70%?

[SWC75]

In the latest issue of Central New York Sports Magazine, there are a couple of articles on the state of the SU sports program. One is a 10 question Q&A section with Dr. Daryl Gross, our athletic director. The other is a article entitled "Will We See Another 'Golden Age' of SU Sports?" by a couple of professors, (one of sports management, one of sports business: can you be a professor of those things?) The article is pessimistic, citing 1987-2003 as our "golden age" because of the combined success of SU football and basketball over that period, which we haven't been able to sustain. They feel due to costs it will get harder and harder to be good in both sports.

Quesiton #6 to Dr. Gross was about playing games in New York rather than the Dome. He defends moving games there by wanting to get national publicity and to get money to building up facilities and the football budget so we will recruit better and have better teams which will draw more fans for the game that will still be played in the Dome. He makes this statement: "I would tell you that playing one of those games at MetLife stadium will bring in money that is more than 70% of our football budget, which isn't the highest."

That's on page 8. On Page 14 as a sidebar to the "Golden Age" article, there is a list of the revenue, expenditures and profit of the Big East basketball and football programs, (in 2010-11). Amazingly, we are fourth in the conference in football profit with +2.4 million, depsite the paultry crowds in the Dome, (I guess the Pinstripe Bowl helped). Connecticut was the only school in the red. (Frankly I smell some cooked books: only one Big East school lost money on football?) Pittsburgh and Rutgers broke even. Lousiville had the biggest profit at $10.1 million., West Virginia second with 6.7 million and USF $4.3 million. Our gross, (or Gross) revenues were also fourth. Louisville made $25.7, Pitt 21.3, West Virginia 20.0 and SU 18.8. Pitt spent the most, (als $21.3), Rutgers 19.2, UCONN 16.4 and SU fourth with $16.4.

Consider this: if our revenue was $18.8 million and we will make 70% of our budget off the USC game, does that mean we will make $13.2 million from that game?

 

[Moontan]

Maybe he meant 70% of the then current profit ($1.68m ?). Maybe he meant 70% of the football share of the annual TV contract. Maybe he meant 70% of profit for home games. Who knows?

He clearly believes (or wants us to believe) that this will generate a nice chunk of extra revenue.

 

[Upstate]

As long as that money brought in goes directly to improving the football program, I'm all for it.

 

[kcsu]

These games in NYC are a blessing for our program.

 

[javadoc]

Pittsburgh and Rutgers broke even.

Translation: both schools were in the red and tapped the general fund to get back to even.

 

[Rocco]

Translation: both schools were in the red and tapped the general fund to get back to even.

They sold Schiano's helo in a fire sale to help hedge their loss.

 

[Scooch]

Budget is not revenue. I suspect "budget" means the amount allocated by the AD to run the football program. Money that covers equipment, salaries, etc. I have no idea what that is.

But if DG is being truthful with that 70% figure, then absolutely no one should complain about us playing a game in NYC.

 

[OrangeMojo]

Budget is not revenue. I suspect "budget" means the amount allocated by the AD to run the football program. Money that covers equipment, salaries, etc. I have no idea what that is.

But if DG is being truthful with that 70% figure, then absolutely no one should complain about us playing a game in NYC.

correct - budget = cost not revenue

looking at that statement again, he just says the game will bring in money, doesn't say to whom or where the money will go

 

[Fjoinkay]

If 1 game in NYC equals 70% of SU's football budget (cost/expenditure) then I truly need to know what the percentage is for 1 game in the Dome.

However, for argument's sake, if revenue from 1 game in the Dome is anywhere near 70% of the SU football budget, or let's assume it is equal to 70%, then the revenue from 6 games in the Dome is 420% of the SU football budget (or something like that...I'm not a mathematician). If that were anywhere near to being true then the SU football budget is recklessly too low, which is something I would think is ludicrous to argue or to assume. Especially because the profit doesn't support that kind of thinking.

So even without knowing what the percentage of the budget the revenue from 1 game in the Dome equals I think it's safe to assume the percentage is much, much lower than 70%. I would guess it's lower than 16% which about what the percentage would be if the budget was based solely the on revenue from 6 home games. Of course, the budget isn't based solely on the revenue from the Dome, which is to say the percentage of the budget from the revenue of 1 game in the Dome is probably even smaller and perhaps as low as 10% or less.

Anyway, assuming the accuracy of the 70% figure Gross gives for 1 game in NYC, then it's a slam dunk no-brainer to play 1 game a year in NYC. SU is lucky.

 

[GoSU96]

In the latest issue of Central New York Sports Magazine, there are a couple of articles on the state of the SU sports program. One is a 10 question Q&A section with Dr. Daryl Gross, our athletic director. The other is a article entitled "Will We See Another 'Golden Age' of SU Sports?" by a couple of professors, (one of sports management, one of sports business: can you be a professor of those things?) The article is pessimistic, citing 1987-2003 as our "golden age" because of the combined success of SU football and basketball over that period, which we haven't been able to sustain. They feel due to costs it will get harder and harder to be good in both sports.

Quesiton #6 to Dr. Gross was about playing games in New York rather than the Dome. He defends moving games there by wanting to get national publicity and to get money to building up facilities and the football budget so we will recruit better and have better teams which will draw more fans for the game that will still be played in the Dome. He makes this statement: "I would tell you that playing one of those games at MetLife stadium will bring in money that is more than 70% of our football budget, which isn't the highest."

That's on page 8. On Page 14 as a sidebar to the "Golden Age" article, there is a list of the revenue, expenditures and profit of the Big East basketball and football programs, (in 2010-11). Amazingly, we are fourth in the conference in football profit with +2.4 million, depsite the paultry crowds in the Dome, (I guess the Pinstripe Bowl helped). Connecticut was the only school in the red. (Frankly I smell some cooked books: only one Big East school lost money on football?) Pittsburgh and Rutgers broke even. Lousiville had the biggest profit at $10.1 million., West Virginia second with 6.7 million and USF $4.3 million. Our gross, (or Gross) revenues were also fourth. Louisville made $25.7, Pitt 21.3, West Virginia 20.0 and SU 18.8. Pitt spent the most, (als $21.3), Rutgers 19.2, UCONN 16.4 and SU fourth with $16.4.

Consider this: if our revenue was $18.8 million and we will make 70% of our budget off the USC game, does that mean we will make $13.2 million from that game?

Answering your question, no.

The game day operating expenses reported by SU for 2010 was $2.7M. That is only part of the total expenses for the football program, which was reported to be $16.4M.

The only thing that makes sense is that Gross was referring to the first number. If that's the case the USC pay day would be approximately $1.9M.

As for being a money drain, for most D-1 programs football is a primary source of cash to run the rest of the athletic department at a school. That is what is funny about much of the handwringing about how "expensive" football is. At least for most D-1 programs football pays for the non revenue sports at a school.

Again these numbers are as reported, and schools allocate expense and revenues in different ways, but 80 programs report at least $300k net from football, 30 programs show little or no "profit", and eight programs actually report a "loss".