Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Re: Note to GP Author: GP [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 11:19:47 12/19/25 Fri In reply to: Bengal 's message, "Note to GP" on 13:03:51 12/18/25 Thu Bengal, I appreciate this information. I find the current state of NIL and the transfer portal's impact on roster composition/program building fascinating. I used to work in intercollegiate athletics and have many close friends that still do. Florida is always selling itself as one of the best public universities in the country but it is a far cry from Vandy and Princeton as far as prestige goes. In a vacuum, the Princeton to Vandy transfer makes sense for all of the reasons I mentioned earlier; similar academic prestige, no debt, higher level of competition, perhaps some NIL. Unless this Vandy to FL transfer is as a grad student, I would imagine it came with a pretty substantial NIL bump (way to go women's volleyball!). Either way, what an interesting landscape at the moment. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> Subject: Donor Exuberance, Donor Fatigue Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 13:01:15 12/19/25 Fri There are only two college sports which make money for even a substantial plurality of program sponsors today, those being football and men's basketball. As we've discussed, with all the "fuzzy math" associated with the income statement of individual athletic departments, to say nothing of individual sports within a department, who knows who's actually making money? Having said that, I watched a short video clip in which a four sports investors were asked to predict which sport could next make money on a consistent money. Three of the four capital allocators answered, "Women's volleyball." These women are fantastic athletes, the action is very continuous and many of them are not difficult to look at. Having said *THAT*, right now you're seeing, in the immortal words of noted sports investor Alan Greenspan, "irrational exuberance" in NIL funding. Every wannabe athletic department is just starting to hit up its biggest donors to "help us land the next great recruit." Exhibit A: Texas Tech. Give it a decade or two, after these rich donors have been asked for more money again and again and again. You're gonna see donor fatigue. And when you get donor fatigue, you get James Franklin at Penn State and Brian Kelly at LSU.

[> [> [> Subject: Re: Donor Exuberance, Donor Fatigue Author: observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 18:30:21 12/19/25 Fri The donor fatigue isn't around the corner. There are only 32 NFL teams. There are 50-60 programs that have alumni that aren't rich enough to buy into the NFL, but can make big programmatic gifts for college sports, especially football. If you think the rich Michigan alums will let the owner of Rocket Mortgage (among others) make Sparty bigger and better than the Maize and Blue... The donor fatigue at LSU and PSU had to do with the personality of the coaches and their performances. Not the balance of the donor accounts. That said, take away the tax benefit for gifts to a not-for-profit... and then the gravy train dries up. That's another reason why USC and UMich don't want to take the PE money. Once it's a business, then Mr. Class of '54 doesn't see a reason to be as generous to the team as he does the library... or his prep school.

[> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Donor Exuberance, Donor Fatigue Author: An Observer [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 12:45:39 12/20/25 Sat As I sit here watching over 100,000 screaming maniacs squeezed into magnificent Kyle Field, I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong. There *IS* a lot of money sloshing around donor groups. And for places like A&M, "donor" doesn't just mean alumnus. It includes local businesses and just regular people who can talked into opening their checkbooks. Kyle Field was renovated for $484 million, on time and under budget. Of course, when your budget is $485 million, you've got some room to work. We'll see how the spending grows and then does or does not subside once the novelty of NIL wears off. Giving money to enclose Kyle Field feels like investing in a capital expenditure, a long-lived capital asset. Somewhere in the concourse, there's probably a plaque with your name on it. Giving money to an NIL program is funding an operating expense, a line item on the income statement that will be history by season's end. Seems to feel like a different thing, but obviously I'm not representative of the 100,000 people in Kyle Field right now.

[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Re: Donor Exuberance, Donor Fatigue Author: DFW HOYA [ Edit | View ] Date Posted: 14:24:26 12/20/25 Sat The Kyle Field renovation was built on seat licenses and donor support--no institutional debt was undertaken. Even amidst a $20 billion endowment (eighth largest overall, more than UC-Berkeley or Michigan) former students at Texas A&M give at an percentage rate closer to many private schools than larger publics.