(03-30-2015 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In this period of time, the ACC is not guaranteed enough money to keep up with the SEC and B1G, but there IS enough money on the table for the ACC to earn it - by putting multiple teams into the New Year's 6 Bowls and earning lots of NCAA Units. It's a very uncomfortable situation... but then, one could argue that the ACC got a little TOO comfortable between 2001 and 2010.

Each of the P5 conferences receives the same $50+ million for being part of the CFP. The ACC is disadvantaged as compared to the other four P5 confernces by its contract bowl payout of $27.5 million vs. $40 million for each of the other four. Getting a second team into the New Year's Six is not a major payout - it's $6 million for a semifinal bid and $4 million for an access bowl berth. The issue is really the swing between one conference else getting a third invite ($8-10 million access bowl/semifinal $) and another conference getting only its contract bowl invite (zero access bowl/semifinal $). The ACC needs to get a second NY6 bid every year to keep pace.

(04-03-2015 07:22 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 09:10 PM)nole Wrote:  The same FSU BOT in this month's trustee meeting had lengthy discussions about the lack of a conference network and their concerns about what that means to FSU.

They also discussed concerns about seeing the ACC left out of playoffs compared to other power 5 conferences.

Will be interesting.......but if the ACC Conf network (one WITH REVENUE) doesn't get announced soon......I think you will see nervousness all over the conference.

Nole do you have a link to this? This seems rather important. Smoke...fire kinda thing.

http://trustees.fsu.edu/meetings/


See the March 6 webcast link.

It is a 4 hour meeting and there were multiple discussion on these topics (so I can't guide you to a specific time).

(04-03-2015 10:10 AM)nole Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 07:22 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 09:10 PM)nole Wrote:  The same FSU BOT in this month's trustee meeting had lengthy discussions about the lack of a conference network and their concerns about what that means to FSU.

They also discussed concerns about seeing the ACC left out of playoffs compared to other power 5 conferences.

Will be interesting.......but if the ACC Conf network (one WITH REVENUE) doesn't get announced soon......I think you will see nervousness all over the conference.

Nole do you have a link to this? This seems rather important. Smoke...fire kinda thing.

http://trustees.fsu.edu/meetings/


See the March 6 webcast link.

It is a 4 hour meeting and there were multiple discussion on these topics (so I can't guide you to a specific time).

Thanks for the link. The majority of it takes place beginning around hour 3.

Much more emphasis/concern on the perception of ACC football and it possibly impacting FSU then the lack of a conference network.

Resentment/annoyance toward Tobacco Road favoritism made obvious by a few trustees.

I have maintained from the start of the ACC Armageddon scenario back in 2011 the future of the conference rests with FSU and UNC, both in terms of their success and in terms of their willingness to work with each other.

With UNC under a cloud at the moment and FSU again getting anxious in terms of their place in the P5 heirarchy in relation to other football powers, things might become more unsettled. A successful conference network could help.

Time will tell.

Finally, FSU being tied for 5th in the state of Florida's top state universities measurements rankings was a slight surprise. Was there a reason why there was not more talk from the trustees about that topic than there was about athletics?

Cheers,
Neil

(04-03-2015 08:03 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In this period of time, the ACC is not guaranteed enough money to keep up with the SEC and B1G, but there IS enough money on the table for the ACC to earn it - by putting multiple teams into the New Year's 6 Bowls and earning lots of NCAA Units. It's a very uncomfortable situation... but then, one could argue that the ACC got a little TOO comfortable between 2001 and 2010.

Each of the P5 conferences receives the same $50+ million for being part of the CFP. The ACC is disadvantaged as compared to the other four P5 confernces by its contract bowl payout of $27.5 million vs. $40 million for each of the other four. Getting a second team into the New Year's Six is not a major payout - it's $6 million for a semifinal bid and $4 million for an access bowl berth. The issue is really the swing between one conference else getting a third invite ($8-10 million access bowl/semifinal $) and another conference getting only its contract bowl invite (zero access bowl/semifinal $). The ACC needs to get a second NY6 bid every year to keep pace.

Agreed, but the difference is only $12.5 million in comparison with the Big 12 and PAC (worse case scenario when ND is not the OB opponent) while it can be as much as $27.5 million when comparing it with the SEC or B1G depending on which conference the ACC plays in the Orange Bowl that year.

In time, I believe the disparity between the ACC and the B12/PAC can be negated by the projected ACC's NCAA bb units. But the gap between the lesser three P5 and the B1G and SEC will be harder to close.

