Grambling is this true


JAG89 said:
As always, I have to prove to some folks that water is wet. Unlike some HBCUs, including the one in the State of Mississippi that pay a HBCU coach near or above $200k per year, Southern University have made the necessary adjustments to maintain a profit in its athletic department, which includes reducing the salary of our head football coach to some practical and reasonable amount. Paying a SWAC coach near or above $200k per year is just plain crazy for any HBCU. Also, student fees help when it comes to the Athletic budgets.

Per USAToday, from 2005 to 2012 Southern had a NET PROFIT of $9,603,022. Below are the figures reported by USAToday concerning Southern's athletic budget:

YEAR NET PROFIT/LOSS
2012 $1,084,362
2011 ($323,146)
2010 $900,000
2009 $3,020,506
2008 $3,349,365
2007 $0
2006 ($605,907)
2005 $2,177,842
TOTAL $9,603,022
Click to expand...

Since you brought it up, here are the real numbers.

First of all, the ONLY reason you don't have to pay a quality coach close to 200,000 is because you HIRED a dude that nobody knows. Duuuhhhh??!!

Second: where did su make over 9 million dollars in revenue (not including subsidies) over 8 years?

Third: su has cut programs over those last eight years, whereas others haven't had to do so, so you were expected to come out even, but that didn't even happen.

Fourth: according to the following website, su's total revenue versus total expenses resulted in lost expenses.
Any school can tax it's students to make up for losses, but that's not counted in the regular revenue stream.

Perhaps su needs to take notes from Grambling because they came out "even" as did other SWAC schools.
And to note, even with JSU paying it's coach 200K, it still came out even as well.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
 
Last edited:



Blacknbengal said:
Those numbers mean nothing..........................to ole Bobby.
Click to expand...

I do believe ole Bobby is just one man. Although you are from Louisiana, you better worry about those rednecks in Mississippi when it comes to your school. I do believe it wasn't too long ago a few people on this board was about to nut up in here concerning a proposed domed stadium until those rednecks in the State of Mississippi proved who was in charge. Jindal's approval record in Louisiana is at its lowest point, which pretty much makes him a lame duck. Most politicians in Louisiana including Republicans don't want to commit political suicide by backing Jindal. Jindal just might be facing some type of legal action concerning the CNSI mess.
 
JAG89 said:
I do believe ole Bobby is just one man. Although you are from Louisiana, you better worry about those rednecks in Mississippi when it comes to your school. I do believe it wasn't too long ago a few people on this board was about to nut up in here concerning a proposed domed stadium until those rednecks in the State of Mississippi proved who was in charge. Jindal's approval record in Louisiana is at its lowest point, which pretty much makes him a lame duck. Most politicians in Louisiana including Republicans don't want to commit political suicide by backing Jindal. Jindal just might be facing some type of legal action concerning the CNSI mess.
Click to expand...

The dome proposal has nothing to do with athletic revenue over the last seven years. Dome or no dome, JSU will still hold it's own.
And for kicks, the dome proposal is on hold, it's not dead.
 
Tigerpride said:
Those numbers mean nothing to nobody. Besides, recall how broke SU was in 2009 when they had to move their game to Jackson. Something ain't right.
Click to expand...

Southern wasn't broke. Southern was making sure its Athletic Department could generated a profit after the State threaten to cut our budget. But somehow jsu hoodwinked LaFleur and Tony Clayton into thinking that they could generate more revenue by moving our home game to Jackson in 2009. But as of now, things are back to normal, so make sure you have your plans together on witnessing your school getting a beat down in Mumford this year.
 
Tigerpride said:
Those numbers mean nothing to nobody. Besides, recall how broke SU was in 2009 when they had to move their game to Jackson. Something ain't right.
Click to expand...

Those numbers mean a LOT....just as long as LSU is making a profit.

Without subsidies, LSU made over 18 million from 2006-11.
 
Last edited:
JayRob said:
The dome proposal has nothing to do with athletic revenue over the last seven years. Dome or no dome, JSU will still hold it's own.
And for kicks, the dome proposal is on hold, it's not dead.
Click to expand...

I won't be holding my breath on that? :lol: :emlaugh:
 
Dude, ole Bobby bout to make you all into a commuter college if you keep playing with him. He's not playing with you all. So, you keep your mind on our Dome situation while ole Bobby keep raping yall.
 
JAG89 said:
I won't be holding my breath on that? :lol:
Click to expand...

