Our spending on this football program is outrageous!

[RF2044]

I haven't read ths entire thread, so I apologize if this observation repeats something already stated.

I don't see it as being "outrageous" at all--I see it as a short-term capital expenditure that "invests" in the foundational infrastructure for us to have a competitive, sustainable P5 football program.

It might be "outrageous" if this were the level of spending that occurs every year, but once these investments are made, we won't have to re-invest at the same level year-over-year [at least for awhile].

As such, I don't have a problem with how the money is being allocated for football. We let several things go for too long without spending $$$ on them [primarily due to lack of athletic department revenue], so that partially accounts for why the sums being spent are so high.

 

[xc84]

Some people like to bitch.

 

[SU2NASA]

Now we use a blue and gray shirts, along with a storied number that no one can wear that looks like two axes. Oh, and hard noses.

When it goes wrong, it really goes wrong. We should get credit for that.

You forgot that the two axes logo is supposedly to honor a logo that has swords instead of axes (and is a completely different shape).

 

[Cheriehoop]

Not to be a contrarian to you being a contrarian - but have you visited all the other schools? We removed crappy metal lockers with nice wooden ones, but it's still organized as a maze. The cafeteria / lounge was stuck in the mid 80s before so anything is an upgrade.

Was at UNC a couple of weeks ago - they had this massive football complex glued to the side of their stadium, place looked pretty nice. Lots of new donor suites, etc all over the place (granted they got crushed by NCSU on the same day).

They don't seem to be getting much bang for their buck if they have such top notch facilities though. Wonder if there's a good middle ground for grandiose spending to attract football recruits who actually may be less blinded by differences in the glitter than people think? Has anyone ever done a case study to determine why football recruits choose the universities they do, so schools know what factors deal the most impact? Perhaps facilities are only one element in a much more multi-faceted approach that football recruits take into account when actually making their decisions. Maybe there is a "break-even" point where spending for facilities doesn't bring the return hoped for if other more important elements aren't addressed. Maybe?? Just pure guesses on my part.

 

[cpatrocks]

Did the $23.6M include the money that was funneled through the Oneida YMCA?

 

[anomander]

Not to be a contrarian to you being a contrarian - but have you visited all the other schools? We removed crappy metal lockers with nice wooden ones, but it's still organized as a maze. The cafeteria / lounge was stuck in the mid 80s before so anything is an upgrade.

Was at UNC a couple of weeks ago - they had this massive football complex glued to the side of their stadium, place looked pretty nice. Lots of new donor suites, etc all over the place (granted they got crushed by NCSU on the same day).

I've been to Cinci, BC, Rutgers, UConn, WV, Wake, NC St., UNC, Duke, USF and a number of FCS schools that I wont list because they're not our peers. Ours stack up just fine to the majority. I was at UNC in 2006 so my point of reference is probably lacking, but, regardless I stand by my opinion that our facilities are on par with the majority of our peers. I've read multiple recruit interviews, that have visited other peer institutions, reference our facilities as being a positive, and not just the IPF.

It doesn't matter what was there before and how crappy it was, upgrades have been made. Maze or not, the football wing is nice to walk through and be in. And, the main room or auditorium in the football wing just had the leather seats with the embroidered S logo put in with individual desk tops. That's at the very least on par with what everyone is doing.

I've done the virtual tours of the football factories, it's awe inspiring. But, Phil Knight is not walking through the door. Hell, Oregon and Alabama probably have better facilities than a 3rd of the NFL.

My main point is that we're not way behind. We were, but we're not right now. We may be in 5 years, but, it's yet to be seen how they'll balance their budget in the future with the new money coming in.

As a whole the ACC is behind the rest of the country in terms of the facilities arms race. As far as the ACC goes we are now pretty much on par with the rest of the ACC besides FSU, Clemson, UNC, but compared to the other 4 P5 conferences we are still below average. The PAC12, and BIGXII have made huge strides in the past 3-4 years, as well as the B1G schools that needed to upgrade. The SEC have always had elite facilities. Some of the new stuff these programs have built are mind blowing. It's not a huge deal, but we still lack in a few areas. In comparison to the rest of the P5 schools we are still below average with our medical/training facilities, as well as players lounge. We also lack a lot of bells and whistles most of the better facilites have. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that while we have made huge strides as far as facilities go, we are still below average in comparison to the rest of the country. These tops schools are upgrading facilities every 2 or 3 years now. A lot places have better facilities then NFL franchises. It's totally out of control

