Let’s talk money, honey

Our friends at DumpDorrell.com point out that although football revenues under Karl Dorrell have gone up in each of his first three season as we noted this morning, UCLA’s football finances are only now approaching where they were during the Bob Toledo Era.

Interesting idea, so we went back to the U.S. Department of Education’s Equity in Athletics Web site. There are a lot of numbers there, so it took a while to dig out.

Toledo was coach from the 1996 season through 2002. The DoE has financials back to the 2000 football season, so let’s take a look and compare the two in detail, noting also whether the USC game was played at the Rose Bowl, an important factor in team financials:

>> Under Toledo:

• 2000: $19.79 million gross; $5.10 million net (6-6 team, USC at home)
• 2001: $17.26 million gross; $6.10 million net (7-4 team, at USC)
• 2002: $19.89 million gross; $3.88 million net (8-5 team, USC at home)

>> Under Dorrell:

• 2003: $17.23 million gross, $5.73 million net (6-7 team, at USC)
• 2004: $18.48 million gross, $5.74 million net (6-6 team, USC at home)
• 2005: $19.60 million gross, $6.14 million net (10-2 team, at USC)

From what we know of 2006, the financial performance was a little better and the USC game was at the Rose Bowl, so Dorrell should have surpassed Toledo’s 2002 revenues last season. More important is that Dorrell has been as good or better an earner than Toledo and if early reports that season-ticket sales for the 2007 season are the best yet – thank you, Notre Dame – Dorrell may not have Toledo’s 20-game win streak or one Rose Bowl appearance to brag about, but he’s put more money in the bank . . . so far.

Comments

[Urban Bruin]

Please fire Dorrell. He is an embarrasment to the UCLA community.

[DumpDorrell]

My point was that REVENUES went down when Dorrell took over, and those stats confirm that. I dont think you can credit Dorrell with PROFIT, which is a function of so many other things outside of his control. Looking at REVENUES, the first 3 Dorrell years (which included the 10-2 season) overall brought in $1.5 million LESS in revenues than the fading 3 years of the Toledo era. Meanwhile, across town revenues were jumping significantly for obvious reasons from the FIRST year Carroll took over. I too looked at those numbers many months ago. I infer from those numbers that Carroll brought in an excitement to the program from the get go and Dorrell did not. I would say Dorrell deflated expectations and interest in the program when he was hired, hence the precipitous decline in revenues the first year, EVEN AFTER several mediocre year of the fading Toledo era.

[DumpDorrell]

Rich

It appears that your blog has gotten off to a good start, you have people talking about it. Someone on one of the UCLA boards pointed out that you might actually have some official role of sorts with UCLA basketball during games at Pauley. That you might be a record keeper of some sort. Is this true? This raises another question. Do you have any official role with UCLA or Morgan Center, or have any conflicts of interest with UCLA at all? I am not casting aspersions or making any insinuations at all but would like to set the record straight for everyone who is talking about it. Thank you.

[Patrick Meighan]

"Looking at REVENUES, the first 3 Dorrell years (which included the 10-2 season) overall brought in $1.5 million LESS in revenues than the fading 3 years of the Toledo era."

DD,

The fading 3 years of the Toledo era (2000-2002) included 2 $c games at the Rose Bowl.

The first 3 years of the Dorrell era (2003-2005) included only 1 $c game at the Rose Bowl.

Please understand that years where the $c game is played at the Rose Bowl tend to generate more revenue for the football team than years where the $c game is played in the Mausoleum.

"My point was that REVENUES went down when Dorrell took over, and those stats confirm that."

Again, "those stats" are an apples to oranges comparison. But the REVENUES generated by Karl Dorrell's football team in the last three years (2004-2006, which included 2 $c games at the Rose Bowl) have exceeded the REVENUES generated by Bob Toledo's football team in his last three years (2000-2002, which also included 2 $c games in the Rose Bowl). And 2007 season ticket sales are already improved over '04-'06.

REVENUES are up, dude. Sorry.

Patrick Meighan
UCLA Class of '95

[DumpDorrell]

Patrick

Now who is being selective?? Nice that your analysis conveniently leaves Dorrell's first and dismal year out of the equation, a year in which we were picked to win the Pac-10 outright. My comments were truthful. If you wanted to compare "apples to apples" then your comments were deceptive.

Apples to apples, we can compare Toledo's last 2 year to Dorrell's first 2. Certainly you would agree that the Toledo era was disappointing fans to say the least those last fading 2 years, yet those 2 years brought in $1.44 million MORE in revenues than Dorrell's first 2 years. In those 2 years we played a game at the RB and a game at SuC, obviously, just like the first 2 years of the Dorrell era. Now this isn't really apples to apples, because we aren't taking into consideration inflation, nor the increase in popularity of college football, the increase in licensing fees, TV rights, etc. etc., which would WIDEN the gap in revenues between the Toledo and Dorrell eras.

If you want to include Dorrell's first 4 years then lets include Toledo's last 4 years, which includes the 1999 season. IIRC that year had revenues in excess of $20 million. If as Rich points out revenues for 2006 were slightly better than 2005 then that year is around $20 million, so essentially a wash with 1999. So, the last 4 years of the fading Toledo era brought in roughly $1.5 million MORE revenues than the entire 4 year Dorrell era.

So the truth is that Dorrell has cost us in revenues. Meanwhile, across town, revenues have skyrocketed. IIRC SuC is making closer to $27 million in revenues, up from $21 million when Carroll took over. The first year of the Carroll era brought revenues UP. There was an excitement in SuC football UNLIKE when Dorrell started at UCLA, where there was the precipitous DECLINE in revenues.

SuC is practically making up in REVENUES what Carroll costs them in coaching salary. Imagine that??!! Hire a good coach, and you make more money?! What a bizarre concept. Dorrell and UCLA are STILL trying to make it back to Toledo's big years in terms of revenues now a DECADE later and, again, with college football more popular than ever, and with ticket prices and licensing and TV rights bringing in more revenues than ever. Dorrell has cost UCLA far more than what we are paying him.

[Hugo G]

Sorry guys, all this wrangling of figures is pretty meaningless without adjusting for inflation and having a common base year by which to compare these figures. Taking the available figures and adjusting for inflation (or use the Bureau of Labor & Statistics inflation calculator) quite a different picture emerges. First off, from 2000 to 2002, revenue under Toledo's regime dropped 27%, astounding considering we still had some star power back then (DeShaun Foster anyone?) and USC wasn't what it is today. Under Dorrell, revenue has grown an anemic 1%, not even close to covering nominal inflation. In all likelihood Dorrell has been breaking even at best. Furthermore, Toledo's best year beats Dorrell's best by about $600,000 dollars. But before the DumpDorrell people use this as another excuse, football coaches are judged on the outcomes of games, not in financial statements. I would probably agree Dorrell is in over his head, but it seems he's growing into the job and hiring good people to help him and you have to commend a guy for knowing good talent. I mean, look at that defense! If Dorrell is to be dumped, dump him because UCLA loses games, because the team has too many bad apples, or for having an uninteresting product on the field...not because they're not turning in quarterly profits. UCLA football isn't on the stock market.

----------------
All figures in have been adjusted for inflation and are in 2007 dollars

Toledo
2000 - $6,158,768.29
2001 - $7,162,557.31
2002 - $4,484,947.86

Dorrell

2003 - $6,475,803.10
2004 - $6,318,831.45
2005 - $6,537,669.53

[Hugo G.]

Oh I also have to point out that I only adjusted NET INCOME figures for inflation, not gross. So if you think the numbers are just too low, it's because of that.

[DumpDorrell]

Hugo

2 things.

1) the post was about finances NOT about whether Dorrell should be fired. That is a separate discussion that would obviously involve performance on the field.

2) the point was REVENUES not income. So although you go through and adjust for inflation, as I point out above that needs to be done, your post does not address the issue of REVENUES. Rich does talk about net income, but he missed the point of my bringing up finances to begin with, and I addressed that. Dorrell has little control over net income but some control over revenues. That is why revenues matters in this discussion.

[Hugo]

DumpDorrell,

What do you think is the difference between Revenues and Income? I can tell you that there isn't much (accounting wise). Revenues are summed up and put in an income statement. These revenues get added up and collapsed into a one-line entry known as "gross income." But we all know you can have $20 million in gross income and yet have $20 million in expenses. So, the other one-line item we pay attention to is Net Income. The only other thing you can say about revenues are that perhaps its too reliant on one stream, but I don't think any of us here have any information about UCLA Football's books to know how diverse its revenue streams are.

So DD, revenues and income are part of the same pie. Agreed? So does Dorrell have control over revenues? Indirectly, yes. If his team does well, they sell more season tickets and merchandise. But aside from that, what other revenues do you think he has control (directly or otherwise) over?

Say what you will about Dorrell, but the fact is if we fired Dorrell today, financially speaking, he left the Bruins better off than Toledo did. But who cares about finances except for UCLA bookeepers? I want them to win!

[Peter]

Dorrell can only really affect the revenues. If UCLA spends more money one year, it's going to hurt the income for that year, and the coach has no ability to control that. Because of that, LOOK AT THE REVENUES.

[DumpDorrell]

Hugo

As Peter points out, only REVENUES matter. Dorrell's performance is highly correllated to REVENUES. He has little control over costs ... so NET INCOME means nothing when evaluation the job Dorrell is doing. Looking at REVENUES Dorrell the football program has seen a DECLINE in the Dorrell era in REAL TERMS. We have yet to get back to the Toledo era in REAL TERMS.

We are not therefore better off.