Started By
Message

re: Sunk cost and Matt McMahon….

Posted on 3/18/26 at 5:14 pm to
Posted by Alt26
Member since Mar 2010
35544 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 5:14 pm to
quote:

It's not a business. If it were, he wouldn't have gotten a 7 year deal without benchmarks to measure performance. If it were a business, he'd be fired for cause for not winning enough. But again, that analogy is stupid.


If you don't think college basketball is a business, or that college sports in general is a multi-billion dollar business, then further discussion may be a lost cause.

The reason MM doesn't have those "benchmarks" in his contract is a matter of basic supply and demand. The supply of coaches thought to be good enough to win at a high level at a major conf. school is very low. The demand for a coach who can do so is high. No in demand coach would agree to such terms if he had another prospective employer offering him a comparable offer without them. Yes, even at the time MM was hired he had other options.

Now, if LSU wants to hire a coach with little market demand he might agree to such terms. But do you really want a coach no one else wants? Furthermore, even if the coach had success at your school, he would immediately leverage that success for a better contract because he would have higher market demand
Posted by Rudy40
Baton Rouge,La
Member since Jan 2007
3317 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 6:48 pm to
So bayou 85 your saying that if LSU hired a coach who wasn't just a walking cardboard cutout like the present loser. The new coach say Will Wade actually has a pulse and actually meets with businesses and donors and raises funds and gets fans to actually attend games which Wade did. The profit goes from 2 million under Mcloser to 9 million like Bama LSuU couldn't use the additional 5 to 7 million a year to more than cover Mclosers buyout?

Please tell me your not advising anyone how to handle money!
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42548 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 7:00 pm to
quote:

If you don’t think college athletics is big business, you’re too stupid to argue with further.


It’s s big business; however, there is no impetus to make a profit.

If there was they’d close underperforming divisions and only operate divisions that finished in the black.

You wouldn’t have the government passing laws that all divisions had to get equal treatment.

The business wouldn’t be tax exempt.

The business wouldn’t have been able to collude with rivals to keep the cost of labor down.

In reality College athletics is not a true business like Walgreen’s, Exxon, or State Farm.

Posted by drizztiger
Deal With it!
Member since Mar 2007
47727 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 7:38 pm to
quote:

It’s s big business; however, there is no impetus to make a profit.
But you still want to be as self sustaining as possible.

For universities such as LSU, that is done by maximizing the programs that turn a profit (football/mbb) to subsidize the programs in the red (every other program).
Posted by NorCali
Member since Feb 2015
1718 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 7:48 pm to
What’s the current buyout?
What’s the source of funding for that buyout?
Posted by TJG210
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2006
29416 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 8:10 pm to
quote:

What’s the current buyout? What’s the source of funding for that buyout?


Like 7m spread over a number of yrs, can either have someone write a check or it can come from smaller donations/operating cash. I don’t know where yall have gotten the idea a singular entity is there to stroke a check.
Posted by lostinbr
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Oct 2017
12846 posts
Posted on 3/18/26 at 10:19 pm to
quote:

When we changed coaches after Jones we simultaneously had a huge operating cost drop as well as huge ticket sales increase. These people have no idea what they’re talking about.

Where are you getting this? I thought it was surprising, so I looked at the financial statements over a 6 year period.

Operating costs associated with men’s basketball:
FY2015: $5,678,283
FY2016: $5,891,536
FY2017: $6,078,781 (Jones’ last year)
FY2018: $7,674,523 (Wade’s first year)
FY2019: $8,399,671
FY2020: $8,081,675

Revenue* associated with men’s basketball:
FY2015: $1,754,441
FY2016: $2,162,644
FY2017: $1,586,579 (Jones’ last year)
FY2018: $1,807,046 (Wade’s first year)
FY2019: $1,826,918
FY2020: $2,049,551

*Does not include conference distributions (i.e. TV revenue). That said, the team’s actual performance has very little impact on the conference distributions anyway considering how the SEC splits up media revenue.

So from Jones’ last year to Wade’s first year, MBB operating costs increased by $1.6 million and MBB revenue (excluding SEC distributions) increased by $220k.

If we look at the average of Jones’ last 3 years and Wade’s first 3 years, operating costs increased by ~$2.17 million while revenue increased by ~$60k.

If I look at the annual NCAA financial reports it’s even more stark.. Jones’ last year brought in $8,135,734 in revenue with $6,516,370 in operating costs ($1,619,364 net revenue over expenditures) while Wade’s first year brought in $8,911,799 in revenue with $8,618,878 in costs ($292,921 net revenue over expenditures). Those numbers include conference distributions/media rights.

The point is.. either way: A) the operating costs increased most certainly did not have a “huge drop” and B) the added revenue didn’t come close to offsetting the added cost. And Jones’ buyout was way smaller than McMahon’s. I’m not saying LSU should keep them, but I think some of y’all might be out on a limb with the financial justification. Even in the year Wade went to the Sweet 16, MBB’s “profit” was over a million dollars less than Jones’ last year.
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
42548 posts
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:22 am to
quote:

But you still want to be as self sustaining as possible.


And our Ath Deot is despite the fact that only two “divisions” are in the red abd one of those is a big loser on the court.

Revenues keep climbing, and expenses keep rising. Not because of inflation, but because there are no reasons to increase “profits”.
This post was edited on 3/19/26 at 10:02 am
Posted by paulb52
Member since Dec 2019
8438 posts
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:30 am to
Covers everything? Buyout is 8 million and WW won’t come cheap, as well. They’re in a pickle.
Posted by drizztiger
Deal With it!
Member since Mar 2007
47727 posts
Posted on 3/19/26 at 7:52 am to
quote:

And our Th Deot is despite the fact that only two “divisions” are in the red ABs one of those is a big loser on the court.

Revenues keep climbing, and expenses keep rising. Not because of inflation, but because there are no reasons to increase “profits”.
I hope this is sarcasm font.
Posted by NorCali
Member since Feb 2015
1718 posts
Posted on 3/19/26 at 5:33 pm to
quote:

7m

Thanks for responding. Verge already has to pay Kelly 54 Million for not coaching. Finding another 7M on top of that for coaches to not coach could be the challenge. Chances are if he had that funding secured something would have happened or the people writing the checks want to see the replacement options first.
Posted by Rudy40
Baton Rouge,La
Member since Jan 2007
3317 posts
Posted on 3/19/26 at 5:35 pm to
The buyout is over 3 years so a coach with an actual pulse adds 7-9 million a year over 3 years that's 21 to 27 million so again easily covers everything...Math is your friend little man!
Posted by Solo Cam
Member since Sep 2015
35030 posts
Posted on 3/19/26 at 5:46 pm to
quote:

TJG210
if you don't understand it why don't you write the check?
first pageprev pagePage 4 of 4Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram