JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

So what? Rutgers and Maryland didn't care about how much more it would cost to "compete". I'd be willing to take a lot of L's for another $50M-70M.

(04-04-2024 12:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

Thanks.

The grass is not always greener on the other side.

The "cost to compete" is one of the first things that a President should look at before he caves into the demands of fans, big money donors and rogue athletic directors.

I've always understood that it's cheaper to compete for a conference championship in the ACC than it is in the SEC or Big Ten. Now, that alone is good for a CFP autobid.

I also understand that to get an at-large bid to the playoffs, you have to win a certain number of games - which is much harder to do in the SEC (new Big Ten remains to be seen). OTOH, you also need to play a certain number of ranked opponents, which is harder in the ACC because there aren't enough of them.

The thing FSU and Clemson fans are concerned about is competing for NATIONAL championships. The biggest concern, I think, is being able to hire and/or retain enough good players (via NIL or the direct payments rumored to be coming soon) - not to mention playing and retaining quality coaches. All teams in all conferences compete for players and coaches, so I don't see how being in the ACC saves any money there.

Bottom line: I like to think of myself as a reasonable fan who understands that there's more to winning than just how much revenue your school brings in. That said, I am concerned that VT might be effectively priced out of the later rounds of the playoffs, even if they have an easier path to the first rounds.

(04-04-2024 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've always understood that it's cheaper to compete for a conference championship in the ACC than it is in the SEC or Big Ten. Now, that alone is good for a CFP autobid.

I also understand that to get an at-large bid to the playoffs, you have to win a certain number of games - which is much harder to do in the SEC (new Big Ten remains to be seen). OTOH, you also need to play a certain number of ranked opponents, which is harder in the ACC because there aren't enough of them.

The thing FSU and Clemson fans are concerned about is competing for NATIONAL championships. The biggest concern, I think, is being able to hire and/or retain enough good players (via NIL or the direct payments rumored to be coming soon) - not to mention playing and retaining quality coaches. All teams in all conferences compete for players and coaches, so I don't see how being in the ACC saves any money there.

Bottom line: I like to think of myself as a reasonable fan who understands that there's more to winning than just how much revenue your school brings in. That said, I am concerned that VT might be effectively priced out of the later rounds of the playoffs, even if they have an easier path to the first rounds.

Appalachian State University won three NATIONAL championships in a row, all in a playoff format.
Now they would be had pressed to even get an invitation in the current or proposed playoff format.

Any reasonable fan has got to realize that the system as it is currently configured only works for about 15-20 schools, but as long as there are enough gullible fans out there that keep sending money to overpaid coaches and athletic administrators in hopes of chasing a "dream" of a "NATIONAL" championship in collegiate football the system will stay broken.
The system needs an overhaul, where limitless supplies of money will not be the determining factor as to which teams win or lose.

(04-04-2024 01:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've always understood that it's cheaper to compete for a conference championship in the ACC than it is in the SEC or Big Ten. Now, that alone is good for a CFP autobid.

I also understand that to get an at-large bid to the playoffs, you have to win a certain number of games - which is much harder to do in the SEC (new Big Ten remains to be seen). OTOH, you also need to play a certain number of ranked opponents, which is harder in the ACC because there aren't enough of them.

The thing FSU and Clemson fans are concerned about is competing for NATIONAL championships. The biggest concern, I think, is being able to hire and/or retain enough good players (via NIL or the direct payments rumored to be coming soon) - not to mention playing and retaining quality coaches. All teams in all conferences compete for players and coaches, so I don't see how being in the ACC saves any money there.

Bottom line: I like to think of myself as a reasonable fan who understands that there's more to winning than just how much revenue your school brings in. That said, I am concerned that VT might be effectively priced out of the later rounds of the playoffs, even if they have an easier path to the first rounds.

Appalachian State University won three NATIONAL championships in a row, all in a playoff format.
Now they would be had pressed to even get an invitation in the current or proposed playoff format.

Any reasonable fan has got to realize that the system as it is currently configured only works for about 15-20 schools, but as long as there are enough gullible fans out there that keep sending money to overpaid coaches and athletic administrators in hopes of chasing a "dream" of a "NATIONAL" championship in collegiate football the system will stay broken.
The system needs an overhaul, where limitless supplies of money will not be the determining factor as to which teams win or lose.

