New Fundraising Campaign Launched - Champion CUSE

[Consigliere]

This is where Practical Scooch and Ideological Scooch come into conflict.

Practical Scooch knows that this is vital for SU to have any chance of competing at a championship level in any sport, and certainly for football and men's basketball.

Ideological Scooch thinks it's ridiculous, and perhaps obscene, that an entity that is, for all intents and purposes, running a professional sports franchise to ask its fans to pay expenses on their behalf. Can you imagine getting an email from the Knicks or Red Sox asking for donations to pay their players?!

I do hope those who parrot the "pay or shut up" line at least acknowledge how profoundly f__%^ed up this model is.

But, practically speaking, if we want SU to swim in these waters athletically, there seems to be no other choice.

Blah.

No issue with decrying the current state of college sports and how bastardizing NIL into pay for play has negatively impacted the institution, particularly from the fan perspective.

But the comparisons to professional teams doesn't hold water. What is the coast of a Red Sox or Knicks season ticket compared to one for a major sport at Syracuse? How much do the professional teams reap in media rights compared to the ACC media rights contract? How many other non revenue sports do the finances that the Red Sox or Knicks reap support? Are the professional teams required to provide equal opportunities to female athletes?

Fact of the matter is the cost of all athlete compensation falls directly on the fans, whether in direct costs such as ticket prices or seat licenses or indirect costs such as cable or streaming service fees or marketing costs embedded in product prices to cover athlete endorsements.

A difficult transition for college sports fans exacerbated by the lack of any controls by the governing body, but at least at this point it is somewhat voluntary.

 

[Newhouser]

So we successfully execute a 50 million dollar campaign this year. Next year it has to be 60 million? 70? I'm sorry I do not think that is sustainable for schools including SU.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

So we successfully execute a 50 million dollar campaign this year. Next year it has to be 60 million? 70? I'm sorry I do not think that is sustainable for schools including SU.

The goal is to raise $50 million over the next three years.

 

[Bayside44]

For tax jocks, will this be deductible?

Yes.

 

[Cuse12]

Of course I think it’s awesome that the university does EVERYTHING possible to stay in the conversation.

But, is anyone else just sick of hearing the response to this dreaded season as “need more NIL, not our fault!”. It feels like passing the buck. It’s not wrong at all! But, like come on it takes two to tango.

 

[Consigliere]

Of course I think it’s awesome that the university does EVERYTHING possible to stay in the conversation.

But, is anyone else just sick of hearing the response to this dreaded season as “need more NIL, not our fault!”. It feels like passing the buck. It’s not wrong at all! But, like come on it takes two to tango.

Not sure I have heard the "not our fault" part. The fault starts with thinking a $2 - $2.5MM budget for basketball NIL would be sufficient. The market proved to be well above that. Cost us at least two portal candidates, Not sure if having a realistic budget would have led to more effective fundraising, but the failure to do so certainly had an impact.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Just a reminder that many in the AD don’t do a whole lot and make a real pretty penny. Everywhere in college athletics. So it’s always a little gross when the schools come shaking their coffee cup at fans

Honestly I would rather them do ticket increases and take that into the campaign or do events for fans where they pay a little bit and get something in return

Otherwise this is basically just asking fans to pay for the players. I get it. That’s where college athletics is… but it’s still gross

 

[BonaCuse]

Just a reminder that many in the AD don’t do a whole lot and make a real pretty penny. Everywhere in college athletics. So it’s always a little gross when the schools come shaking their coffee cup at fans

Honestly I would rather them do ticket increases and take that into the campaign or do events for fans where they pay a little bit and get something in return

Otherwise this is basically just asking fans to pay for the players. I get it. That’s where college athletics is… but it’s still gross

Curious to how you know that many in the AD "don't do a whole lot and make a real pretty penny."?

 

[Scooch]

No issue with decrying the current state of college sports and how bastardizing NIL into pay for play has negatively impacted the institution, particularly from the fan perspective.

But the comparisons to professional teams doesn't hold water. What is the coast of a Red Sox or Knicks season ticket compared to one for a major sport at Syracuse? How much do the professional teams reap in media rights compared to the ACC media rights contract? How many other non revenue sports do the finances that the Red Sox or Knicks reap support? Are the professional teams required to provide equal opportunities to female athletes?

Fact of the matter is the cost of all athlete compensation falls directly on the fans, whether in direct costs such as ticket prices or seat licenses or indirect costs such as cable or streaming service fees or marketing costs embedded in product prices to cover athlete endorsements.

A difficult transition for college sports fans exacerbated by the lack of any controls by the governing body, but at least at this point it is somewhat voluntary.

