AD search firm

[rrlbees]

I care less about the budget and more about getting someone who will shake up this place to get a winning football program.

You have to be able to do both. If they can't work within the budget, and there will be great oversight now, they won't have the job. That's true of all departments on campus now, especially the AD who previously had little oversight.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I don't think that will go unchecked this time around.

Last time that happened, nothing got spent, and the programs (save MBB) spiraled down.

 

[CuseOnly]

Last time that happened, nothing got spent, and the programs (save MBB) spiraled down.

Syracuse University = Champagne Dreams and Kool-Aid pockets
Every other P5 School = Making it rain $$$$

 

[GoSU96]

Syracuse University = Champagne Dreams and Kool-Aid pockets
Every other P5 School = Making it rain $$$$

SU reports to the Dept of Ed. that it is 31st in football revenue, 30 in gross revenue, and 29 in football spending.

At least according to it's accounting to the Feds. they aren't lacking for resources or commitment.

 

[CuseOnly]

SU reports to the Dept of Ed. that it is 31st in football revenue, 30 in gross revenue, and 29 in football spending.

At least according to it's accounting to the Feds. they aren't lacking for resources or commitment.

I disagree with regard to the commitment part of the conversation.

 

[GoSU96]

I disagree with regard to the commitment part of the conversation.

Based on?

You writing any checks?

Here are SU's "peers" in terms of football expense, at least as reported. It could apples, pumpkins, and bowling balls being compared but at least that data doesn't show a lack of commitment.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln $ 23,844,466.00
Texas A & M University-College Station $ 23,725,572.00
Syracuse University $ 23,622,247.00
Ohio State University-Main Campus $ 23,381,516.00
University of Florida $ 23,039,283.00

 

[jr4750]

That would be a no. Besides the fact that his past is checkered in scandal, he probably doesn't even know how to pump his own gas at a self-serve station.

IMO, it should be someone who knows the University and the culture of SU athletics. Full disclosure, since I've been friends of both of these guys for years and are in the tank with both of them, but it should be either Nick Carparelli or John Hardt.

Both those guys would be great, although this article makes me want Nick Carparelli badly. He gets it.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/12/working_for_the_big_east_forme.html

 

[CuseOnly]

Based on?

You writing any checks?

Here are SU's "peers" in terms of football expense, at least as reported. It could apples, pumpkins, and bowling balls being compared but at least that data doesn't show a lack of commitment.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln $ 23,844,466.00
Texas A & M University-College Station $ 23,725,572.00
Syracuse University $ 23,622,247.00
Ohio State University-Main Campus $ 23,381,516.00
University of Florida $ 23,039,283.00

Really?

Nebraska Bo Pellini salary before he left $2.875 million a year
Kevin Sumlin $5 mil a year
Urban Meyer $4.8 mil a year (and will be getting a hefty raise very soon)
McElwain Florida new HC earning 3.5 mil a year as HC
Scott Shafer $1.25 mil

We can go into assistant coaches salaries if you would like but these schools are no more our peers in spending than Bill Gates is a peer to a bum sleeping under a bridge.

There is no comparison in commitment.

Those numbers are a shell game...so you are saying that Kevin Sumlin is almost 25% of Texas A&M's football expenditure, I call bullshit.

 

[anomander]

Really? Nebraska Bo Pellini salary before he left $2.875 million a year Kevin Sumlin $5 mil a year Urban Meyer $4.8 mil a year (and will be getting a hefty raise very soon) McElwain Florida new HC earning 3.5 mil a year as HC Scott Shafer $1.25 mil We can go into assistant coaches salaries if you would like but these schools are no more our peers in spending than Bill Gates is a peer to a bum sleeping under a bridge. There is no comparison in commitment. Those numbers are a shell game...so you are saying that Kevin Sumlin is almost 25% of Texas A&M's football expenditure, I call bullshit.

I don't think you should use Shafers salary as a reason. It's about right being a first time HC. We shouldn't pay him just to pay him. But where you could question the commitment is assistant salary pool, and spending on a deeper/more experienced support staff.

 

[syracuse95]

When comparing football expenses between schools, there is a massive disadvantage that SU has relative to the cost of scholarships vs. state schools. The tuition expense per player is $30k +/- higher than at any of the state schools on that list of "peers". Multiply that by 85 scholarship players, and we have a $2.5M disadvantage.

Call it a shell game, call it paper money...call it whatever you want. Those scholarships are an expense to the football program, and in order to balance revenue and cost we need to spend $2.5M less than a state school, all other things being equal.

Of course, they aren't equal because our football revenue isn't the same as Nebraska or Florida, but that's a topic for another post...

 

[GoSU96]

When comparing football expenses between schools, there is a massive disadvantage that SU has relative to the cost of scholarships vs. state schools. The tuition expense per player is $30k +/- higher than at any of the state schools on that list of "peers". Multiply that by 85 scholarship players, and we have a $2.5M disadvantage.

Call it a shell game, call it paper money...call it whatever you want. Those scholarships are an expense to the football program, and in order to balance revenue and cost we need to spend $2.5M less than a state school, all other things being equal.