100% TRUE.
(Don't hold your breath)

Duke and UNC spend 100% and 50% more on basketball than NC State. Don't go searching the books and the published accounting. I live here with all three attended all three, have worked for all three. Just trust me.

Yet this April Duke and UNC asses are sitting home wondering if they should pull for NC State or not. Their ptb are pondering if things were better in the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's. 80's, and 90's than the situation now where those two are forced and expected to carry all the load.

The point is once the games begin, you have to survive and advance. The extra 180,000 basketball tickets or extra 350,000 football tickets you can sell don't win the ball game. Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Tennessee, Texas, and TAMU are poster children for the notion that while nice, money doesn't actually buy everything.

Money can get you to the threashold - a place where you have a chance but that's really as far as it takes you.

(04-04-2024 12:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

The Main Board is not a free board. No board is here. The cost of it is in adhering to the rules.

I use equity in athletics for all of the numbers I use. The numbers were the ones cited by the source and they were hardly compared on an even basis.

That said the point of the article was Whit Babcock illustrating that they are losing coaches because they can't outbid schools from other conferences which can offer more.

Nobody has ever claimed that any comparison was fair on a NET basis. That is why I always use Gross Total Revenue as opposed to NET Revenue. On a tax form you can't hide your Gross Total Revenue with a lot of reported expenses. Gross Total Revenue will remain the most viable and potentially apples to apples comparison available. The Big 10 prefers media revenue only because it is the only statistic in which they have the lead. You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools. But the 52 million dollar estimate for Big 12 payouts was the most absurd mentioned by the Virginia newspaper. Having the SEC's 2022 number against that made it all the more laughable. Escalators and new contract kick in next year 75-77 million not counting bowl and tourney creds will be the SEC's total. 80 million was the total Warren arrived at before Petitti reduced it about 100 million. So that's a we'll see as well. The Big 10 and SEC will be within a million or 2 of each other either way, the ACC should be in the mid 40s and the Big 12 will likely be between the mid 30's and 40.

Gross Total Revenue bypasses the shenanigans and just shows everyone who is taking in the most revenue. From there it is much easier to understand which schools have the most means to accomplish their objectives. And that is the reality. The rest is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

(04-04-2024 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 12:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

The Main Board is not a free board. No board is here. The cost of it is in adhering to the rules.

I use equity in athletics for all of the numbers I use. The numbers were the ones cited by the source and they were hardly compared on an even basis.

That said the point of the article was Whit Babcock illustrating that they are losing coaches because they can't outbid schools from other conferences which can offer more.

Nobody has ever claimed that any comparison was fair on a NET basis. That is why I always use Gross Total Revenue as opposed to NET Revenue. On a tax form you can't hide your Gross Total Revenue with a lot of reported expenses. Gross Total Revenue will remain the most viable and potentially apples to apples comparison available. The Big 10 prefers media revenue only because it is the only statistic in which they have the lead. You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools. But the 52 million dollar estimate for Big 12 payouts was the most absurd mentioned by the Virginia newspaper. Having the SEC's 2022 number against that made it all the more laughable. Escalators and new contract kick in next year 75-77 million not counting bowl and tourney creds will be the SEC's total. 80 million was the total Warren arrived at before Petitti reduced it about 100 million. So that's a we'll see as well. The Big 10 and SEC will be within a million or 2 of each other either way, the ACC should be in the mid 40s and the Big 12 will likely be between the mid 30's and 40.

Gross Total Revenue bypasses the shenanigans and just shows everyone who is taking in the most revenue. From there it is much easier to understand which schools have the most means to accomplish their objectives. And that is the reality. The rest is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

"You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools." Really - what school am I making it seem like everything is fine?

The problem with a love affair with Gross Total Revenue is that the University can transfer money from any outside source to the Athletic Department and make revenue suddenly appear. They can also make and looming expenditure disappear. They can also take revenue off the books where too much revenue showing in public is a problem. The only reason you are mentioned in this post is because you started the topic about an ACC school on a site where not all ACC fans can post.

(04-04-2024 12:46 PM)b2b Wrote:  So what? Rutgers and Maryland didn't care about how much more it would cost to "compete". I'd be willing to take a lot of L's for another $50M-70M.

Rutgers and MD have to provide a direct subsidy to their sports programs of about $30 and $15 million a year. This is a direct gift from "Daddy" so to speak because their revenues are so low. It's been this way since they moved to the B10. Full distribution has only helped marginally.

What MD knows now, compared to what Brit Kirwan told them in 2012 are two very different things. Brit and the Big 10 promised $20 M more a year in revenue. They didn't tell MD they would lose $15 million a year in football gate revenue by being in the B10 or that the actual annual cost of being in the Big Ten represented $30 M more a year.

Whenever someone tries to bamboozle you with Gross numbers, put your hand on your wallet and hold it tight. Net is all that matters.

You will see an umbrage laced comment from JR which is an existential disagreement between Gross and Net and what the two things mean in the world. For some, the apparent Gross of something is all that matters. The actual details don't matter - Gross is a feeling. Net is stark unhappy reality. Gross appeals to people's aspirations and dreams. Net pays your bills.

I used to have to deal with employees on this. Some only saw the Gross and could not comprehend that the actual Gross meant nothing, that what mattered is what they would take home. If you have enough employees with enough in certain jobs they will inevitably attempt to compare paychecks and fixate on a descreprenecy of less than a dollar a check.

For those who thought a minor difference in their Gross or Base Rate of Pay was crime, it did not matter to them that I could explain that all the difference between FICA, SS, State Retirement, and several other deductions evened that out so that their Net was the same. Now I agreed that $22.73 is not as much as $22.75 an hour, but they net from two was the same. Anyway, I ascribe those who see Gross first as "feelers" they want to feel a certain way. Net people are bottom liners who have no feelings.

(04-04-2024 02:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 12:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

The Main Board is not a free board. No board is here. The cost of it is in adhering to the rules.

I use equity in athletics for all of the numbers I use. The numbers were the ones cited by the source and they were hardly compared on an even basis.

That said the point of the article was Whit Babcock illustrating that they are losing coaches because they can't outbid schools from other conferences which can offer more.

Nobody has ever claimed that any comparison was fair on a NET basis. That is why I always use Gross Total Revenue as opposed to NET Revenue. On a tax form you can't hide your Gross Total Revenue with a lot of reported expenses. Gross Total Revenue will remain the most viable and potentially apples to apples comparison available. The Big 10 prefers media revenue only because it is the only statistic in which they have the lead. You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools. But the 52 million dollar estimate for Big 12 payouts was the most absurd mentioned by the Virginia newspaper. Having the SEC's 2022 number against that made it all the more laughable. Escalators and new contract kick in next year 75-77 million not counting bowl and tourney creds will be the SEC's total. 80 million was the total Warren arrived at before Petitti reduced it about 100 million. So that's a we'll see as well. The Big 10 and SEC will be within a million or 2 of each other either way, the ACC should be in the mid 40s and the Big 12 will likely be between the mid 30's and 40.

Gross Total Revenue bypasses the shenanigans and just shows everyone who is taking in the most revenue. From there it is much easier to understand which schools have the most means to accomplish their objectives. And that is the reality. The rest is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

"You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools." Really - what school am I making it seem like everything is fine?

The problem with a love affair with Gross Total Revenue is that the University can transfer money from any outside source to the Athletic Department and make revenue suddenly appear. They can also make and looming expenditure disappear. They can also take revenue off the books where too much revenue showing in public is a problem. The only reason you are mentioned in this post is because you started the topic about an ACC school on a site where not all ACC fans can post.

And why is that? There is only 1 of which I am aware and it is a violation to discuss moderation in public.

(04-04-2024 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 02:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 12:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

The Main Board is not a free board. No board is here. The cost of it is in adhering to the rules.

I use equity in athletics for all of the numbers I use. The numbers were the ones cited by the source and they were hardly compared on an even basis.

That said the point of the article was Whit Babcock illustrating that they are losing coaches because they can't outbid schools from other conferences which can offer more.

Nobody has ever claimed that any comparison was fair on a NET basis. That is why I always use Gross Total Revenue as opposed to NET Revenue. On a tax form you can't hide your Gross Total Revenue with a lot of reported expenses. Gross Total Revenue will remain the most viable and potentially apples to apples comparison available. The Big 10 prefers media revenue only because it is the only statistic in which they have the lead. You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools. But the 52 million dollar estimate for Big 12 payouts was the most absurd mentioned by the Virginia newspaper. Having the SEC's 2022 number against that made it all the more laughable. Escalators and new contract kick in next year 75-77 million not counting bowl and tourney creds will be the SEC's total. 80 million was the total Warren arrived at before Petitti reduced it about 100 million. So that's a we'll see as well. The Big 10 and SEC will be within a million or 2 of each other either way, the ACC should be in the mid 40s and the Big 12 will likely be between the mid 30's and 40.

Gross Total Revenue bypasses the shenanigans and just shows everyone who is taking in the most revenue. From there it is much easier to understand which schools have the most means to accomplish their objectives. And that is the reality. The rest is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

"You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools." Really - what school am I making it seem like everything is fine?

The problem with a love affair with Gross Total Revenue is that the University can transfer money from any outside source to the Athletic Department and make revenue suddenly appear. They can also make and looming expenditure disappear. They can also take revenue off the books where too much revenue showing in public is a problem. The only reason you are mentioned in this post is because you started the topic about an ACC school on a site where not all ACC fans can post.

And why is that? There is only 1 of which I am aware and it is a violation to discuss moderation in public.

What moderation is being discussed in public? I am not discussing moderation, you just brought it up.

(04-04-2024 02:36 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 02:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 02:14 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 02:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 12:00 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 38,001
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7782
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #1Whit Babcock of Virginia Tech Speaks Out About His Limitations:
https://cardinalnews.org/2024/04/04/virg...r-schools/

Future projections of the Big 10's budget are given to last year's reported SEC numbers and future projections of the Big 12 revenue instead of all being actual or all being projected, but the important information is given using actual information for public institutions and not private ones, and the article sounded like a tacit acknowledgement that a move might help address some of the issues, without stating so. And the writer gave Virginia's situation as well, though no public official from UVa was cited.
My Dad's advice to me:

1. Earn your own way and pay for everything you want. That's the only way to prevent others from having control over you.

2. Stay away from stupid people. Stupid people get you killed!

JR started this thread on the free board that is not free. So I brought it it here.

The Sportico Source of this information indicated you can't get information from private schools, but of course you can from Equity in Athletics. Of course any school can lie regarding information they send to regulators. More importantly if you don't know a schools particular accounting methods, you end up comparing apples to coconuts.

When it comes to showing a profit with Equity in Athletics the four kings of the ACC are Notre Dame $115M, Duke $50M, Stanford $36 M, and Syracuse $31 M. Wake Forest, SMU, and Miami account in such a way as to zero out anything.

The SW Virginia article makes the error of presenting income as a budget at times. Income is not a budget and a budget is not something the auditors came up with when it was time to write up the annual report.

Here is the bottom line in the ACC:

Some schools have to hide the money they are netting off sports because they are almost ashamed at their riches. The number one indicator of a potentially great revenue stream is a paid off set of football and basketball venues (Duke raises its hand). The second indicator is your ability to pass off the costs of cleaning up a contaminated legacy structure onto another entity (NC State and UNC raise your hand). The third indicator is the ability to dip directly into the University's funds to pay a bill, defease debt, or build a sinking fund (UVa raise your hand).

Net is money you have after paying all the bills and paying all your needed sinking funds.

The article that JR linked to was an attempt to explain to VT fans why the financials of moving to the SEC or B10 would not change their status level in those conferences, they would be near the bottom of spending despite the additional TV and playoff income. VT and UNC were the first to do a deep dive into the SEC and B10 and what you get for moving. They did this a decade ago and both came up with needing an extra $30-$50 m just to stay even at their current conference status level. Those costs have only gone up. To compete in the top third of the SEC or B10 now requires annual revenues nearing $200 M.

That's $50-60 M for UNC and $60-70M more per year for VT. You can substitute UVa for UNC and NC State for VT and get the same result.

Unsaid in FSU's bitching and moaning is Duke making a $30-50M a year annual profit in the ACC. Syracuse is making $20-30M a year in profit. Even BC turns a profit. This is part of the rich school - working class school tension that has been an issue for the last 90 years.

The Main Board is not a free board. No board is here. The cost of it is in adhering to the rules.

I use equity in athletics for all of the numbers I use. The numbers were the ones cited by the source and they were hardly compared on an even basis.

That said the point of the article was Whit Babcock illustrating that they are losing coaches because they can't outbid schools from other conferences which can offer more.

