Recent Comments

Join The Key Player's Club to read comments posted in exclusive content and its members only forum.

i don't think 6% is out of reach.
i have quite a bit in stocks at the moment. i tend to gravitate towards the high yield dividend stocks. i have quite a bit in a capital stick that pays (paid) a high monthly dividend, however i've lost 1/3 of the principal due to stock price decline. the dividend has also been cut by half since i bought. i'm trying to hold on until my dividends basically wash out my principal loses then take that money and start a bond/cd ladder.

the entire point of the organization is to win games and win titles, not make money.

Getting away from this ethos has caused most of the problems in college athletics over the past few decades.

I'll take either after the last decade.

Gotcha. Out of curiosity, what kind of roi are you hoping to achieve here? It's going to be less than the stock market since you are minimizing risk but im interested in what is achievable

You can do this through any of the major brokerages. I have done it with TD Ameritrade (now Schwab) where they have a specific part of the site/app where you can pick between bonds and CDs from a variety of banks and companies with varied durations and interest rates to customize your desired risk profile and cash flow schedule.

Fidelity is a great tool and I've done something similar with CDs through Alliant where I bank, I'm assuming many other places would offer the same.

Well I dont think balloons help winning and yet they all have insane balloon budgets so that.

There's quite the "sima" to cross with the language barrier between a 'hoo and a Brasillian.

What else are athletic departments doing besides spending money on things that they believe will increase their chances of winning?

the entire point of the organization is to win games and win titles, not make money. Having money gives the organization a better shot at the goal of winning games, but beyond that it's useless to an athletic department.

if you can "overspend" on a sport (but not so much that you go bankrupt) and end up with an excellent team that wins a ton of games, or even a championship - that is called success. It may lead to a few lean years while the debts are cleared but that gets into semantics - what's better? an 80% winning percentage for 3 years and a 40% win rate for 3 years, back and forth, or winning 50-60% of games steadily each year?

You are correct. But our current average rating is 89.11, which would've been a top 20, if not top 15 average rating over the past three seasons. Id take that.