Good stuff here from Jay G. Tate.
Current athletic director Allen Greene, hired in January 2018, recently took the unusual step of cutting all program budgets by 10 percent. This is believed to be the first time Auburn has taken such a drastic step as a department — and it's sure to elicit concern throughout the Auburn sphere.
How can a program like Auburn's, which generates revenues of nearly $150 million, suddenly find itself in need of belt-tightening?
The answer is tricky.
"We are reallocating our budgets and making priority investments to build on our future," Greene said in a statement to AuburnSports.com. "By becoming more efficient, it will allow for us to commit to the things that are most impactful to our department: the student-athlete experience, elite-level coaching staffs and current and future facility upgrades."
Let's start here: Revenues are flat across the league these days. The Southeastern Conference enjoyed an unrivaled surge in earnings while the SEC Network, launched in August 2014, grew like a weed. Carriage rates were (and are) sky high, but SEC fans have an insatiable appetite when it comes to coverage of their favorite teams.
The network now is close to reaching maximum market penetration, which has affected athletic departments insofar as revenues are leveling off. The era of spectacular growth is nearing its end.
Auburn didn't prioritize capital spending during the halcyon days. Jacobs serially flirted with the idea of revamping the north end zone of Jordan-Hare Stadium, but never settled on an actionable plan. He spoke of the need for a new, football-only facility, but never settled on an actionable plan. So he committed instead to a stop-gap solution — a $28-million renovation to the locker room and recruiting areas. It was completed last summer and has become the football program's exclusive spot to host recruits.
Still, football needs more. The Board of Trustees recently asked to fast-track the football-only building, but the athletic department has struggled to make any firm commitments.
It simply doesn't have enough money to fund a $70-million project — even one that deserves to be fast-tracked.
Plenty more in the story. Free to all who click.
1 Replies
842 Views