ACC, PAC-12, and BIG alliance / conference realignment

[longtimefan]

From our board. The money involved in realignment represented graphically.

Interesting. There is a caveat. This shows public university finances only, not privates. And the ACC has 5 privates.

 

[qdawgg]

Interesting. There is a caveat. This shows public university finances only, not privates. And the ACC has 5 privates.

You didn’t click on the link and read his whole post….. I’m guessing.

 

[WoadBlue]

NJ is essentially split in half. Top half is NY, bottom half is Philly.

Penn St has no rivals, but NJ doesn't even really have a state because it is half NYC South and half Philly East.

 

[longtimefan]

You didn’t click on the link and read his whole post….. I’m guessing.

When I clicked on it, this is what I read:

"The below includes what will happen (public schools only, thanks to great data from . . ."

 

[qdawgg]

When I clicked on it, this is what I read:

"The below includes what will happen (public schools only, thanks to great data from . . ."

There’s 3 different posts with graphs. The one posted in here is just part of a post.

 

[pokercuse08]

From our board. The money involved in realignment represented graphically.

Based on this one, Syracuse better increase its budget substantially over the next 5-7 years or this is going to end poorly for us.

 

[orangenauburn]

NJ is essentially split in half. Top half is NY, bottom half is Philly.

Yup. NYC and Philly spit roast the state of NJ.

 

[TexanMark]

Penn St has no rivals, but NJ doesn't even really have a state because it is half NYC South and half Philly East.

Connecticut is the same

Half NY/Half Boston and a poor brother named Rhody who was dropped on his head as a kid.

 

[orangenauburn]

Based on this one, Syracuse better increase its budget substantially over the next 5-7 years or this is going to end poorly for us.

Even a 25% increase which is significant, would put the AD mid pack

Might have to take fundraising up another notch as well as open up some purse strings elsewhere

No reason to be that far behind the four other private universities at the top.

I understand we run one of the more fiscally responsible ADs in the country, but that number would indicate that some money from the AD is being allocated elsewhere at the university.

Between the ACC contracts, tickets, merch, advertising, fundraising, etc we have to be north of $85m.

And you can damn well bet SMU with access to ACC money will dump $40m+ more into their AD.

Still can't believe how far behind we are from BC, VaTech, and the top four. Explains so much why we cannot get traction in moving forward and sustaining success.

 

[TexanMark]

Based on this one, Syracuse better increase its budget substantially over the next 5-7 years or this is going to end poorly for us.

Agreed

They are spending $$$ now on facilities. They need to move up to middle of the pack among the ACC in support areas like better coach salaries...particularly the assistants and extra staff.

 

[Orangefan1]

Even a 25% increase which is significant, would put the AD mid pack

Might have to take fundraising up another notch as well as open up some purse strings elsewhere

No reason to be that far behind the four other private universities at the top.

I think people are looking at this data wrong. Where it matters is how you play on the field. I’d be more interested in seeing the past ten years of every athletic teams budget on the field then we could make a comparison. Simply taking everyone’s data for spending doesn’t equate in field success. In fact I’d be more inclined to spend less and field a great team with a small budget then vice versa. If we spend less and recruit really well why does what a university spending on a budget matter? It seems like Syracuse has invested a lot lately in sports, but I’d love for them to add a baseball team

 

[orangenauburn]

I think people are looking at this data wrong. Where it matters is how you play on the field. I’d be more interested in seeing the past ten years of every athletic teams budget on the field then we could make a comparison. Simply taking everyone’s data for spending doesn’t equate in field success. In fact I’d be more inclined to spend less and field a great team with a small budget then vice versa. If we spend less and recruit really well why does what a university spending on a budget matter? It seems like Syracuse has invested a lot lately in sports, but I’d love for them to add a baseball team

We would enjoy the last ten years of on field performance if our AD performed like the top 10 ADs on that chart

As a whole they have had more success than us in football, and for a lot of them basketball as well.