The PAC isn't truly in direct competition with the power twosome in the P5 but both the ACC and the Big 12 are. Which is why they are considered more vulnerable. I like the ACC's chances more so than the short bus conference, but as with all things...

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-03-2015 07:31 PM)omniorange Wrote:  Was there a reason why there was not more talk from the trustees about that topic than there was about athletics?

Yes. FSU's BoT is as "good ol' boy" as it gets in Florida. They're more or less incompetent.

As for the actual university performance ranking you are talking about, FSU lags behind most other FL universities in both % of undergrads and grad students with STEM degrees (2 of the 10 metrics used in the ranking, and receiving - I believe - 1 point apiece out of a max of 5 apiece). While STEM degrees are good and well, I'm not sure why only those degrees matter in terms of judging a university's "performance". This ranking came about a couple years ago when Rick Scott, "the jobs Governor", wanted to limit universities from offering humanities degrees (among other things). But FSU being a female-only school for the first half of the 20th century means that the oldest colleges on campus are humanities, social sciences, art and music-related. So FSU has a larger enrollment by percentage in some of these programs than most other Florida universities. It also hurts FSU that it shares its Engineering school with FAMU. It's been a tumultuous "relationship" over the years and the school is worse off for it, including having a smaller enrollment than for engineering schools at comparably sized universities (per the consultant that was recently hired by the State to study possible "fixes" to engineering). FSU needs to increase STEM enrollment simply for the fact of research purposes. But even then it's unlikely to result in a substantial change in STEM percentage any time soon. The only way to improve in this ranking is to try and max out in the other metrics. (Almost every school saw improvements in their "total points" from this year versus last year. Sounds like friendly accounting is already being employed by schools in this high-stakes game of state revenue.)

It's also interesting how this ranking differs from the State's pre-eminence "ranking", in which FSU meets 11 of 12 metrics, and no other school (save UF) meets more than 3 or 4.

(04-03-2015 07:44 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 08:03 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-30-2015 02:11 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In this period of time, the ACC is not guaranteed enough money to keep up with the SEC and B1G, but there IS enough money on the table for the ACC to earn it - by putting multiple teams into the New Year's 6 Bowls and earning lots of NCAA Units. It's a very uncomfortable situation... but then, one could argue that the ACC got a little TOO comfortable between 2001 and 2010.

Each of the P5 conferences receives the same $50+ million for being part of the CFP. The ACC is disadvantaged as compared to the other four P5 confernces by its contract bowl payout of $27.5 million vs. $40 million for each of the other four. Getting a second team into the New Year's Six is not a major payout - it's $6 million for a semifinal bid and $4 million for an access bowl berth. The issue is really the swing between one conference else getting a third invite ($8-10 million access bowl/semifinal $) and another conference getting only its contract bowl invite (zero access bowl/semifinal $). The ACC needs to get a second NY6 bid every year to keep pace.

Agreed, but the difference is only $12.5 million in comparison with the Big 12 and PAC (worse case scenario when ND is not the OB opponent) while it can be as much as $27.5 million when comparing it with the SEC or B1G depending on which conference the ACC plays in the Orange Bowl that year.

In time, I believe the disparity between the ACC and the B12/PAC can be negated by the projected ACC's NCAA bb units. But the gap between the lesser three P5 and the B1G and SEC will be harder to close.

The PAC isn't truly in direct competition with the power twosome in the P5 but both the ACC and the Big 12 are. Which is why they are considered more vulnerable. I like the ACC's chances more so than the short bus conference, but as with all things...

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

Uh oh. Them be fightin' words. The #goacc ninja Swofford fan boys are going to come for you.

The biggest concern for FSU athletics should be the over 50% booster support between 2014 and '15. It was something like a $11-$12 million drop in support.

(04-07-2015 07:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The biggest concern for FSU athletics should be the over 50% booster support between 2014 and '15. It was something like a $11-$12 million drop in support.

You know how I know you're [not smart]?

That was a one-time deal that included contributions specifically towards the IPF. I know this has been mentioned multiple times on this site...

(04-07-2015 08:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The biggest concern for FSU athletics should be the over 50% booster support between 2014 and '15. It was something like a $11-$12 million drop in support.

You know how I know you're [not smart]?

That was a one-time deal that included contributions specifically towards the IPF. I know this has been mentioned multiple times on this site...

Yes, I'm dumb for not reading every thread about FSU.

Interesting that your own Board of Trustees member didn't seem to know that and expressed significant concern, and that your AD didn't answer with an explanation to that point. Of course, several members were making questionable comments, so I shouldn't be surprised.

