Are these figures correct??? | Syracusefan.com

Are these figures correct???

O

omniorange

All Conference
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
2,757
Like
2,963
I decided to focus on our move to the ACC next year and wondered what our most recent expenses/revenues were in comparison with current ACC members (and Pitt) to see how much more $$$ we might be investing in athletics (particularly football).

After reviewing the numbers for 2011-12 over on the Equity in Athletics site, I am left scratching my head. Now, I know the numbers are usually fudged somewhat, but then most institutions fudge a little, especially the "break-even" numbers. Usually when a profit is shown, it is probably close to being legit.

Anyway, as a result of my research this is what the numbers (such as they are) say:

Last year, we supposedly spent more on football than most of the ACC members, except for Miami and FSU.

Football Expenses:
Miami - 24.4 million
FSU - 22 million
SU - 21.7 million
VT - 20 million
Pitt - 19.8 million (odd that the two newbies are spending more on football already, isn't it?)

In terms of overall football revenue, we ranked 4th, behind VT, FSU, and Clemson.

Football Revenue:
VT - 35 million
FSU - 34.4 million
Clemson - 31.7 million
SU - 28.6 million
UNC - 26.3 million
Miami - 26.2 million

In terms of net football revenue (which may be more telling), we ranked 7th and then there is a big drop-off to 8th placed Pitt:

Net Football Revenue:
VT - 15 million
Clemson - 13.7 million
FSU - 12.4 million
UNC - 11.3 million
NC State - 10.5 million
GT - 7 million
SU - 6.95 million
Pitt - 2.2 million

In terms of overall athletic expenses, we ranked 4th in spending:

Overall Expenses:
FSU - 81.4 million
UVa - 72.4 million
UNC - 70.7 million
SU - 69.1 million
Duke - 67.4 million

In terms of overall revenues, we ranked 3rd:

Overall Revenues:
FSU - 81.4 million (which matched their expenses, usually means a slight fudge)
UVa - 78.4 million
SU - 73.2 million
UNC - 71.3 million
Duke - 67.9 million

And lastly in terms of net revenues we ranked 3rd again:

Overall Net Revenues:
UVa - 6 million
VT - 4.3 million
SU - 4.1 million
Miami - 2.7 million
UNC - 660K

Again, both expenses and revenues seem much higher than I ever recall seeing them in the past. Is there something I missed that made last year's figures so much better than previous years?

Cheers,
Neil
 
omniorange said:
I decided to focus on our move to the ACC next year and wondered what our most recent expenses/revenues were in comparison with current ACC members (and Pitt) to see how much more $$$ we might be investing in athletics (particularly football).

After reviewing the numbers for 2011-12 over on the Equity in Athletics site, I am left scratching my head. Now, I know the numbers are usually fudged somewhat, but then most institutions fudge a little, especially the "break-even" numbers. Usually when a profit is shown, it is probably close to being legit.

Anyway, as a result of my research this is what the numbers (such as they are) say:

Last year, we supposedly spent more on football than most of the ACC members, except for Miami and FSU.

Football Expenses:
Miami - 24.4 million
FSU - 22 million
SU - 21.7 million
VT - 20 million
Pitt - 19.8 million (odd that the two newbies are spending more on football already, isn't it?)

In terms of overall football revenue, we ranked 4th, behind VT, FSU, and Clemson.

Football Revenue:
VT - 35 million
FSU - 34.4 million
Clemson - 31.7 million
SU - 28.6 million
UNC - 26.3 million
Miami - 26.2 million

In terms of net football revenue (which may be more telling), we ranked 7th and then there is a big drop-off to 8th placed Pitt:

Net Football Revenue:
VT - 15 million
Clemson - 13.7 million
FSU - 12.4 million
UNC - 11.3 million
NC State - 10.5 million
GT - 7 million
SU - 6.95 million
Pitt - 2.2 million

In terms of overall athletic expenses, we ranked 4th in spending:

Overall Expenses:
FSU - 81.4 million
UVa - 72.4 million
UNC - 70.7 million
SU - 69.1 million
Duke - 67.4 million

In terms of overall revenues, we ranked 3rd:

Overall Revenues:
FSU - 81.4 million (which matched their expenses, usually means a slight fudge)
UVa - 78.4 million
SU - 73.2 million
UNC - 71.3 million
Duke - 67.9 million

And lastly in terms of net revenues we ranked 3rd again:

Overall Net Revenues:
UVa - 6 million
VT - 4.3 million
SU - 4.1 million
Miami - 2.7 million
UNC - 660K

Again, both expenses and revenues seem much higher than I ever recall seeing them in the past. Is there something I missed that made last year's figures so much better than previous years?

Cheers,
Neil
Expand...

Holy cow, I haven't looked but SU's reported revenue is up $23M in one year based on what I remember. And that's before ACC money, where did that come from?
 
GoSU96 said:
Holy cow, I haven't looked but SU's reported revenue is up $23M in one year based on what I remember. And that's before ACC money, where did that come from?
Expand...

It's got me scratching my head as well. And I triple checked the site before posting the above. I have no idea where the $$$ came from.

Cheers,
Neil
 
GoSU96 said:
Holy cow, I haven't looked but SU's reported revenue is up $23M in one year based on what I remember. And that's before ACC money, where did that come from?
Expand...

My donation.

Wait, that was only 23 dollars, no M.

There are so many revenue $ not realized for football ticket sales, especially by comparison to other schools, that I just don't get it. And I know we recoup some of that against other schools thru hoops tickets. But the year over year jump? It's not conference revenue. Are Ad prices significantly higher, and we sold that many more? Any large donations go under the radar somehow?

Just don't know...
 
