(05-31-2016 02:26 PM)oldtiger Wrote:  

(05-31-2016 01:09 PM)Coog Engineer Wrote:  

(05-30-2016 05:58 PM)vcoog Wrote:  UH is fine for the time being, but Houston, or any American school investing heavily in athletics will flop if they don't get at least close to positive cash flow in athletics. We are subsidizing the hell out of our football team and it's not sustainable.

I get the general logic of being "sustainable" but I've been a Coog for the last 34 years when I enrolled in 1982, and even back then the entire athletic program was subsidized and there would be articles in the paper saying how it's not sustainable and that something has to give.

Yet, here we are in 2016 and the program is still in the red, yet it's still here.

The athletics programs aren't going away.

Surely the program was self sustaining when it was in the equivalent of a P5 conference in the SWC. You guys were winning big, playing big name programs, had nationally recognized coaches, playing in large home venues within a conference that was guaranteed a New Year's day bowl game when there were only 4 of them.

Any other program here would drool over such a windfall as that.

I realize that when Lewis/Yeoman left, the last few years in the SWC were pretty dry for the Cougars and fans didn't have the same reasons for attending, but surely here were years of profitable athletics given the near perfect environment Cougar fans had.

Also, during the Dome years, we were actually renting it for our home games with no revenue for parking, concessions, etc. End result, we only profited from near-sellout crowds, and even then, profits were small.

Is Houston number one pick now???

No.

(06-03-2016 10:04 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Is Houston number one pick now???

No.

#2 pick now.
Cheers!

(06-03-2016 04:49 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 10:04 AM)isidnirb Wrote:  Is Houston number one pick now???

No.

#2 pick now.
Cheers!

Wait... I cant count that high!!