Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="NJCuse97, post: 2592803, member: 5058"] The ranking in the article is % of increase. If we were one of the top spenders in 2003 (wow) then it stands to reason that we would have a lower % of increase to stay "on par". The question of course is how do we get under par. That to me seems to be driven by staff salaries, coaches and support staff. Coaches are getting more and support staffs are getting larger. I think we'll spend more in time. Other than Pitt and Louisville, we are the last one to join the conference, and Louisville and Pitt are the beneficiaries of low spending in 2003 on a list like this. We spent almost twice what UL spent in 2003 vs a what 12% difference in their favor now? If we spent $3-$5 million more on salaries and staff, we'd be near the top of the conference in spending (somewhere between #3-#6). Who cares how that compares to 2003? [/QUOTE]