But honestly, I think I heard them say it dropped from $21 million to $9 million in one year. Only pulling in $9 million a year in athletic donations is piss poor for having a football team coming off 27-1 run the past two seasons.

Doing a quick search for athletic donations, the first one I found was 2008 numbers. FSU pulled in over $25 million in donations that year. So considering that 2008 number, the numbers described in the video, I think they said a drop from $21 million to $9 million, it is the $9 million number seems to be the oddity...and frankly, is a major cause for concern. It is well below what would be expected, and would rank somewhere around 42nd or 43rd in 2008...around Indiana Hoosier's level...out of 99 reported D1A teams that year. I believe it is less than Pitt raises, and Pitt sucks at athletic fundraising and has had a flat out cluster f of an athletic department the last five years.

Considering FSU's on-field success, if the true number for this year's athletic fundraising is only $9 million in donations, FSU has major problems in fundraising, and it is something that needs to be addressed immediately.

(04-08-2015 05:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The biggest concern for FSU athletics should be the over 50% booster support between 2014 and '15. It was something like a $11-$12 million drop in support.

You know how I know you're [not smart]?

That was a one-time deal that included contributions specifically towards the IPF. I know this has been mentioned multiple times on this site...

Yes, I'm dumb for not reading every thread about FSU.

Interesting that your own Board of Trustees member didn't seem to know that and expressed significant concern, and that your AD didn't answer with an explanation to that point. Of course, several members were making questionable comments, so I shouldn't be surprised.

But honestly, I think I heard them say it dropped from $21 million to $9 million in one year. Only pulling in $9 million a year in athletic donations is piss poor for having a football team coming off 27-1 run the past two seasons.

Doing a quick search for athletic donations, the first one I found was 2008 numbers. FSU pulled in over $25 million in donations that year. So considering that 2008 number, the numbers described in the video, I think they said a drop from $21 million to $9 million, it is the $9 million number seems to be the oddity...and frankly, is a major cause for concern. It is well below what would be expected, and would rank somewhere around 42nd or 43rd in 2008...around Indiana Hoosier's level...out of 99 reported D1A teams that year. I believe it is less than Pitt raises, and Pitt sucks at athletic fundraising and has had a flat out cluster f of an athletic department the last five years.

Considering FSU's on-field success, if the true number for this year's athletic fundraising is only $9 million in donations, FSU has major problems in fundraising, and it is something that needs to be addressed immediately.

Here are the numbers I have on FSU booster donations:

2006
$17,252,784.00

2007
$22,751,726.00

2008
$25,540,569.00

2009
$25,440,385.00

2010
$21,734,674.00

2011
$18,293,737.00

2012
$28,025,329.00

2013
$18,894,097.00

2014
$28,600,000.00


Couple of things to note about FSU and fundraising.

*These numbers are reasonable numbers for competitive football program, but by no means elite.

*FSU is very unique in that...it is a poor school in a poor region. If you truly study FSU, the summation would be..."how they hell do these guys compete with the major football players of the world". There is a lot more behind that....but in short, it is all but a miracle FSU can compete with the money players out there.

*FSU actually fun raises very well if you understand FSU's donor base. An all girls school until the 50s and all the state's wealth went to the 'mens school' (UF) for generations....and still does in large part. Also a part of this was FSU was loaded with traditional 'women's professions' that don't pay as well and haven't produced generations of high salaried donors.

*I would argue that if you compared the donor base/history of FSU against other ACC schools say like UNC/UVA......FSU easily out fundraises overall.....and ESPECIALLY outraises when you factor in potential to fundraise. FSU doesn't have the billionaires UVA has for example that could buy and sell FSU.....yet they don't raise much.

(04-08-2015 06:54 PM)nole Wrote:  

(04-08-2015 05:57 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 08:28 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(04-07-2015 07:46 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The biggest concern for FSU athletics should be the over 50% booster support between 2014 and '15. It was something like a $11-$12 million drop in support.

You know how I know you're [not smart]?

That was a one-time deal that included contributions specifically towards the IPF. I know this has been mentioned multiple times on this site...

Yes, I'm dumb for not reading every thread about FSU.

Interesting that your own Board of Trustees member didn't seem to know that and expressed significant concern, and that your AD didn't answer with an explanation to that point. Of course, several members were making questionable comments, so I shouldn't be surprised.

But honestly, I think I heard them say it dropped from $21 million to $9 million in one year. Only pulling in $9 million a year in athletic donations is piss poor for having a football team coming off 27-1 run the past two seasons.

