New Ask The AD

[Affirm]

My recollection was that in an ask the AD shortly after House was announced, Donnelly said we would pay what we needed to pay to stay in D1 (the 300k/yr in back payments to prior athletes pool) but that we would opt out of the revenue share going forward. My understanding is opting out of rev share has no impact on our ability to do NIL.

Now, there is a lot of water under the bridge since then. I'm not sure all SoCon schools are opting out of rev share. We may have reevaluated.

I think the administration thinks the value we get out of basketball is much greater than football in terms of brand exposure. But admin is reluctant to move FB down due to cultural factors and such... but we don't fund it in the way theat Mercer and others do.

I think the view on Football is short sighted. Very few schools that are investing in Football are not reaping significant returns. And if we are not going to pay rev share in hoops, you have to wonder how that is going to impact our ability to draw the talent we need.

I would hate to see us slide in both sports because we are not investing.

“[Admin is reluctant to move football down]…due to cultural factors and such.”
I would like to see an honest, unbiased, meaningful, data-based, accurate, true, complete, and understandable analysis of “cultural values and such” that cause the supposed reluctance by Admin (= Board of Trustees).
I do not expect for UFFP a source for such an analysis, but I’ll continue to read UFFP for any information on the matter.

OK, hopefully Bain study can provide that analysis of “…cultural values and such …” that I said I would like to see. There is hope!

Having been a Consultant for a firm nearly as well known as, if not quite as prestigious as, Bain...and having worked for companies that have engaged firms like Bain; FUBeAR would opine that...

...most likely, Bain will take a combination of the current goals & notions of their Executive Sponsor(s) (Internal FU Board/Executives) and the positions Bain generally espouses within their practice/within their firm, with learnings from prior engagements folded in, and then parse some of the relevant (and selected) Furman-specific metrics/data into their study (findings). Then, they will tune their recommendations around those goals, notions, positions, and learnings with the relevant (and selected) data as the justification (data-driven, y'know) predicate for their recommendations. Also, their recommendations will be tuned to provide additional follow-up / implementation work for their firm and/or their partner organizations - such as software providers and/or other more specifically-focused niche firms.

This is not intended to be a smear on Bain or on FU Leadership for engaging Bain. Consulting firms can do great work for their clients and provide substantial insight to leaders, particularly when those insights are just very difficult to see/find from the inside. That said - the above is the way consulting firms work. They charge a lot and their Partners/Consultants/Stakeholders are well-paid. They are very good at making a lot of money for themselves, while providing (often) valuable work for their clients - even if that work can be a bit formulaic (their "secret sauce") and include add-on and incremental alliance-derived revenues.

None of that is new information to me. I do appreciate your input.

[Affirm]

Sorry Affirm(aka Mr. Davis) looks like FU has no plans to drop down in fb as they just announced FBS games thru 2029.

There will be changes within the next decade.

[Affirm]

You would be incorrect for the housing component . As for the Chief of Staff my understanding is she has one direct report ( an Administrative Assistant … another new position). If you choose to believe that our current President is worth the money that is your option. I believe if you had conversations with faculty and staff you would not find that a very shared view.

I still believe I am not incorrect on the housing component.
I thank you for saying that I have the option “to believe that our current President is worth the money”. How very kind of you.

[FUBeAR]

My recollection was that in an ask the AD shortly after House was announced, Donnelly said we would pay what we needed to pay to stay in D1 (the 300k/yr in back payments to prior athletes pool) but that we would opt out of the revenue share going forward. My understanding is opting out of rev share has no impact on our ability to do NIL.

Now, there is a lot of water under the bridge since then. I'm not sure all SoCon schools are opting out of rev share. We may have reevaluated.

I think the administration thinks the value we get out of basketball is much greater than football in terms of brand exposure. But admin is reluctant to move FB down due to cultural factors and such... but we don't fund it in the way theat Mercer and others do.

I think the view on Football is short sighted. Very few schools that are investing in Football are not reaping significant returns. And if we are not going to pay rev share in hoops, you have to wonder how that is going to impact our ability to draw the talent we need.