I imagine the ribbon boards bring in some decent ad dollars but not 20M+
 
Doug's not taking a salary until we are over .500
 
omniorange said:
I decided to focus on our move to the ACC next year and wondered what our most recent expenses/revenues were in comparison with current ACC members (and Pitt) to see how much more $$$ we might be investing in athletics (particularly football).

After reviewing the numbers for 2011-12 over on the Equity in Athletics site, I am left scratching my head. Now, I know the numbers are usually fudged somewhat, but then most institutions fudge a little, especially the "break-even" numbers. Usually when a profit is shown, it is probably close to being legit.

Anyway, as a result of my research this is what the numbers (such as they are) say:

Last year, we supposedly spent more on football than most of the ACC members, except for Miami and FSU.

Football Expenses:
Miami - 24.4 million
FSU - 22 million
SU - 21.7 million
VT - 20 million
Pitt - 19.8 million (odd that the two newbies are spending more on football already, isn't it?)

In terms of overall football revenue, we ranked 4th, behind VT, FSU, and Clemson.

Football Revenue:
VT - 35 million
FSU - 34.4 million
Clemson - 31.7 million
SU - 28.6 million
UNC - 26.3 million
Miami - 26.2 million

In terms of net football revenue (which may be more telling), we ranked 7th and then there is a big drop-off to 8th placed Pitt:

Net Football Revenue:
VT - 15 million
Clemson - 13.7 million
FSU - 12.4 million
UNC - 11.3 million
NC State - 10.5 million
GT - 7 million
SU - 6.95 million
Pitt - 2.2 million

In terms of overall athletic expenses, we ranked 4th in spending:

Overall Expenses:
FSU - 81.4 million
UVa - 72.4 million
UNC - 70.7 million
SU - 69.1 million
Duke - 67.4 million

In terms of overall revenues, we ranked 3rd:

Overall Revenues:
FSU - 81.4 million (which matched their expenses, usually means a slight fudge)
UVa - 78.4 million
SU - 73.2 million
UNC - 71.3 million
Duke - 67.9 million

And lastly in terms of net revenues we ranked 3rd again:

Overall Net Revenues:
UVa - 6 million
VT - 4.3 million
SU - 4.1 million
Miami - 2.7 million
UNC - 660K

Again, both expenses and revenues seem much higher than I ever recall seeing them in the past. Is there something I missed that made last year's figures so much better than previous years?

Cheers,
Neil
Expand...

Do you have a link?
 
So we spend more than twice what it ost to build the Dome every year?
 
omniorange said:
It's got me scratching my head as well. And I triple checked the site before posting the above. I have no idea where the $$$ came from.

Cheers,
Neil
Expand...

Do expenses include cost of scholarships? If so that would explain why SU is so high even though it really is an arbitrary number. Also do all schools tax the FB programs for the land it uses, like SU does? That could explain higher costs as well. In addition is the revenue from sales or does it count money from the universities to cover expenses? The FB program ends up getting money back from what they are taxed. So that could explain the higher revenue. It is getting charge money and then given it right back, which really means it is all a bunch of BS accounting.
 
kingottoiii said:
Do expenses include cost of scholarships? If so that would explain why SU is so high even though it really is an arbitrary number. Also do all schools tax the FB programs for the land it uses, like SU does? That could explain higher costs as well. In addition is the revenue from sales or does it count money from the universities to cover expenses? The FB program ends up getting money back from what they are taxed. So that could explain the higher revenue. It is getting charge money and then given it right back, which really means it is all a bunch of BS accounting.
Expand...

It's the usual ope.ed.athletics form that the institution fills out every year for the government. So I doubt BS accounting would be responsible for this significant an increase in both expenses and revenues. And, as I mentioned earlier, while there is always some fudging that is done, when a net profit is shown (as in SU's case), the amount of fudging is usually less than when revenues are artificially inflated to equal expenses to demonstrate no "red" on the books.

Cheers,
Neil
 
GoSU96 said:
Holy cow, I haven't looked but SU's reported revenue is up $23M in one year based on what I remember. And that's before ACC money, where did that come from?
Expand...
Does this count fundraising for capital projects?
 
omniorange said:
It's got me scratching my head as well. And I triple checked the site before posting the above. I have no idea where the $$$ came from.

Cheers,
Neil
Expand...

From 2010 to 2011:

Up 6.8M in basketball from 19M to 25.8M,

up 9.9 M in FB from 18.8M to 28.7M,

up in total revenues 21.8M from 51.4 to 73.3.

That is unreal. This is where I figured they would end up after the ACC dollars came in.
 
All4SU said:
So we spend more than twice what it ost to build the Dome every year?
Expand...
Ahh...damn inflation. And I used to get a candy bar for a nickle...oh wait, that was my dad that did that.
 
GoSU96 said:
From 2010 to 2011:

Up 6.8M in basketball from 19M to 25.8M,

up 9.9 M in FB from 18.8M to 28.7M,

up in total revenues 21.8M from 51.4 to 73.3.

That is unreal. This is where I figured they would end up after the ACC dollars came in.
Expand...

Here's another "unreal" bit of information. Based on all of the institutions' reports at that site, for 2011-12, SU ranks in the Top 30 in terms of overall revenue coming in at #28. We are 1 of only 4 privates in the Top 30, the others being #12 ND (I believe this is their first year not being in the Top 10), #19 USC, and #23 Stanford.

Still shaking my head in disbelief. Has the high-end athletics donations skyrocketed?

Last year I believe we barely ranked in the Top 60.

Cheers,
Neil
 
Maybe beer consumption at the games has gone way up...
 
at least we are not Rutgers, Maryland, or Florida State :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sutomcat
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
3
Views
911
Oakland
Oakland

Forum statistics

Threads
172,453
Messages
5,022,981
Members
6,028
Latest member
TucsonCuse

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
1,015
Total visitors
1,204
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom