OT: So criticizing WBB is against the law?

[oldtimer67]

Right. Precisely. The bottom-line question (and I apologize if this wasn't clear) is "is the school spending too much money". If, like Frese, the school pays out something around 400k and other sources kick in another 600k, then that's awesome.

You'll note that in the same Sun article they pointed out that Randy Edsall, who made well over a million dollars in '14, was paid less than 500k by the state. A lot of big-time contracts are structured that way. To the late DaveSNJ's point, that's where the monetary value of a coach's reputation and performance is realized.

But that's not the case with Rutgers. Per the NCAA filing, virtually all of CVS's money comes from RU.

To address the last point first, have you considered that most of CVS' money comes from RU because the Rutgers fan base and community don't provide the financial support that is available at Maryland? If you have considered this and are about to argue that RU should just accept the mediocrity that results, have you considered the same effect on other sports? Like MBB? How many other schools have you looked at for comparison? Or are you cherry picking Maryland because it fits your agenda?

Now to the first point: in your own words, "Is the school spending too much money?" This finally presents the argument as what it really is, a VALUE question/judgement. Your argument is just that in your opinion, RU is not getting enough VALUE for its money. Others here disagree. A lot of each opinion is based on what we value, or consider valuable to the University. Some people think the totality of CVS' contribution over roughly 20 years is worth the money. You fail to recognize that what you get paid is based on what you have done, not what you will do. You are also failing to consider that what you are paid is also based on what you will accept. If your employer is paying less than what others pay comparable or lesser people, it is your choice to stay there or leave. Brenda Frese is apparently happy to take what Maryland pays her. Maybe CVS would not stay at RU for less. In the latter case, maybe RU (not you) made the value judgement that she was worth that amount of money it took to keep her. The biggest problem with your argument is that you are arguing that the value is not there for a sport that has more post season wins in the last 2 years, 5 years, etc. than any other sport at Rutgers.

For your argument to make sense, why not pick a sport that has had performance comparable to MBB. How about field hockey or volleyball. They lose money every year and have had zero success. The VALUE of those programs has to be zero. There is effectively, no reasonable value at all in those programs, even compared to MBB, except, of course, for the opportunity they give to female athletes, which is of no apparent value to you. You can't say that about WBB or most other sports at RU. Why not argue for firing their coaches? Or get rid of those programs all together? You don't make those arguments because they don't fit your agenda.

And, please don't repeat that those sports are not the subject of this thread. They aren't a subject of this thread because you and the OP don't want them to be. They dilute or destroy your argument.

You would rather pay the WBB coach 400K per year and have results like MBB. That is what your VALUE system considers OK. That is not for me. Just opinion right?

 

[RU4Real]

To address the last point first, have you considered that most of CVS' money comes from RU because the Rutgers fan base and community don't provide the financial support that is available at Maryland? If you have considered this and are about to argue that RU should just accept the mediocrity that results, have you considered the same effect on other sports? Like MBB? How many other schools have you looked at for comparison? Or are you cherry picking Maryland because it fits your agenda?

Now to the first point: in your own words, "Is the school spending too much money?" This finally presents the argument as what it really is, a VALUE question/judgement. Your argument is just that in your opinion, RU is not getting enough VALUE for its money. Others here disagree. A lot of each opinion is based on what we value, or consider valuable to the University. Some people think the totality of CVS' contribution over roughly 20 years is worth the money. You fail to recognize that what you get paid is based on what you have done, not what you will do. You are also failing to consider that what you are paid is also based on what you will accept. If your employer is paying less than what others pay comparable or lesser people, it is your choice to stay there or leave. Brenda Frese is apparently happy to take what Maryland pays her. Maybe CVS would not stay at RU for less. In the latter case, maybe RU (not you) made the value judgement that she was worth that amount of money it took to keep her. The biggest problem with your argument is that you are arguing that the value is not there for a sport that has more post season wins in the last 2 years, 5 years, etc. than any other sport at Rutgers.

