let us know how he feels about your work. Coming after me on here won't make your ego feel any better--take this to someone in the AD and maybe they can tell you what a great job you did.... :wink:
A huge thank you for once again providing incoherent, comical material for another good laugh-I have to admit you certainly are consistent …nothing like self-indicting oneself about the lack-of-depth and the limits of one’s interests and capabilities- the next time I post I’ll certainly remember your strict criteria that all posts on this board should focus on “how da team is doin” and is no place for any alternative thoughts beyond your simplistic “how da team is doin” view of UMass Athletics and the world …your reference to my very basic cash-flow analysis and the 3rd grade math level skills necessary to comprehend the data as “real-hard finance” is not only hysterically funny but speaks volumes to what an innumerate, Neanderthal you are, as well as your obvious lack of leadership experience in any professionally run organization…I get it, your uncomfortable with the unfamiliar, unfortunately for you, the unfamiliar knowledge gap is a very long and wide void beyond your ”how da team is doin” small comfort zone…loved your latest “how da team is doin” post on the Fire Bell subject, ”He is an idiots pick for a head coach and it shows”-pure eloquence, you’re unquestionably the Hemingway of the board …looking forward to more mindless “how da team is doin” posts from your very inarticulate, simplistic mind-pure idiocy in the singular form of “how da team is doin” is always entertaining on a discussion board-thanks for the comedy ...Fortunately, your level of pure ignorance is a minority of one on this fine community board…one suggestion, how about a moniker change from “dennisdent to “howdateamisdoin” I think it’s a perfect fit.

dennisdent
Senior
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: Too close to the Beltway

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by dennisdent » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:49 am

TRIGGERED! Wow, one RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN on sentence after another! Lighten up Francis, life is too short!

I'm done responding to your craziness. Put you on the ignore list!

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by eldonabe » Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:58 am

dennisdent wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:49 am TRIGGERED! Wow, one RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN on sentence after another! Lighten up Francis, life is too short!

I'm done responding to your craziness. Put you on the ignore list!
Dennis - for the record "how the team is doing" includes on and off the field. We all can see how they are doing on the field. They are the worst team in FBS and I am not sure that anyone could even put up a reasonable opposing debate about it.

Financials are part of the whole equation too though. I don't know if Umie goes to or watches any Umass games, but that shit is more important to some than others.

Unfortunately right now Umass football sucks on and off the field. Personally I think there are one or two green shoots from which to build on, but onlt time will tell.

ZooMass84
Senior
Posts: 1307
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2017 9:46 pm

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by ZooMass84 » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:33 pm

eldonabe wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:58 am
dennisdent wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:49 am TRIGGERED! Wow, one RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN on sentence after another! Lighten up Francis, life is too short!

I'm done responding to your craziness. Put you on the ignore list!
Dennis - for the record "how the team is doing" includes on and off the field. We all can see how they are doing on the field. They are the worst team in FBS and I am not sure that anyone could even put up a reasonable opposing debate about it.

Financials are part of the whole equation too though. I don't know if Umie goes to or watches any Umass games, but that shit is more important to some than others.

Unfortunately right now Umass football sucks on and off the field. Personally I think there are one or two green shoots from which to build on, but onlt time will tell.
Who cares about "financials"? It's not like we are paying for it: the Comm of Mass is paying for this nonsense but look at all the greed and graft etc MBTA, MSP, all the Courts, MassPort: they are all at the trough making 200-400k for their "jobs". Look the FBS was absolutely necessary but unfortunately was mishandled from the get-go. Would just to see an actual win and even Akron won a game. Just think Bell is clueless and I can't see a win next year either.

dennisdent
Senior
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: Too close to the Beltway

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by dennisdent » Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:37 pm

eldonabe wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 11:58 am
dennisdent wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:49 am TRIGGERED! Wow, one RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN on sentence after another! Lighten up Francis, life is too short!

I'm done responding to your craziness. Put you on the ignore list!
Dennis - for the record "how the team is doing" includes on and off the field. We all can see how they are doing on the field. They are the worst team in FBS and I am not sure that anyone could even put up a reasonable opposing debate about it.

Financials are part of the whole equation too though. I don't know if Umie goes to or watches any Umass games, but that shit is more important to some than others.

Unfortunately right now Umass football sucks on and off the field. Personally I think there are one or two green shoots from which to build on, but only time will tell.
I've never posted that financials don't matter, as matter of fact I've posted on the cost of playing this fall and if it was worth it. All I did was include the AD budget document that wasn't cited/included in the first post.

Like others on here, I have donated substantially to UMass and the football program over the years. I care very much about the financials and how the money is being spent. That is why I recommended to the poster that they send their work to the AD and Bamford and let us know their response (if any).

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by eldonabe » Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:34 am

dennisdent wrote: Tue Dec 08, 2020 12:37 pm I've never posted that financials don't matter, as matter of fact I've posted on the cost of playing this fall and if it was worth it. All I did was include the AD budget document that wasn't cited/included in the first post.

Like others on here, I have donated substantially to UMass and the football program over the years. I care very much about the financials and how the money is being spent. That is why I recommended to the poster that they send their work to the AD and Bamford and let us know their response (if any).
Fair enough... Unfortunately this all comes down to the W's & L's.

Let's face it, none of this bickering is happening if Umass Football is 8-2 going to their 3rd or 4th bowl game in a row. Nobody would care if they were spending money like a crack-whore in a strip club if the on field results were better either.

Jack
Senior
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by Jack » Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:14 am

Moronic post. Thank you for your idiotic contribution.

PreecherJenkins
Senior
Posts: 1642
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2003 12:41 am

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by PreecherJenkins » Wed Dec 09, 2020 6:05 pm

Jack wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:14 am Moronic post. Thank you for your idiotic contribution.
Happy holidaysJack!
"You are what your record says you are" Coach Bill P.

JUST SAY NO TO THE MAC

dennisdent
Senior
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 7:18 pm
Location: Too close to the Beltway

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by dennisdent » Wed Dec 09, 2020 8:31 pm

Jack wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:14 am Moronic post. Thank you for your idiotic contribution.
:lol:

eldonabe
Hall of Fame
Posts: 5577
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 4:34 pm
Location: Western MA

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by eldonabe » Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:44 am

Jack wrote: Wed Dec 09, 2020 11:14 am Moronic post. Thank you for your idiotic contribution.
Are you talking to me Jack?

User avatar
InnervisionsUMASS
Hall of Fame
Posts: 17645
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 1:32 am
Location: Milford, MA
Contact:

Re: The Painful Truth-Good Intentions Gone Awry

Post by InnervisionsUMASS » Thu Dec 10, 2020 8:47 am

:lol: :lol:
Stop waiting for UMass to do something big and help UMass do something big. - Shades

Post Reply