I would hate to see us slide in both sports because we are not investing.

“[Admin is reluctant to move football down]…due to cultural factors and such.”
I would like to see an honest, unbiased, meaningful, data-based, accurate, true, complete, and understandable analysis of “cultural values and such” that cause the supposed reluctance by Admin (= Board of Trustees).
I do not expect for UFFP a source for such an analysis, but I’ll continue to read UFFP for any information on the matter.

OK, hopefully Bain study can provide that analysis of “…cultural values and such …” that I said I would like to see. There is hope!

Having been a Consultant for a firm nearly as well known as, if not quite as prestigious as, Bain...and having worked for companies that have engaged firms like Bain; FUBeAR would opine that...

...most likely, Bain will take a combination of the current goals & notions of their Executive Sponsor(s) (Internal FU Board/Executives) and the positions Bain generally espouses within their practice/within their firm, with learnings from prior engagements folded in, and then parse some of the relevant (and selected) Furman-specific metrics/data into their study (findings). Then, they will tune their recommendations around those goals, notions, positions, and learnings with the relevant (and selected) data as the justification (data-driven, y'know) predicate for their recommendations. Also, their recommendations will be tuned to provide additional follow-up / implementation work for their firm and/or their partner organizations - such as software providers and/or other more specifically-focused niche firms.

This is not intended to be a smear on Bain or on FU Leadership for engaging Bain. Consulting firms can do great work for their clients and provide substantial insight to leaders, particularly when those insights are just very difficult to see/find from the inside. That said - the above is the way consulting firms work. They charge a lot and their Partners/Consultants/Stakeholders are well-paid. They are very good at making a lot of money for themselves, while providing (often) valuable work for their clients - even if that work can be a bit formulaic (their "secret sauce") and include add-on and incremental alliance-derived revenues.

None of that is new information to me. I do appreciate your input.

What is a Bain study?
Why is it a good resource for such a study?

[Sad Din]

Lots of stuff going on for sure. Glad JD is at the helm

seems like its all about $$$$. He said it as an example but if another conf offerred the right $$ they would consider leaving

Keys to Timmons in the summer

As far as consultants, mixed results for SD. They always charge tons of money.
Hoping this study gives some tangible recommendations

[FUBeAR]

Lots of stuff going on for sure. Glad JD is at the helm

seems like its all about $$$$. He said it as an example but if another conf offerred the right $$ they would consider leaving

Keys to Timmons in the summer

As far as consultants, mixed results for SD. They always charge tons of money.
Hoping this study gives some tangible recommendations

*Tangible, laser-like relevant, highly-customized, actionable, cost-EFFECTIVE, unfiltered (never happen, but we can dream) recommendations

[Sad Din]

Lots of stuff going on for sure. Glad JD is at the helm

seems like its all about $$$$. He said it as an example but if another conf offerred the right $$ they would consider leaving

Keys to Timmons in the summer

As far as consultants, mixed results for SD. They always charge tons of money.
Hoping this study gives some tangible recommendations

*Tangible, laser-like relevant, highly-customized, actionable, cost-EFFECTIVE, unfiltered (never happen, but we can dream) recommendations

right! You mean like...

1, Increase student enrollment
2. Lower Tuition costs
3. Improve campus life
4. Improve professor compensation

[FUBeAR]

Lots of stuff going on for sure. Glad JD is at the helm

seems like its all about $$$$. He said it as an example but if another conf offerred the right $$ they would consider leaving

Keys to Timmons in the summer

As far as consultants, mixed results for SD. They always charge tons of money.
Hoping this study gives some tangible recommendations

*Tangible, laser-like relevant, highly-customized, actionable, cost-EFFECTIVE, unfiltered (never happen, but we can dream) recommendations

right! You mean like...

1, Increase student enrollment
2. Lower Tuition costs
3. Improve campus life
4. Improve professor compensation

Was actually thinking more about a Wicked Weed frequent customer program, but, sure, those other things are important too, maybe.

[FU3]

You would be incorrect for the housing component . As for the Chief of Staff my understanding is she has one direct report ( an Administrative Assistant … another new position). If you choose to believe that our current President is worth the money that is your option. I believe if you had conversations with faculty and staff you would not find that a very shared view.