For your argument to make sense, why not pick a sport that has had performance comparable to MBB. How about field hockey or volleyball. They lose money every year and have had zero success. The VALUE of those programs has to be zero. There is effectively, no reasonable value at all in those programs, even compared to MBB, except, of course, for the opportunity they give to female athletes, which is of no apparent value to you. You can't say that about WBB or most other sports at RU. Why not argue for firing their coaches? Or get rid of those programs all together? You don't make those arguments because they don't fit your agenda.

And, please don't repeat that those sports are not the subject of this thread. They aren't a subject of this thread because you and the OP don't want them to be. They dilute or destroy your argument.

You would rather pay the WBB coach 400K per year and have results like MBB. That is what your VALUE system considers OK. That is not for me. Just opinion right?

You spend too much time writing for too little return.

With respect to your first paragraph, clearly the RU fan base and community don't contribute to the programs on a par with other schools. Duh. That's why the topic at hand is all about how much money the school is spending on the program, moreso than how much the coaches make from all sources of income.

I don't even know where to start with the rest of it, it's all over the place. For openers, I have said repeatedly that this isn't a question of perceived value or "exposure" or anything like that. This is a straight-up, dollars and cents ROI question. And from that perspective, the argument is pretty much unassailable - Rutgers spends more on its women's basketball program than it could ever hope to get in return.

 

[oldtimer67]

You spend too much time writing for too little return.

With respect to your first paragraph, clearly the RU fan base and community don't contribute to the programs on a par with other schools. Duh. That's why the topic at hand is all about how much money the school is spending on the program, moreso than how much the coaches make from all sources of income.

I don't even know where to start with the rest of it, it's all over the place. For openers, I have said repeatedly that this isn't a question of perceived value or "exposure" or anything like that. This is a straight-up, dollars and cents ROI question. And from that perspective, the argument is pretty much unassailable - Rutgers spends more on its women's basketball program than it could ever hope to get in return.

Wow. Don't know what you do for a living, but if you think ROI is not about VALUE you have a problem. You have SAID that it is not a question of perceived value, but you have also complained about the decline in her record as justification for your argument. You have at least implied that if she was winning national championships her salary would be acceptable. So, if that is not about VALUE, you have me completely stumped.

 

[RU4Real]

Wow. Don't know what you do for a living, but if you think ROI is not about VALUE you have a problem. You have SAID that it is not a question of perceived value, but you have also complained about the decline in her record as justification for your argument. You have at least implied that if she was winning national championships her salary would be acceptable. So, if that is not about VALUE, you have me completely stumped.

I don't recall complaining about "the decline in her record". Please show me where I said that.

I don't know where you took Eco, but there's a very fundamental concept - that same concept that renders things like "Antiques Roadshow" fundamentally stupid - "something is only worth ("value") what someone is willing to pay for it."

DaveSNJ, in this thread, has repeatedly extolled the "value" of having Stringer as head coach. I have repeatedly asked him to show his work. So I'll ask you the same thing.

The women's basketball team sucks a million dollars a year out of the school's coffers. It will never be profitable until such time as A) coaching costs are reduced and B) attendance is increased. One of those two things, alone, won't close the gap.

You think that Stringer "adds value", then quantify it. Give me numbers. Otherwise you're just another one of the rubes on "Antiques Roadshow" who really believes that their 80 year old oil painting of three ducks and a dog is worth a hundred grand.

 

[oldtimer67]

I don't recall complaining about "the decline in her record". Please show me where I said that.

I don't know where you took Eco, but there's a very fundamental concept - that same concept that renders things like "Antiques Roadshow" fundamentally stupid - "something is only worth ("value") what someone is willing to pay for it."

DaveSNJ, in this thread, has repeatedly extolled the "value" of having Stringer as head coach. I have repeatedly asked him to show his work. So I'll ask you the same thing.

The women's basketball team sucks a million dollars a year out of the school's coffers. It will never be profitable until such time as A) coaching costs are reduced and B) attendance is increased. One of those two things, alone, won't close the gap.

You think that Stringer "adds value", then quantify it. Give me numbers. Otherwise you're just another one of the rubes on "Antiques Roadshow" who really believes that their 80 year old oil painting of three ducks and a dog is worth a hundred grand.

This will be my last post on this subject.

Please see the bolded section of your post above. It should be (painfully for you) obvious that Rutgers is willing to pay CVS what it is in reality paying her. Therefore by your own definition, she is worth what she is being paid.

BTW: Thanks for dropping the ROI argument. Here are a couple of definitions of ROI from a quick search of the Internet. "ROI measures the amount of return on an investment relative to the investment’s cost." "Return on investment (ROI) is the benefit to an investor resulting from an investment of some resource." If you are measuring ROI on something tangible, such as something whose value can be determined by selling it, the calculation is straight forward. If you are measuring ROI, or trying to, for something intangible, like a WBB program, that can't have its value determined by selling it, the AMOUNT of RETURN or BENEFIT (see above) is purely subjective. In other words it is opinion. Mine against yours. We should simply agree to disagree.

BYE.

 

[RU4Real]

This will be my last post on this subject.

Please see the bolded section of your post above. It should be (painfully for you) obvious that Rutgers is willing to pay CVS what it is in reality paying her. Therefore by your own definition, she is worth what she is being paid.

BTW: Thanks for dropping the ROI argument. Here are a couple of definitions of ROI from a quick search of the Internet. "ROI measures the amount of return on an investment relative to the investment’s cost." "Return on investment (ROI) is the benefit to an investor resulting from an investment of some resource." If you are measuring ROI on something tangible, such as something whose value can be determined by selling it, the calculation is straight forward. If you are measuring ROI, or trying to, for something intangible, like a WBB program, that can't have its value determined by selling it, the AMOUNT of RETURN or BENEFIT (see above) is purely subjective. In other words it is opinion. Mine against yours. We should simply agree to disagree.

BYE.

A) The point is we're paying too much, because the basketball team is fleecing the school to the tune of 1+ million a year.

B) If you don't understand that benefit means "money" then I don't know what to tell you. That definition of ROI as applies to investments has nothing to do with your conflating it to include "intangibles".

Let's put it this way - Please invest all the money you have saved for retirement with me. I'm not going to give you any money in return, but I will call you on the phone every day to tell you special you are. That will be your benefit.

Sound like a good deal?

 

[oldtimer67]

A) The point is we're paying too much, because the basketball team is fleecing the school to the tune of 1+ million a year.

B) If you don't understand that benefit means "money" then I don't know what to tell you. That definition of ROI as applies to investments has nothing to do with your conflating it to include "intangibles".

Let's put it this way - Please invest all the money you have saved for retirement with me. I'm not going to give you any money in return, but I will call you on the phone every day to tell you special you are. That will be your benefit.

Sound like a good deal?

Ok I lied. But I keep getting such great opportunities.

In A above, That is nothing but your opinion. Period. It also has nothing to do with ROI.

In B, you have gone off the deep end. If you don't understand that benefit means a lot more than money, I can't help you. Did CVS handling of the IMUS scandal have any benefit to RU? How much money did it produce? Give me dollars and cents. You are the one who applied ROI to the WBB program not me. If you can't use it for intangibles, then why did you?

Finally, thanks for bringing up the idea of INVESTMENT. The investment in the WBB program consists of other things besides the HC salary. Things like FACILITIES. Here are some questions for you. Does RU have to pay CVS more money because the facilities are so bad? Would Frese work at Maryland for what they pay her if their facilities were comparable to Rutgers? What do you think? How does the TOTAL investment in the WBB program at Maryland compare to the TOTAL investment in the WBB program at RU? Would you like to argue that the INVESTMENT portion of ROI should only include salaries? Good luck with that.