Nobody has ever claimed that any comparison was fair on a NET basis. That is why I always use Gross Total Revenue as opposed to NET Revenue. On a tax form you can't hide your Gross Total Revenue with a lot of reported expenses. Gross Total Revenue will remain the most viable and potentially apples to apples comparison available. The Big 10 prefers media revenue only because it is the only statistic in which they have the lead. You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools. But the 52 million dollar estimate for Big 12 payouts was the most absurd mentioned by the Virginia newspaper. Having the SEC's 2022 number against that made it all the more laughable. Escalators and new contract kick in next year 75-77 million not counting bowl and tourney creds will be the SEC's total. 80 million was the total Warren arrived at before Petitti reduced it about 100 million. So that's a we'll see as well. The Big 10 and SEC will be within a million or 2 of each other either way, the ACC should be in the mid 40s and the Big 12 will likely be between the mid 30's and 40.

Gross Total Revenue bypasses the shenanigans and just shows everyone who is taking in the most revenue. From there it is much easier to understand which schools have the most means to accomplish their objectives. And that is the reality. The rest is merely rearranging the deck chairs.

"You and some others here like jobbing the numbers to make it seem like everything is fine at a few schools." Really - what school am I making it seem like everything is fine?

The problem with a love affair with Gross Total Revenue is that the University can transfer money from any outside source to the Athletic Department and make revenue suddenly appear. They can also make and looming expenditure disappear. They can also take revenue off the books where too much revenue showing in public is a problem. The only reason you are mentioned in this post is because you started the topic about an ACC school on a site where not all ACC fans can post.

And why is that? There is only 1 of which I am aware and it is a violation to discuss moderation in public.

What moderation is being discussed in public? I am not discussing moderation, you just brought it up.

Sell that crap elsewhere. You brought it by making the CS/CR an "unfree" board.

That was certainly not my intention but in the interest of comity and collegiality I have retitled this thread.

(04-04-2024 01:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 01:34 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've always understood that it's cheaper to compete for a conference championship in the ACC than it is in the SEC or Big Ten. Now, that alone is good for a CFP autobid.

I also understand that to get an at-large bid to the playoffs, you have to win a certain number of games - which is much harder to do in the SEC (new Big Ten remains to be seen). OTOH, you also need to play a certain number of ranked opponents, which is harder in the ACC because there aren't enough of them.

The thing FSU and Clemson fans are concerned about is competing for NATIONAL championships. The biggest concern, I think, is being able to hire and/or retain enough good players (via NIL or the direct payments rumored to be coming soon) - not to mention playing and retaining quality coaches. All teams in all conferences compete for players and coaches, so I don't see how being in the ACC saves any money there.

Bottom line: I like to think of myself as a reasonable fan who understands that there's more to winning than just how much revenue your school brings in. That said, I am concerned that VT might be effectively priced out of the later rounds of the playoffs, even if they have an easier path to the first rounds.

Appalachian State University won three NATIONAL championships in a row, all in a playoff format.
Now they would be had pressed to even get an invitation in the current or proposed playoff format.

Any reasonable fan has got to realize that the system as it is currently configured only works for about 15-20 schools, but as long as there are enough gullible fans out there that keep sending money to overpaid coaches and athletic administrators in hopes of chasing a "dream" of a "NATIONAL" championship in collegiate football the system will stay broken.
The system needs an overhaul, where limitless supplies of money will not be the determining factor as to which teams win or lose.

100% TRUE.
(Don't hold your breath)

There is always hope that the system can be re-worked even in an environment where the players get paid and NIL can be controlled with reasonable limits.
We would, however, be better off to go back to the old style cheating. At least you knew who the guilty parties were.

You are familiar with:.... if you ain't cheatin', you ain't trying

(04-04-2024 02:21 PM)SouthernConfBoy Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 12:46 PM)b2b Wrote:  So what? Rutgers and Maryland didn't care about how much more it would cost to "compete". I'd be willing to take a lot of L's for another $50M-70M.

Rutgers and MD have to provide a direct subsidy to their sports programs of about $30 and $15 million a year. This is a direct gift from "Daddy" so to speak because their revenues are so low. It's been this way since they moved to the B10. Full distribution has only helped marginally.

What MD knows now, compared to what Brit Kirwan told them in 2012 are two very different things. Brit and the Big 10 promised $20 M more a year in revenue. They didn't tell MD they would lose $15 million a year in football gate revenue by being in the B10 or that the actual annual cost of being in the Big Ten represented $30 M more a year.

Whenever someone tries to bamboozle you with Gross numbers, put your hand on your wallet and hold it tight. Net is all that matters.

