gostangs wrote:SoCal_Pony wrote:The problem with RGT is that heΓÇÖs a failure at everything that matters
Academic ranking - Down
Endowment - Down
Football Championships - Zero
NCAA BB Tourney wins - Zero
How do you have the endowment down? we are just under 2 Billion - way higher than when Turner got here. I think there has not been enough emphasis on building it vs buildings personally - but fact is it is way up. I think you are correct on the main thesis - which is that early on we were so gun shy about athletics (since all the trustees were basically the same as the scandal years and they would rather be dead than have another issue) we couldn't and didnt get aggressive until lately - and that has proven so far to be too late.
Hoping for the PAC hail mary...
Are you kidding me, gostangs???????
YouΓÇÖre one of the more reliable posters here.
When RGT took office, SMUΓÇÖs endowment was ranked #40 with ~$500k
If you know anything about the Time Value of Money, we should have seen a bump in Endowment 27 years ago as there was new optimism after the Dark Ages of Pye. That bump would be more meaningful so long ago vs recently. I donΓÇÖt know if we ever truly got that bump or not, i never investigated it. What i do know is that today, UCLA has the 40th highest endowment at $4B
And if my math is correct….$4B is a long ways away from $2B
And for the tired old ΓÇÿwe used the monies for building upgradesΓÇÖ argument, IΓÇÖm not buying it. ALL top schools do upgrades, MOST do more as they have MORE students and therefore MORE facilities. Regardless, we havenΓÇÖt done even $1B worth of building upgrades.
So yes, i say under RGT, endowment is down.
But I am glad you posted. Didn’t you come on this site ~ a month ago and claim our endowment was greater than TCU’s which i think FF said was around $2.5B. You said ours was higher, now you say ours is UNDER $2B….what gives?????