 

[RU4Real]

Ok I lied. But I keep getting such great opportunities.

In A above, That is nothing but your opinion. Period. It also has nothing to do with ROI.

In B, you have gone off the deep end. If you don't understand that benefit means a lot more than money, I can't help you. Did CVS handling of the IMUS scandal have any benefit to RU? How much money did it produce? Give me dollars and cents. You are the one who applied ROI to the WBB program not me. If you can't use it for intangibles, then why did you?

Finally, thanks for bringing up the idea of INVESTMENT. The investment in the WBB program consists of other things besides the HC salary. Things like FACILITIES. Here are some questions for you. Does RU have to pay CVS more money because the facilities are so bad? Would Frese work at Maryland for what they pay her if their facilities were comparable to Rutgers? What do you think? How does the TOTAL investment in the WBB program at Maryland compare to the TOTAL investment in the WBB program at RU? Would you like to argue that the INVESTMENT portion of ROI should only include salaries? Good luck with that.

Now you're just being obstinate.

This thread has 100% been about dollars and cents. From minute 1. YOU have chosen to repeatedly make it about something else in a lame-ass attempt to demonstrate your perception - your opinion - that throwing away a million dollars a year on the WBB program is somehow worth it.

You think that Stringer is an investment? Fine. Then you tell me, tell all of us, in very specific terms, what is the return on that investment. And tell us how her cost differentiates those returns.

We'll be waiting.

 

[DaveSNJ]

4real is arguing for the sake of arguing. He doesn't understand ROI at all and has an agenda.

 

[RU4Real]

4real is arguing for the sake of arguing. He doesn't understand ROI at all and has an agenda.

The two of you keep saying that I don't understand ROI.

You keep ignoring one fundamental question.

ROI = Return on Investment.

What. Is. The. Return.

Show it to me.

Neither of you have a case. The entirety of your argument consists of repeatedly saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. You can say that as often as you like, it doesn't make you less wrong.

 

[oldtimer67]

The two of you keep saying that I don't understand ROI.

You keep ignoring one fundamental question.

ROI = Return on Investment.

What. Is. The. Return.

Show it to me.

Neither of you have a case. The entirety of your argument consists of repeatedly saying that I don't know what I'm talking about. You can say that as often as you like, it doesn't make you less wrong.

The return is obvious to most people, it is just not enough of a return for you. See discussion on VALUE and OPINION. You keep comparing the "profit" of MBB to the loss of WBB. Why not compare the return.

I do not have the time to list all the return for WBB, most have already been listed in this thread. If you don't understand what they are, try: overall wins (positive every year), winning seasons, postseason appearances, postseason wins, final four appearances, national recognition for the program, national recognition for the coach, all-americans, WNBA players, the IMUS situation, academic, athletic and life changing opportunities for hundreds of young women many of whom would not have had any opportunity like it, joy for many RU fans, etc., etc.

Now try MBB on for size and see what kind of return you can muster for all of your profit.

One of the many flaws in your argument is that college sports are not supposed to be about making money. They are supposed to be about providing opportunity for students, pride and recognition for the University, a connection to the school for its alumni, donors and fans, and entertainment for the student body, faculty, alumni, donors and fans.

Everyone knows (except maybe you) that it is common for only two sports to produce a "profit." Everyone also knows that that profit is then reinvested in other sports that do not produce the revenue to support that sport. The amount invested should be commensurate with the amount needed to make that sport successful. See the TOTAL INVESTMENT discussion above. In rare cases when the profit generated exceeds what is spent on athletics (usually when there is a smaller number of sports sponsored by the AD) that money then goes to support academic projects. Everyone also knows that success in athletics provides other benefits to the University (sometimes called the Flutie effect) such as increased applications that result in higher quality students, increased donations and more faculty applications. This has happened at Rutgers, too.

You can continue to deny all this, but everyone else sees right through you. You have an anti-WBB agenda and everyone knows it.
Enough.