You will see an umbrage laced comment from JR which is an existential disagreement between Gross and Net and what the two things mean in the world. For some, the apparent Gross of something is all that matters. The actual details don't matter - Gross is a feeling. Net is stark unhappy reality. Gross appeals to people's aspirations and dreams. Net pays your bills.

I used to have to deal with employees on this. Some only saw the Gross and could not comprehend that the actual Gross meant nothing, that what mattered is what they would take home. If you have enough employees with enough in certain jobs they will inevitably attempt to compare paychecks and fixate on a descreprenecy of less than a dollar a check.

For those who thought a minor difference in their Gross or Base Rate of Pay was crime, it did not matter to them that I could explain that all the difference between FICA, SS, State Retirement, and several other deductions evened that out so that their Net was the same. Now I agreed that $22.73 is not as much as $22.75 an hour, but they net from two was the same. Anyway, I ascribe those who see Gross first as "feelers" they want to feel a certain way. Net people are bottom liners who have no feelings.

I don't care either way about the gross vs net arguments or how schools cook their books. Any way you slice it both Maryland and Rutgers were BOTH subsidized at high rates for a P6 (at that time) before making the jump. They both jumped because they knew long term it's about survival at the highest level. Schools from the ACC (not just FSU and Clemson) are going to do the same thing.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

MD did not move for money - they blamed it on money.

(04-04-2024 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've always understood that it's cheaper to compete for a conference championship in the ACC than it is in the SEC or Big Ten. Now, that alone is good for a CFP autobid.

I also understand that to get an at-large bid to the playoffs, you have to win a certain number of games - which is much harder to do in the SEC (new Big Ten remains to be seen). OTOH, you also need to play a certain number of ranked opponents, which is harder in the ACC because there aren't enough of them.

The thing FSU and Clemson fans are concerned about is competing for NATIONAL championships. The biggest concern, I think, is being able to hire and/or retain enough good players (via NIL or the direct payments rumored to be coming soon) - not to mention playing and retaining quality coaches. All teams in all conferences compete for players and coaches, so I don't see how being in the ACC saves any money there.

Bottom line: I like to think of myself as a reasonable fan who understands that there's more to winning than just how much revenue your school brings in. That said, I am concerned that VT might be effectively priced out of the later rounds of the playoffs, even if they have an easier path to the first rounds.

*For now.

Unfortunately, much of the benefits of competing at the highest level will start to skew towards a smaller number of conferences/schools who draw the most eyeballs (or are grandfathered in). See: NIT tournament, CFP money payout, etc. Soon, the only thing that will matter is being a member of the club, not necessarily how you stack up with your membership peers, or even if you've earned admission that season/year/decade.

(04-05-2024 02:33 PM)SFLFB Wrote:  

(04-04-2024 01:08 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've always understood that it's cheaper to compete for a conference championship in the ACC than it is in the SEC or Big Ten. Now, that alone is good for a CFP autobid.

I also understand that to get an at-large bid to the playoffs, you have to win a certain number of games - which is much harder to do in the SEC (new Big Ten remains to be seen). OTOH, you also need to play a certain number of ranked opponents, which is harder in the ACC because there aren't enough of them.

The thing FSU and Clemson fans are concerned about is competing for NATIONAL championships. The biggest concern, I think, is being able to hire and/or retain enough good players (via NIL or the direct payments rumored to be coming soon) - not to mention playing and retaining quality coaches. All teams in all conferences compete for players and coaches, so I don't see how being in the ACC saves any money there.

Bottom line: I like to think of myself as a reasonable fan who understands that there's more to winning than just how much revenue your school brings in. That said, I am concerned that VT might be effectively priced out of the later rounds of the playoffs, even if they have an easier path to the first rounds.

*For now.

Unfortunately, much of the benefits of competing at the highest level will start to skew towards a smaller number of conferences/schools who draw the most eyeballs (or are grandfathered in). See: NIT tournament, CFP money payout, etc. Soon, the only thing that will matter is being a member of the club, not necessarily how you stack up with your membership peers, or even if you've earned admission that season/year/decade.

Not so.

If a conference is made up of peer institutions that are true rivals, the stadiums will fill and the enthusiasm will spill over.....that's the nature of a rivalry.
Wake Forest will outdraw Notre Dame in Kenan Stadium.
Those rivalries will stay spirited and the teams as even as they are now in that all of the institutions will be on the same level (money wise).
It's not necessary to "compete at the highest level" if all of the teams you care to compete against are playing with the same resources as you are.