 

[anomander]

They don't seem to be getting much bang for their buck if they have such top notch facilities though. Wonder if there's a good middle ground for grandiose spending to attract football recruits who actually may be less blinded by differences in the glitter than people think? Has anyone ever done a case study to determine why football recruits choose the universities they do, so schools know what factors deal the most impact? Perhaps facilities are only one element in a much more multi-faceted approach that football recruits take into account when actually making their decisions. Maybe there is a "break-even" point where spending for facilities doesn't bring the return hoped for if other more important elements aren't addressed. Maybe?? Just pure guesses on my part.

This would be smart for someone to do.

If I had to guess the order of importance it would go like this:

1. Winning
2. Relationship with staff
3. Facilities
4. Fanbase support/tradition
5. Education
6. Location

Let's face it most of these kids if they are good enough to be recruited by a P5 program they are going to go to the school that gives them the best chance to reach the NFL. While we would hope education would be a higher priority it will probably fall behind the football stuff. I'm not saying this is the case for all kids, but for a majority I bet that is the case.

 

[nzm136]

According to this report on Syracuse.com, we spent $23.6 million on the football program last year, 2013-2014. It then states that is only behind FSU, Clemson, Miami and part-time affiliate Notre Dame in the ACC.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangesport...mpact_on_the_football_progr.html#incart_river

I cannot comprehend how that could be true. We've invested very little in infrastructure over the years and our facilities are way below average in the ACC. We spend very little on our coaching staff in comparison to the average ACC school. Where is the money going? I can't believe its true and if it is, how can someone up high (hint, hint 2 phones) not have gotten fired for poorly allocating that money?

Now SU disputes the accuracy of that figure, which was supplied by the federal government, but won't give numbers it believes are more accurate. If only out of pride and an incomprehensible inability to explain how, if a similar amount was spent this year, SU supposedly got a victory for every $7.9 million, I'd much prefer SU to provide an alternate figure. Maybe a figure I could even believe. I want SU to start spending money. Am I wrong?

Scholarships are counted in the cost. The cost of tuition at Syracuse is WAY higher than many of the other schools on the list. Take out scholarships and our ranking sinks like a rock.

 

[CuseOnly]

Scholarships are counted in the cost. The cost of tuition at Syracuse is WAY higher than many of the other schools on the list. Take out scholarships and our ranking sinks like a rock.

Did you read the report? Scholarships are docked against the department that the Student Athlete designates as their curriculum at SU.

 

[nzm136]

Did you read the report? Scholarships are docked against the department that the Student Athlete designates as their curriculum at SU.

I'm almost certain that doesn't affect DoE numbers. If my memory serves me right, it's a required line item, which is visible if you download their report.

 

[CuseOnly]

I'm almost certain that doesn't affect DoE numbers. If my memory serves me right, it's a required line item, which is visible if you download their report.

I am talking about the link that I provided as to how SU accounts for athletic scholarships and who internally get dinged with the expense.

 

[rrlbees]

Did you read the report? Scholarships are docked against the department that the Student Athlete designates as their curriculum at SU.

I've said that for a year.

 

[CuseOnly]

I've said that for a year.

It is kind of ridiculous that it is required (I think) on the DOE reports. It would also be SKU'd by any government grants, PEL, TAP, or any other subsidy that would go against the Grant in Aid, dropping the overall cost. Bringing down the actual dollars docked to each department

 

[Moontan]

I would expect the DoE submissions to include all scholarships. How it's handled within the University, as a whole, is another matter.

Unless you're a high-ranking SUAD staffer, you're a BoT member overseeing the Athletics Department, or your name is Kent then chances are that you'll never know how revenues are distributed within the Department and University.

It's OK to wonder where the gobs of cash go... just don't expect an accurate or satisfying answer.

 

[rrlbees]

It is kind of ridiculous that it is required (I think) on the DOE reports. It would also be SKU'd by any government grants, PEL, TAP, or any other subsidy that would go against the Grant in Aid, dropping the overall cost. Bringing down the actual dollars docked to each department

I think the one report is just all monies spent on the program regardless of SU funding source.