Doing a quick search for athletic donations, the first one I found was 2008 numbers. FSU pulled in over $25 million in donations that year. So considering that 2008 number, the numbers described in the video, I think they said a drop from $21 million to $9 million, it is the $9 million number seems to be the oddity...and frankly, is a major cause for concern. It is well below what would be expected, and would rank somewhere around 42nd or 43rd in 2008...around Indiana Hoosier's level...out of 99 reported D1A teams that year. I believe it is less than Pitt raises, and Pitt sucks at athletic fundraising and has had a flat out cluster f of an athletic department the last five years.

Considering FSU's on-field success, if the true number for this year's athletic fundraising is only $9 million in donations, FSU has major problems in fundraising, and it is something that needs to be addressed immediately.

Here are the numbers I have on FSU booster donations:

2006
$17,252,784.00

2007
$22,751,726.00

2008
$25,540,569.00

2009
$25,440,385.00

2010
$21,734,674.00

2011
$18,293,737.00

2012
$28,025,329.00

2013
$18,894,097.00

2014
$28,600,000.00


Couple of things to note about FSU and fundraising.

*These numbers are reasonable numbers for competitive football program, but by no means elite.

*FSU is very unique in that...it is a poor school in a poor region. If you truly study FSU, the summation would be..."how they hell do these guys compete with the major football players of the world". There is a lot more behind that....but in short, it is all but a miracle FSU can compete with the money players out there.

*FSU actually fun raises very well if you understand FSU's donor base. An all girls school until the 50s and all the state's wealth went to the 'mens school' (UF) for generations....and still does in large part. Also a part of this was FSU was loaded with traditional 'women's professions' that don't pay as well and haven't produced generations of high salaried donors.

*I would argue that if you compared the donor base/history of FSU against other ACC schools say like UNC/UVA......FSU easily out fundraises overall.....and ESPECIALLY outraises when you factor in potential to fundraise. FSU doesn't have the billionaires UVA has for example that could buy and sell FSU.....yet they don't raise much.

If you are down to under $10 million for 2015, there is something drastically wrong, and it has zip to do with anything above. Hopefully, either the figure is wrong or represents something else not comparable to those numbers above.

"If you are down to under $10 million for 2015, there is something drastically wrong, and it has zip to do with anything above. Hopefully, either the figure is wrong or represents something else not comparable to those numbers above. "


The info you are referring to is as of 2:37 in the video. It is referring to money forwarded to the athletic dept by the boosters, NOT gifts the boosters have raised. Also, the 2015 year is at 1/3/2015, so the fiscal year is not complete.

If you look at the figures, the boosters raise more money than they forward to the athletic dept on an annual basis....most likely due to endowment gifts.

Also......

Per the Trustee meeting:

*For the Capital Campaign, as of 1/3/2015, the Boosters have commitments totaling $187 Million plus. Fiscal year to date (1/3/2015), Boosters have over $16 Million (Noted at 2:32 in the video).



There is nothing 'drastically' wrong or any major trend issue with FSU boosters donations.....basically on pace...and if you look at facilities, built and endowment growth.....great improvement.

(04-08-2015 08:50 PM)nole Wrote:  "If you are down to under $10 million for 2015, there is something drastically wrong, and it has zip to do with anything above. Hopefully, either the figure is wrong or represents something else not comparable to those numbers above. "


The info you are referring to is as of 2:37 in the video. It is referring to money forwarded to the athletic dept by the boosters, NOT gifts the boosters have raised. Also, the 2015 year is at 1/3/2015, so the fiscal year is not complete.

If you look at the figures, the boosters raise more money than they forward to the athletic dept on an annual basis....most likely due to endowment gifts.

Also......

Per the Trustee meeting:

*For the Capital Campaign, as of 1/3/2015, the Boosters have commitments totaling $187 Million plus. Fiscal year to date (1/3/2015), Boosters have over $16 Million (Noted at 2:32 in the video).



There is nothing 'drastically' wrong or any major trend issue with FSU boosters donations.....basically on pace...and if you look at facilities, built and endowment growth.....great improvement.

Same reason why I laughed at our old AD Spetman saying we had a $2M shortfall a few years back. Apparently ACC revenues weren't what FSU was expecting, but FSU would've easily been able to supplement those missing dollars with money from the Boosters that hadn't already been transferred to the AD.

CrazyPaco, why didn't AD Wilcox explain the issue well during the meeting? Sadly, he's a buffoon. An ND alumus with Duke job experience, yet he's horribly inarticulate and anything but captivating. I'll just stop there, but nothing he's done has shown himself to be a leader. FSU hasn't had a good AD since about 2007, whenever Dave Hart was forced out.

Thanks for the update and explanations.