 

[RU4Real]

The return is obvious to most people, it is just not enough of a return for you. See discussion on VALUE and OPINION. You keep comparing the "profit" of MBB to the loss of WBB. Why not compare the return.

I do not have the time to list all the return for WBB, most have already been listed in this thread. If you don't understand what they are, try: overall wins (positive every year), winning seasons, postseason appearances, postseason wins, final four appearances, national recognition for the program, national recognition for the coach, all-americans, WNBA players, the IMUS situation, academic, athletic and life changing opportunities for hundreds of young women many of whom would not have had any opportunity like it, joy for many RU fans, etc., etc.

Now try MBB on for size and see what kind of return you can muster for all of your profit.

One of the many flaws in your argument is that college sports are not supposed to be about making money. They are supposed to be about providing opportunity for students, pride and recognition for the University, a connection to the school for its alumni, donors and fans, and entertainment for the student body, faculty, alumni, donors and fans.

Everyone knows (except maybe you) that it is common for only two sports to produce a "profit." Everyone also knows that that profit is then reinvested in other sports that do not produce the revenue to support that sport. The amount invested should be commensurate with the amount needed to make that sport successful. See the TOTAL INVESTMENT discussion above. In rare cases when the profit generated exceeds what is spent on athletics (usually when there is a smaller number of sports sponsored by the AD) that money then goes to support academic projects. Everyone also knows that success in athletics provides other benefits to the University (sometimes called the Flutie effect) such as increased applications that result in higher quality students, increased donations and more faculty applications. This has happened at Rutgers, too.

You can continue to deny all this, but everyone else sees right through you. You have an anti-WBB agenda and everyone knows it.
Enough.

None of those things are a "Return" in the ROI sense. They're just things you enjoy. None of those things that you mentioned amounted to any tangible return to Rutgers University. And, in point of fact, you can't prove that any of those things you mentioned would be eliminated, in whole or in part, if we had a WBB coach who only made 400k a year.

I could buy any car to suit my needs (as could most people). German sports sedans please me. They make me happy. I enjoy them. So is the extra 30 grand that I spend on a car an "investment"?

Of course not. It's just money that I spend because I want to. But it is, categorically, an expense. It is in no way, shape or form an investment.

I'm not disagreeing with the point that "college sports aren't about making money". All I'm saying is that for the "value" inherent in a women's basketball program, there's no need to spend Vivian Stringer money on a coach. It's nothing more than throwing $100 bills into the fireplace.

 

[oldtimer67]

So the only "tangible benefit" acceptable to you is money. But then you agree that college sports are not about making money. If they are not about making money then a) there is no point to your argument, and, b) please tell us what they are about.

 

[RU4Real]

So the only "tangible benefit" acceptable to you is money. But then you agree that college sports are not about making money. If they are not about making money then a) there is no point to your argument, and, b) please tell us what they are about.

Holy f*ck. Are you for real? Seven pages and you keep missing the point?

It's simple - No, college sports are not about "making money". But they're also not about losing money (see anything Bob Barchi has said about Rutgers Athletics in the last four years). The idea, then, is that the teams that don't "make money" should "lose" as little as possible. C.Vivian Stringer is one of the highest paid WBB coaches in the country. I say there's no reason for it. When her contract is up, give her a gold watch and a bitchin' party and then hire somebody for half the cost. The overall impact on Rutgers, in general, and Rutgers Athletics, in particular, will be negligible.

 

[DaveSNJ]

I explained how an athletic department works however you refuse to grasp the concept. Its in the thread look for it yourself.

 

[RU4Real]

I explained how an athletic department works however you refuse to grasp the concept. Its in the thread look for it yourself.

lol.... you "explained" to me how an athletic department works? That's just retarded. I guarantee you I know more about the internal machinations of RU athletics than you do. By a LOT.

If you know so much about how RU athletics works, then answer me this question: What were 2015 donated contributions to the WBB program as a percentage of revenue?