 

[nzm136]

I am talking about the link that I provided as to how SU accounts for athletic scholarships and who internally get dinged with the expense.

Yeah, I know what you're talkign about it, and I read parts of it. However, if the DoE has it as a line item (which I'm going by memory, so they might not, but I'm pretty sure they do), then our internal accounting is irrelevant as that element of the final number gets standardized with the scholarships included. Presumably they would be smart enough to not add those expenses twice at the other schools who don't take the scholarship numbers out (if in fact we do for DoE purposes, which is a big if). It's not unusual for organizations to have two sets of books. In fact, the vast majority (i.e. almost every) businesses do - internal and financial. I'm not sure if that's standard practice when schools respond to the DoE, like it would be for a publicly traded company responding to the SEC.

 

[CuseOnly]

Yeah, I know what you're talkign about it, and I read parts of it. However, if the DoE has it as a line item (which I'm going by memory, so they might not, but I'm pretty sure they do), then our internal accounting is irrelevant as that element of the final number gets standardized with the scholarships included. Presumably they would be smart enough to not add those expenses twice at the other schools who don't take the scholarship numbers out (if in fact we do for DoE purposes, which is a big if). It's not unusual for organizations to have two sets of books. In fact, the vast majority (i.e. almost every) businesses do - internal and financial. I'm not sure if that's standard practice when schools respond to the DoE, like it would be for a publicly traded company responding to the SEC.

Pretty much the only reason that the DOE requires this documentation is for Title IX. Knowing that tuition does not differ between the sexes, why would tuition be required as a line item? The equality of if between the sexes can be figured out by how many are on full GIA, partial GIA and no GIA.

As many have said, finances and the accounting of them can be very different between schools. Same with businesses.

 

[nzm136]

Pretty much the only reason that the DOE requires this documentation is for Title IX. Knowing that tuition does not differ between the s e xes, why would tuition be required as a line item? The equality of if between the s e xes can be figured out by how many are on full GIA, partial GIA and no GIA.

As many have said, finances and the accounting of them can be very different between schools. Same with businesses.

It measures scholarships, and accounts for fully funded scholarships and partially funded scholarships. I'm not an expert, but I think that scholarship "expenses" can offset spending in other areas. I'm pretty sure that's why it matters.

-And it's not just differences in accounting between different schools. There may very well be differences in accounting when looking at the same school. I'm not sure if there are different books for the DoE.

 

[SWC75]

According to this report on Syracuse.com, we spent $23.6 million on the football program last year, 2013-2014. It then states that is only behind FSU, Clemson, Miami and part-time affiliate Notre Dame in the ACC.

http://www.syracuse.com/orangesport...mpact_on_the_football_progr.html#incart_river

I cannot comprehend how that could be true. We've invested very little in infrastructure over the years and our facilities are way below average in the ACC. We spend very little on our coaching staff in comparison to the average ACC school. Where is the money going? I can't believe its true and if it is, how can someone up high (hint, hint 2 phones) not have gotten fired for poorly allocating that money?

Now SU disputes the accuracy of that figure, which was supplied by the federal government, but won't give numbers it believes are more accurate. If only out of pride and an incomprehensible inability to explain how, if a similar amount was spent this year, SU supposedly got a victory for every $7.9 million, I'd much prefer SU to provide an alternate figure. Maybe a figure I could even believe. I want SU to start spending money. Am I wrong?

We keep building stuff and yet we are always "way below average". What do we need to do to get to the point where facilities are not an excuse for losses?

 

[SWC75]

As a whole the ACC is behind the rest of the country in terms of the facilities arms race. As far as the ACC goes we are now pretty much on par with the rest of the ACC besides FSU, Clemson, UNC, but compared to the other 4 P5 conferences we are still below average. The PAC12, and BIGXII have made huge strides in the past 3-4 years, as well as the B1G schools that needed to upgrade. The SEC have always had elite facilities. Some of the new stuff these programs have built are mind blowing. It's not a huge deal, but we still lack in a few areas. In comparison to the rest of the P5 schools we are still below average with our medical/training facilities, as well as players lounge. We also lack a lot of bells and whistles most of the better facilites have. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that while we have made huge strides as far as facilities go, we are still below average in comparison to the rest of the country. These tops schools are upgrading facilities every 2 or 3 years now. A lot places have better facilities then NFL franchises. It's totally out of control

How relevant is it to us that the PAC12 or Big 12 have better facilities than us. Are we recruiting against them? I think the question is: are our facilities good enough to compete in the ACC. That's our real opposition, both on and off the field.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

How relevant is it to us that the PAC12 or Big 12 have better facilities than us. Are we recruiting against them? I think the question is: are our facilities good enough to compete in the ACC. That's our real opposition, both on and off the field.

