De-emphasizing AD contributions

[Deleted11512]

I saw this quote from Locksley today. I know we don't like him, but this was a very good quote on the current environment in CFB.

"Unfortunately, we've moved into a time when facilities have de-emphasized in a recruits mind. Because they'd get dressed in a trash can for $25K."

That's a great quote, and probably the most genuine thing he's ever said. If he's right, and I think he is, the way we're doing the athletic project with outside funding is brilliant. You get the best of both worlds. You can provide a first class environment for the fans and players and you don't need donations to do it. As a reference, Maryland just moved into a $149M football ops building this year. And Locksley is admitting that it was pretty much a waste.

 

[vacock]

If you are competing with the top, you need both.

 

[Deleted11512]

If you are competing with the top, you need both.

I agree...you can't have one without the other. But in many cases, "good enough" will have to do on the facilities craze that we've seen over the last couple of decades.

 

[Uscg1984]

This was easy to see coming and predicted by many. Athletic departments secured contributions from donors for athletic facilities in the name of recruiting, with only _indirect_ results. In the current NIL environment, it was only logical that donors would decide their contributions have more _direct_ impact if they just give it to the players directly.

And it doesn't matter how much money your donor base has, it's still a transfer of assets from one vehicle to another. If I had allotted $100 in contribution dollars to my favorite university before, it will be something less than $100 now, with the rest going to NIL. If I had allotted $1,000,000 to my favorite university before, it will be something less than $1,000,000 now with the rest going to NIL.