 

[oldpinepoint]

I would be more interested in a breakdown of the number of teams each offer. Budgets are bigger because they offer more sports. I would start from there to see where we really stand

 

[Hoo's That]

Interesting. There is a caveat. This shows public university finances only, not privates. And the ACC has 5 privates.

It's tougher to get any sort of data from private schools that isn't part of a mandatory report to state or Federal authorities. Some will release the data some won't. The compilers can readily get the data from the public schools through state open records laws since they're a part of state governments.

 

[NYCCuse826]

Based on this one, Syracuse better increase its budget substantially over the next 5-7 years or this is going to end poorly for us.

Can't spend like drunken sailors forever. At some point, the money invested is going to have to see a return on the field. Success earns you good will.

 

[DPCuse]

Question….what is ”spending?” Does that include scholarships? If so,

Based on this one, Syracuse better increase its budget substantially over the next 5-7 years or this is going to end poorly for us.

For what it's worth, this report includes athletic scholarships as a part of total expenses. Typically a private school will cost more than a public so that will inflate the private schools costs in this graph. And the number of programs/athletes a school has impacts this.

 

[pokercuse08]

No reason to be that far behind the four other private universities at the top.

Exactly, and by the way this is a reason that Stanford is a good add and SMU will be as well - they 'll for sure also be in the top 5 or 10 on that chart. These are programs that are willing to spend the money to try to get the results they want.

I think people are looking at this data wrong. Where it matters is how you play on the field. I’d be more interested in seeing the past ten years of every athletic teams budget on the field then we could make a comparison. Simply taking everyone’s data for spending doesn’t equate in field success. In fact I’d be more inclined to spend less and field a great team with a small budget then vice versa.

Are you happy with how our football team has played on the field over the last 10 years? 43-66 record, two bowl games (1-1), one 10 win season? Like we'd all rather see them win 10 games every year and spend no additional money, but that's not how this works.

Spending more money means better facilities, better coaches, and thus better recruits.

For what it's worth, this report includes athletic scholarships as a part of total expenses. Typically a private school will cost more than a public so that will inflate the private schools costs in this graph.

So we're actually being outspent even worse than this would show? Ugh. According to a Google search, and this is from a site called College Factual, so grain of salt here... But the numbers are very specific so I'm guessing they got pulled from somewhere, Syracuse has 712 student athletes receiving an average of just under $30K a year of sports-related student aid. So about $21M a year. That means 'Cuse is spending like $64M a year on the rest.

When I look at that chart, $125M a year seems about right - outspending Pitt by a tad - and their tuition is lower so they'd probably still be spending more on the facilities/coaches/etc.

 

[Chip]

I don't think Rutgers was a mistake, given when they were added. They were invited in 2012. That was a couple years before cable subscriptions peaked in the U.S. (2014), and several years before cord-cutting began to have a significant impact on the bottom line.

The B1G has made a lot of money in the past decade from their network being carried on the basic tier in the NY market. It wouldn't make sense to add Rutgers today, but in 2012 it did.

I don't know what the ACC sees in SMU, but if it's for "Dallas cable TV homes" then it's not a bright idea.

I assume by now that B1G Network is powerful enough to be on basic tiers everywhere, right? I know the YTTVs and Hulus of the world carry it.

i.e., if they were to dump Maryland/Rutgers, they don't lose any gains they may have had in 2012?

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a next phase to conference realignment that involved contracting the deadweight. If it's all about more money, and unconcerned with geography, then why share the loot with the ditch diggers?

 

[MikeSU02]

Exactly, and by the way this is a reason that Stanford is a good add and SMU will be as well - they 'll for sure also be in the top 5 or 10 on that chart. These are programs that are willing to spend the money to try to get the results they want.

Are you happy with how our football team has played on the field over the last 10 years? 43-66 record, two bowl games (1-1), one 10 win season? Like we'd all rather see them win 10 games every year and spend no additional money, but that's not how this works.

Spending more money means better facilities, better coaches, and thus better recruits.