Valid point as to Pac12. We recruit against Big 12's WVU often

 

[dinosaurbbq]

We keep building stuff and yet we are always "way below average". What do we need to do to get to the point where facilities are not an excuse for losses?

Win? j/k.

Let's compete with the ACC as you suggest. How many ACC schools don't have IPFs? We are working on it but don't have one yet. We are near last in getting one. The article I attached states that SU is far outpaced in facilities even within the ACC. I haven't been to lots of ACC facilities to know and have taken their word for it, but if they are right, then the only thing we are disputing is how much an effect that failure to invest in facilities has.

 

[SWC75]

Win? j/k.

Let's compete with the ACC as you suggest. How many ACC schools don't have IPFs? We are working on it but don't have one yet. We are near last in getting one. The article I attached states that SU is far outpaced in facilities even within the ACC. I haven't been to lots of ACC facilities to know and have taken their word for it, but if they are right, then the only thing we are disputing is how much an effect that failure to invest in facilities has.

So what do we need now?

And don't tell me the machines in the weight room are too close together, as one poster did. I'm talking about things that we can't work with or would be would be a repellent to recruits.

 

[Cheriehoop]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ities-help-acc-keep-up-with-joneses/15789499/

Sounds like we're right in line with most of the other ACC programs. NC St and Wake Forest just broke grounds for IPF's within the past 3 months. Va Tech's building is from the 1970's and plans to break ground for a new one next year, Fla St's is a year and a half old, Duke and Gtech's is 3 years old while Boston College and Miami still don't have one. We're also planning some dome upgrades.

 

[dinosaurbbq]

So what do we need now?

And don't tell me the machines in the weight room are too close together, as one poster did. I'm talking about things that we can't work with or would be would be a repellent to recruits.

I have a plan.
1. We immediately schedule down OOC -- 1 BCS, 2 non P5 and a bad FCS every year. We do that, we automatically increase wins by 2 or 3; and
2. We spend the money to hire experienced, successful offensive coaches. RBs all regressed this year so Smith is replaced. Oline regressed beyond what I would expect due to the injuries -- Even Hickey looked bad, so Joe Adam is gone. I'd keep McDonald on WR because he's experienced in that role at major schools and brings big recruiting value. I'd keep TE coach Acosta purely for recruiting value and because we don't know whether he can coach TEs since we didn't use them at all as pass catchers. I'd replace Lester because QBs who were decently regarded recruits have all absolutely looked awful and his offense looked far worse than the bad offense we saw under McDonald. That's 3 coaches we could bring in while losing absolutely nothing. If we raised those salaries for those positions by a total of $500,000 and correspondingly raised the salaries on the defensive side so those coaches wouldn't be upset, I believe we could bring in some experienced, successful offensive coaches that would mean an instant gain of at least 2 or 3 wins a year;
3. Have a coach specifically titled and solely responsible for Special Teams Coordinator. I'm not saying have a coach who does nothing but that. I am saying have 1 single coach responsible and accountable for that and hopefully have that coach have previous successful experience with that. The way we are doing it now is flat out not effective or acceptable. ST is not an afterthought. Its cost us games this year and previously and will until we do this.

I don't think anyone could effectively dispute any of those moves. Yes, you could say that Lester deserves a chance to put in his own playbook and that may work out. If we are changing offenses, though, why not go to an offense that has been implemented by a successful OC and staff and proven effective already at another D-I school? Yes, Lester could work out. He could also fail. I think the chances of him figuring it out immediately are relatively small. I think the chances of bringing in someone else that succeeds are much, much higher. This seems pretty basic to me. I'm not a super knowledgeable football guy. I've never coached or been an administrator over a football program. I just don't know how anyone could say we wouldn't be better off with a program by doing these things and I don't think it would be hard to make these changes this off season. I'd wait until after signing day, though.