I still believe I am not incorrect on the housing component.
I thank you for saying that I have the option “to believe that our current President is worth the money”. How very kind of you.

Your beliefs seem to come to you like fever dreams.

[FUATT]

Lots of stuff going on for sure. Glad JD is at the helm

seems like its all about $$$$. He said it as an example but if another conf offerred the right $$ they would consider leaving

Keys to Timmons in the summer

As far as consultants, mixed results for SD. They always charge tons of money.
Hoping this study gives some tangible recommendations

*Tangible, laser-like relevant, highly-customized, actionable, cost-EFFECTIVE, unfiltered (never happen, but we can dream) recommendations

Actionable recommendations that provide multiple routes of optionality that can be synthesized with other forward looking, outward facing, focused initiatives to produce tangible results.

[Paul C]

Sound like Furman, along with 8 of the 10 SoCon schools are “opting in” to the House Settlement. Jason positioned it as “opting in” allows you to achieve your potential in athletics and not “opting in” inhibits your ability to compete. Also disclosed that VMI was opting in. So who are the two schools not opting in? I’d guess Citadel and Wofford.

[KingPaladin]

Sound like Furman, along with 8 of the 10 SoCon schools are “opting in” to the House Settlement. Jason positioned it as “opting in” allows you to achieve your potential in athletics and not “opting in” inhibits your ability to compete. Also disclosed that VMI was opting in. So who are the two schools not opting in? I’d guess Citadel and Wofford.

Definitely inhibits getting transfers and the NIL budget mostly

[FUBeAR]

Sound like Furman, along with 8 of the 10 SoCon schools are “opting in” to the House Settlement. Jason positioned it as “opting in” allows you to achieve your potential in athletics and not “opting in” inhibits your ability to compete. Also disclosed that VMI was opting in. So who are the two schools not opting in? I’d guess Citadel and Wofford.

Definitely inhibits getting transfers and the NIL budget mostly

Really not knowledgeable on all this rig-a-ma-roll ...

Doesn't the "NIL Budget" (and hopefully, NIL "Collectives") - with the exception of administrative costs borne by Athletics to encourage/facilitate/manage REAL NIL - go away under the Opt-In model?

Thought athletes would be paid via RevShare and REAL NIL-generated-revenue ONLY, if a school opts in.

No?

Are we still going to have booster-provided / booster-managed slush funds to buy Players if we opt-in?

[Affirm]

You would be incorrect for the housing component . As for the Chief of Staff my understanding is she has one direct report ( an Administrative Assistant … another new position). If you choose to believe that our current President is worth the money that is your option. I believe if you had conversations with faculty and staff you would not find that a very shared view.

I still believe I am not incorrect on the housing component.
I thank you for saying that I have the option “to believe that our current President is worth the money”. How very kind of you.

Your beliefs seem to come to you like fever dreams.

Thanks for clarification. Affirm acknowledges health issues as another cause for Affirm’s need to resign.

[KingPaladin]

Sound like Furman, along with 8 of the 10 SoCon schools are “opting in” to the House Settlement. Jason positioned it as “opting in” allows you to achieve your potential in athletics and not “opting in” inhibits your ability to compete. Also disclosed that VMI was opting in. So who are the two schools not opting in? I’d guess Citadel and Wofford.

Definitely inhibits getting transfers and the NIL budget mostly

Really not knowledgeable on all this rig-a-ma-roll ...

Doesn't the "NIL Budget" (and hopefully, NIL "Collectives") - with the exception of administrative costs borne by Athletics to encourage/facilitate/manage REAL NIL - go away under the Opt-In model?

Thought athletes would be paid via RevShare and REAL NIL-generated-revenue ONLY, if a school opts in.

No?

Are we still going to have booster-provided / booster-managed slush funds to buy Players if we opt-in?

NIL directly from the school (which isn't supposed to happen now but it definitely does), might go away but I'd assume better players might get additions from boosters/sponsors to stick around etc since the rev share payments would have to be "equal" with title 9