So we're actually being outspent even worse than this would show? Ugh. According to a Google search, and this is from a site called College Factual, so grain of salt here... But the numbers are very specific so I'm guessing they got pulled from somewhere, Syracuse has 712 student athletes receiving an average of just under $30K a year of sports-related student aid. So about $21M a year. That means 'Cuse is spending like $64M a year on the rest.

When I look at that chart, $125M a year seems about right - outspending Pitt by a tad - and their tuition is lower so they'd probably still be spending more on the facilities/coaches/etc.

Does anyone know where we've been over the past 30 years on a chart like the spend one? Have we ever been in the middle third?

 

[Cuse181]

We would enjoy the last ten years of on field performance if our AD performed like the top 10 ADs on that chart

As a whole they have had more success than us in football, and for a lot of them basketball as well.

Duke and Virginia both blow in football though

 

[Cuse181]

Exactly, and by the way this is a reason that Stanford is a good add and SMU will be as well - they 'll for sure also be in the top 5 or 10 on that chart. These are programs that are willing to spend the money to try to get the results they want.

Are you happy with how our football team has played on the field over the last 10 years? 43-66 record, two bowl games (1-1), one 10 win season? Like we'd all rather see them win 10 games every year and spend no additional money, but that's not how this works.

Spending more money means better facilities, better coaches, and thus better recruits.


So we're actually being outspent even worse than this would show? Ugh. According to a Google search, and this is from a site called College Factual, so grain of salt here... But the numbers are very specific so I'm guessing they got pulled from somewhere, Syracuse has 712 student athletes receiving an average of just under $30K a year of sports-related student aid. So about $21M a year. That means 'Cuse is spending like $64M a year on the rest.

When I look at that chart, $125M a year seems about right - outspending Pitt by a tad - and their tuition is lower so they'd probably still be spending more on the facilities/coaches/etc.

Syracuse will never outspend state schools. Outspending BC would be a good start.

 

[sutomcat]

I assume by now that B1G Network is powerful enough to be on basic tiers everywhere, right? I know the YTTVs and Hulus of the world carry it.

i.e., if they were to dump Maryland/Rutgers, they don't lose any gains they may have had in 2012?

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a next phase to conference realignment that involved contracting the deadweight. If it's all about more money, and unconcerned with geography, then why share the loot with the ditch diggers?

The B1G network has less distribution than the ACCN. They partnered with Fox and Fox does not have nearly the power than Disney/ABC/ESPN has to get networks added to cable packages. Last I knew, SECN was tops throughout the country with ACCN a close second,.

If the ACCN expands to Texas and California, I would assume this might change.

 

[orangenauburn]

Duke and Virginia both blow in football though

I'd bet they had a better record than us last ten years

 

[pokercuse08]

Syracuse will never outspend state schools. Outspending BC would be a good start.

Based on that chart, Syracuse is currently outspending Kansas State. It's all relative to which state schools you're talking about. We're never going to outspend Florida State, but can we outspend NC State? They spend like 5% more than BC, who you think we should be outspending. How about Baylor? They're private. Syracuse is slightly bigger. Baylor's endowment is $2B, ours is $1.79B. Outspending them would get us on level footing with Virginia Tech.

 

[Scooch]

I assume by now that B1G Network is powerful enough to be on basic tiers everywhere, right? I know the YTTVs and Hulus of the world carry it.

i.e., if they were to dump Maryland/Rutgers, they don't lose any gains they may have had in 2012?

It wouldn't surprise me if there were a next phase to conference realignment that involved contracting the deadweight. If it's all about more money, and unconcerned with geography, then why share the loot with the ditch diggers?

Legally I don't know how any conference can cut a school, absent very specific criteria being enacted.

The Big East enacted an attendance criteria, and that was why Temple got the heave-ho.

I guess the B1G could try to enact something specifically targeted at Rutgers or Maryland, but I don't see how that could work.

Absent that, any school "cut" would immediately file a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

Seems to me the only way to "cut the dead weight" is for a brand new league to form that only invites certain schools. And that would require cooperation between the SEC and B1G that doesn't seem possible.