Of course, they aren't equal because our football revenue isn't the same as Nebraska or Florida, but that's a topic for another post...

That certainty is a factor.

And SU isn't near the bottom in revenues.

 

[CuseOnly]

I don't think you should use Shafers salary as a reason. It's about right being a first time HC. We shouldn't pay him just to pay him. But where you could question the commitment is assistant salary pool, and spending on a deeper/more experienced support staff.

I wasn't justifying his salary nor was I saying to pay him more to just pay him.

But...using it as an example intended to show a lack of commitment to the program. If SU really wanted to win, like Ohio State or any of the schools that GO used as an example, we would spend the money to get a proven winner as HC and pay the assistants as well.

Why don't we go after those coaches when they are available, or unhappy at their current school? Cause we won't (not can't) pay them what they are worth in the market, Period. We choose to sift through assistants or failed HC's to see if we can pay them peanuts and catch lightning in a bottle. Then, when they are successful here, we pray that we can keep them at a minimum salary.

Not recipe for success.

 

[oldpinepoint]

I don't trust any of the numbers reported, I believe what I see with my own eyes. SU has certainly increased their commitment to all sports. Now is it enough, time will tell, but hopefully we continue to upgrade and not go through the crap we did back when Buzz was here

 

[rrlbees]

When comparing football expenses between schools, there is a massive disadvantage that SU has relative to the cost of scholarships vs. state schools. The tuition expense per player is $30k +/- higher than at any of the state schools on that list of "peers". Multiply that by 85 scholarship players, and we have a $2.5M disadvantage. Call it a shell game, call it paper money...call it whatever you want. Those scholarships are an expense to the football program, and in order to balance revenue and cost we need to spend $2.5M less than a state school, all other things being equal. Of course, they aren't equal because our football revenue isn't the same as Nebraska or Florida, but that's a topic for another post...

Last I knew of the scholarship gets charged to the athletes "home" school, not the AD.

 

[Full_Rebar]

I don't trust any of the numbers reported, I believe what I see with my own eyes. SU has certainly increased their commitment to all sports. Now is it enough, time will tell, but hopefully we continue to upgrade and not go through the crap we did back when Buzz was here

I'd say that Syverud and the BOT giving the go-ahead to the IPF (before Athletics had locked up the funding), and the decision to go in a different direction from Gross shows that Athletics is important to the current administration. Will they ask the AD to do a better job of spending? Absolutely, but the ACC revenue and the right decision-making will keep that from being an issue.

 

[GoSU96]

I'd say that Syverud and the BOT giving the go-ahead to the IPF (before Athletics had locked up the funding), and the decision to go in a different direction from Gross shows that Athletics is important to the current administration. Will they ask the AD to do a better job of spending? Absolutely, but the ACC revenue and the right decision-making will keep that from being an issue.

This is pure speculation - but I would be surprised if there isn't plenty of opportunity to reduce non value add administrative costs and use that in other ways.

Another indication that there are resources, and again accounting can make dollars do all sorts of things, SU had the 5th highest revenue in excess of expenses value in 2013.

Reported $87.7M in total revenue against $72.1M in expenses.

 

[BlazeOrange]

Do we know if Carparelli is interested?

Can anyone answer? Is he a legit candidate or just an internet wet dream?

 

[Full_Rebar]

This is pure speculation - but I would be surprised if there isn't plenty of opportunity to reduce non value add administrative costs and use that in other ways.

I believe this as well, and I also believe that SU has failed to truly market available opportunities well. We've already seen a renegotiated IMG deal and I think there is a lot of room for growth in merchandising (start selling more than one football jersey option maybe) so that's why I think the next AD needs to be experienced in more than just donor fundraising.

 

[anomander]

I wasn't justifying his salary nor was I saying to pay him more to just pay him.

But...using it as an example intended to show a lack of commitment to the program. If SU really wanted to win, like Ohio State or any of the schools that GO used as an example, we would spend the money to get a proven winner as HC and pay the assistants as well.

Why don't we go after those coaches when they are available, or unhappy at their current school? Cause we won't (not can't) pay them what they are worth in the market, Period. We choose to sift through assistants or failed HC's to see if we can pay them peanuts and catch lightning in a bottle. Then, when they are successful here, we pray that we can keep them at a minimum salary.

Not recipe for success.

Totally agree.

 

[TheCusian]

Last time that happened, nothing got spent, and the programs (save MBB) spiraled down.

Irrelevant. Sticking to a budget doesn't mean you don't spend money - it means you're planning and sticking to that plan.

 

[tipphill]

I'd say that Syverud and the BOT giving the go-ahead to the IPF (before Athletics had locked up the funding), and the decision to go in a different direction from Gross shows that Athletics is important to the current administration. Will they ask the AD to do a better job of spending? Absolutely, but the ACC revenue and the right decision-making will keep that from being an issue.

i wonder what direction that is? i hope it is how you say it is. with a private university who does not need to have the transparency of a public there can be more flexibility, which can be a very good thing or ??i assume that before he was hired , he was questioned about athletics and his view on the financial value of it, for the greater good of the university