Here's another one: How many WBB players received scholarships for the academic year '14-15 and what is the average cost of attendance assessed to those scholarships?

 

[oldtimer67]

Holy f*ck. Are you for real? Seven pages and you keep missing the point?

It's simple - No, college sports are not about "making money". But they're also not about losing money (see anything Bob Barchi has said about Rutgers Athletics in the last four years). The idea, then, is that the teams that don't "make money" should "lose" as little as possible. C.Vivian Stringer is one of the highest paid WBB coaches in the country. I say there's no reason for it. When her contract is up, give her a gold watch and a bitchin' party and then hire somebody for half the cost. The overall impact on Rutgers, in general, and Rutgers Athletics, in particular, will be negligible.

I will try to go slowly. All but usually two college sports are about losing money. The amount of money spent on them is commensurate with what is needed to be successful. The money that is spent on them is called an investment. The investment can be in many forms, including salaries and facilities. The amount a sport loses is commensurate with the size of the investment. The size of the investment depends on the results you wish to achieve.

All the above decisions are made by the professionals hired by the university such as the President, Board of Governors and Athletic Director. All the decisions you have disagreed with have been made by those professionals. As someone pointed out above (it wasn't you was it), a program or a coach is worth what someone is willing to pay for it/them. Rutgers obviously thinks CVS is worth what it pays her. Here is a question for you. If Rutgers lets CVS go to save money and another school offers her what she is currently making at Rutgers, is she worth it? Is your argument then wrong? Will you then start a campaign to spend the savings on MBB?

You say letting CVS go will have negligible results. Maybe the professionals at RU disagree. Maybe they don't want to have to deal with the headline "Fired Rutgers coach becomes 3rd to reach 1000 wins." Maybe they respect her and understand how hard it has become to win at RU (see MBB program for example). RU just paid over twice CVS' salary to a guy who was making less than a third of that. Was that necessary? Isn't that a waste of money? How many years before his improving performance is as good as CVS declining performance? Will you start a thread about the overpaid MBB coach? Maybe they had to pay him that much because of the state of the facilities. The same facilities that WBB is forced to share.

BTW: Citing Barchi on athletic spending shows your desperation. Please tell us if you are in the Barchi camp on this. Do you agree with the stance on athletic spending that you referred to? If so at least it will make your arguments more understandable.

 

[RU4Real]

The amount of money spent on them is commensurate with what is needed to be successful. The money that is spent on them is called an investment.

Wrong.

That, right there, couldn't be more wrong if you actually sat down, whiskey in one hand and Geritol in the other, and said "I'm gonna sit here until I think of the most wrong thing that has ever been said in the History of Wrong." If there were a Lifetime Achievement Award for Wrongness, they would give one to you and then discontinue all future awards out of sheer futility. Compared to you, George Bush was right about Iraq WMDs and Hillary Clinton was dead-on-balls correct about the Benghazi attack being secondary to an anti-Islamic video. In the shadow of your wrongness, Bill Buckner would be awarded the Golden Glove for his efforts in 1986. Your wrongness makes the Yugo look like a really good idea.

 

[DaveSNJ]

lol.... you "explained" to me how an athletic department works? That's just retarded. I guarantee you I know more about the internal machinations of RU athletics than you do. By a LOT.

If you know so much about how RU athletics works, then answer me this question: What were 2015 donated contributions to the WBB program as a percentage of revenue?

Here's another one: How many WBB players received scholarships for the academic year '14-15 and what is the average cost of attendance assessed to those scholarships?

Wow I didn't know I was conversing with Hobbs. So you must be an athletic director - what school(s) and for how long.

No need for the "wall of text", explain yourself succinctly, if you can. By the way you are my puppet I am laughing at you each time you respond.

 

[RU4Real]

By the way you are my puppet I am laughing at you each time you respond.

In your dreams, freakboy.