Unlike some schools, we don't give up too easily with our legislature, rednecks or no rednecks.
You see the governor wanted to combine JSU, Alcorn and Valley. You see where that went.
As long as JSU has Memorial, we can hold our breath longer than anyone when it comes to the dome.
 
Blacknbengal said:
Dude, ole Bobby bout to make you all into a commuter college if you keep playing with him. He's not playing with you all. So, you keep your mind on our Dome situation while ole Bobby keep raping yall.
Click to expand...

Really!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :emlaugh:
 
JayRob said:
Unlike some schools, we don't give up too easily with our legislature, rednecks or no rednecks.
You see the governor wanted to combine JSU, Alcorn and Valley. You see where that went.
As long as JSU has Memorial, we can hold our breath longer than anyone when it comes to the dome.
Click to expand...

Holding_Your_Breath_O8LQE7.gif
 



Its time for Grambling to go D2 or suspend its athletic programs or let somebody white take over. Actually most teams in the SWAC should do the same
 
JayRob said:
Fourth: according to the following website, su's total revenue versus total expenses resulted in lost expenses.
Any school can tax it's students to make up for losses, but that's not counted in the regular revenue stream.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/spor...ollege-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1
Click to expand...

YEAR TOTAL EXPENSE
2011 $6,799,370
2010 $6,890,447
2009 $6,609,754
2008 $6,838,308
2007 $6,317,910
2006 $5,578,173
TOTAL $39,033,962

YEAR TOTAL EXPENSE
2011 $7,122,516
2010 $5,990,447
2009 $3,589,248
2008 $3,488,943
2007 $6,317,910
2006 $6,184,080
TOTAL $32,693,144


Per USA Today website, SU’s Athlete Department total revenue from 2006 to 2011 was $39,033,962, whereas the total expense for the same time period was $32,693,144. Since you have already reviewed the data, I'll let you do the math.

Also, somehow the site excluded the 2005 and 2012 years that was previously reported, which is how a total profit of $9,603,022 was calculated. I have no reason to fudge any numbers that USA Today reports. Therefore I suggest you contact USA Today if you think there are some discrepancies.

But I do agree with you, since you used the term "lost expenses". The words lost and expenses are two negatives, which is a positive or net gain in mathematical terms. Southern made the necessary adjustments to keep its program profitable.
 
Last edited:
Get Ready said:
Its time for Grambling to go D2 or suspend its athletic programs or let somebody white take over. Actually most teams in the SWAC should do the same
Click to expand...

Are you saying some SWAC programs are like a few stampburgers from being D2?
 
Get Ready said:
Its time for Grambling to go D2 or suspend its athletic programs or let somebody white take over. Actually most teams in the SWAC should do the same
Click to expand...

Are you sure this thread is about Grambling??? Or yet another hijacked SU/JSU thread by SU/JSU???
 
JAG89 said:
YEAR TOTAL EXPENSE
2011 $6,799,370
2010 $6,890,447
2009 $6,609,754
2008 $6,838,308
2007 $6,317,910
2006 $5,578,173
TOTAL $39,033,962

YEAR TOTAL EXPENSE
2011 $7,122,516
2010 $5,990,447
2009 $3,589,248
2008 $3,488,943
2007 $6,317,910
2006 $6,184,080
TOTAL $32,693,144


Per USA Today website, SU’s Athlete Department total revenue from 2006 to 2011 was $39,033,962, whereas the total expense for the same time period was $32,693,144. Since you have already reviewed the data, I'll let you do the math.

Also, somehow the site excluded the 2005 and 2012 years that was previously reported, which is how a total profit of $9,603,022 was calculated. I have no reason to fudge any numbers that USA Today reports. Therefore I suggest you contact USA Today if you think there are some discrepancies.

But I do agree with you, since you used the term "lost expenses". The words lost and expenses are two negatives, which is a positive or net gain in mathematical terms. Southern made the necessary adjustments to keep its program profitable.
Click to expand...

Those numbers were already addressed. USA Today's total revenue versus total expenses did not include subsidies such as raising student tuition. Like I said, ANY school can do that.
When calculating total revenue (not including subsidies) versus total expenses over the period of said time, su lost money and still ended up cutting athletic programs. Those programs haven't been reinstated.

When all is said and done, seems to me that Grambling folks are better stewards over their athletic funds than su folks, regardless of what Jindal is doing.
I don't recall them having to cut programs.

Keep in mind though, you guys had to give two football coaches, Pete and Stump, payouts during that time period. Perhaps that helped to put you all in the loss column.

Grambling didn't lose any money. JSU didn't lose any money and a couple of other schools didn't either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top