I've explained enough to you. At this point there are two choices - either you're stupid, or you're acting stupid.

 

[oldtimer67]

Wrong.

That, right there, couldn't be more wrong if you actually sat down, whiskey in one hand and Geritol in the other, and said "I'm gonna sit here until I think of the most wrong thing that has ever been said in the History of Wrong." If there were a Lifetime Achievement Award for Wrongness, they would give one to you and then discontinue all future awards out of sheer futility. Compared to you, George Bush was right about Iraq WMDs and Hillary Clinton was dead-on-balls correct about the Benghazi attack being secondary to an anti-Islamic video. In the shadow of your wrongness, Bill Buckner would be awarded the Golden Glove for his efforts in 1986. Your wrongness makes the Yugo look like a really good idea.

In your dreams, freakboy.

I've explained enough to you. At this point there are two choices - either you're stupid, or you're acting stupid

Yep! When you run out of reasonable arguments, the only thing left is personal attacks.
BYE

 

[RUScrew85]

Wrong.

That, right there, couldn't be more wrong if you actually sat down, whiskey in one hand and Geritol in the other, and said "I'm gonna sit here until I think of the most wrong thing that has ever been said in the History of Wrong." If there were a Lifetime Achievement Award for Wrongness, they would give one to you and then discontinue all future awards out of sheer futility. Compared to you, George Bush was right about Iraq WMDs and Hillary Clinton was dead-on-balls correct about the Benghazi attack being secondary to an anti-Islamic video. In the shadow of your wrongness, Bill Buckner would be awarded the Golden Glove for his efforts in 1986. Your wrongness makes the Yugo look like a really good idea.

Hey hey hey. They found Iraqi WMDs. LOLOLOL

 

[Piscataway]

Wrong.

That, right there, couldn't be more wrong if you actually sat down, whiskey in one hand and Geritol in the other, and said "I'm gonna sit here until I think of the most wrong thing that has ever been said in the History of Wrong." If there were a Lifetime Achievement Award for Wrongness, they would give one to you and then discontinue all future awards out of sheer futility. Compared to you, George Bush was right about Iraq WMDs and Hillary Clinton was dead-on-balls correct about the Benghazi attack being secondary to an anti-Islamic video. In the shadow of your wrongness, Bill Buckner would be awarded the Golden Glove for his efforts in 1986. Your wrongness makes the Yugo look like a really good idea.

I pee'd a little reading this.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Muddling through the diatribe-fest about ROI, I think ru4real needs to introduce sunk costs. The "return" most often mentioned is old news. CVS is nearing 70 years old. Time to, at a minimum, develop a solid succession plan with an eye on current fiscal realities. If the Colors can move on from Peyton Manning and the Packers frim Brett Farve, we should be able to move on from CVS.

 

[oldtimer67]

Muddling through the diatribe-fest about ROI, I think ru4real needs to introduce sunk costs. The "return" most often mentioned is old news. CVS is nearing 70 years old. Time to, at a minimum, develop a solid succession plan with an eye on current fiscal realities. If the Colors can move on from Peyton Manning and the Packers frim Brett Farve, we should be able to move on from CVS.

1) how do you know there is not a succession plan?
2) she will move on, in 2 years, with 1000 wins, and the gratitude and thanks of a university which has had some of the greatest success in women's college basketball.

 

[RU4Real]

Muddling through the diatribe-fest about ROI, I think ru4real needs to introduce sunk costs. The "return" most often mentioned is old news. CVS is nearing 70 years old. Time to, at a minimum, develop a solid succession plan with an eye on current fiscal realities. If the Colors can move on from Peyton Manning and the Packers frim Brett Farve, we should be able to move on from CVS.

Actually - you might have missed it. I briefly touched on sunk costs way back on page 1 or 2, when Dave and the Old Guy first started trying to convince the class that "cost" and "investment" are the same thing.

I'd hate to see what shenanigans they're trying to pull on the IRS.