A counterpoint to that could be that a college should compensate players within its means. If that requires increasing ticket prices, finding more lucrative media deals, etc. then that's what should happen.

Basically, if a college can't afford to compensate its players $20.5 million/year via its revenue streams then maybe it shouldn't be spending $20.5 million/year?

Plus, there is an exchange of value in the pro model. Of course the revenue is ultimately derived from customers, but that customer is getting a ticket to a game, or a video service that serves them live games, for their money. Here it is a tax break and points for the privilege of buying additional things.

And I do have a question... since a college is a non-profit, what is the tax implication of building these facilities and paying players? The pro teams, for profit entities, are certainly paying a multitude of taxes based on their revenue and real estate holdings, among other things.

Please understand, I'm not saying not to contribute! I'm merely highlighting how messed up the whole model is.

 

[oldpinepoint]

Going to be a lot of competition for dollars with all the NFP cuts coming from the feds. SU needs to make it easy.

 

[UnknownOrange]

Curious to how you know that many in the AD "don't do a whole lot and make a real pretty penny."?

I spent multiple years in the AD. A decade ago ADs were doing everything possible to break even/show a loss so they could cry poor and didn’t have the money to pay the athletes

It’s a GREAT gig if you can get it but the business of college athletic departments is gross lol

 

[Chip]

If 20,000 fans give $2.74/ day. That’s $20,000,000.

That’s what we need. Make your own coffee and skip the Starbucks / Dunkin each day.

Jake has turned into Sally Struthers.

This is another Caine/Hackman A Bridge Too Far moment for the board.

If you get that reference, I like you. If you don't, I don't. Sorry.

 

[Cuse12]

Not sure I have heard the "not our fault" part. The fault starts with thinking a $2 - $2.5MM budget for basketball NIL would be sufficient. The market proved to be well above that. Cost us at least two portal candidates, Not sure if having a realistic budget would have led to more effective fundraising, but the failure to do so certainly had an impact.

Correct, I was being a little sarcastic, no one has said not our fault. But, the narrative of needing more NIL and blaming lack of it for this seasons performance, has come to the front lines on radio, and numerous interviews once the season went in the hole. I didn’t hear that conversation as much in November/December when possibilities were on the table. I didn’t hear this when we won 20 games last season. Alan griffin went on radio and said “we need our Kyle McCord”, which I get that, I really do. I would never expect a coach to go on an interview saying yeah our coaching is lack luster. But the conversation is clearly being pointed to NIL, and that’s the focus and word to get out right now. Again, it is not wrong! It really isn’t. They are trying to utilize the poor performance to motivate NIL. They HAVE to do that and I do not blame them. But, NIL doesn’t mean successful teams. There’s many examples in CFB and CBB where teams with extreme budgets under perform. So clearly it’s not just NIL, it takes the right system and coaching too.

For example, let’s say we have the same NIL and players last year but Dino was the coach and all his assistants. Do you think we have the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not. Point is we didn’t win 10 games ONLY because of NIL and players, it took coaching and proper preparation too. Why was Tx AM with Jimbo fisher not winning championships even tho their war chest was enormous? It takes both to be successful.

My point is the narrative is essentially, we have the coaches that’s not the problem, the problem is money.

I will die on this hill, it takes BOTH! But guess what who am I, someone gets paid handsomely to figure this out, I don’t. So what do I know lol

 

[Consigliere]

A counterpoint to that could be that a college should compensate players within its means. If that requires increasing ticket prices, finding more lucrative media deals, etc. then that's what should happen.

Basically, if a college can't afford to compensate its players $20.5 million/year via its revenue streams then maybe it shouldn't be spending $20.5 million/year?

Plus, there is an exchange of value in the pro model. Of course the revenue is ultimately derived from customers, but that customer is getting a ticket to a game, or a video service that serves them live games, for their money. Here it is a tax break and points for the privilege of buying additional things.

And I do have a question... since a college is a non-profit, what is the tax implication of building these facilities and paying players? The pro teams, for profit entities, are certainly paying a multitude of taxes based on their revenue and real estate holdings, among other things.

Please understand, I'm not saying not to contribute! I'm merely highlighting how messed up the whole model is.

Agree completely that the model is messed up. Ultimately the logical approach is to raise ticket prices and direct costs to the consumer, but in an era of declining attendance that approach may be counterproductive and lead to a death spiral. The risk of the donor based approach is that a large proportion of the customer base will be comfortable thinking this can all be accomplished with OPM (Other People's Money.)
These changes have all but destroyed competitive balance in the landscape and created three broad tiers. Those who can affort to compete at the highest level, those that are struggling to maintain the possibility to compete with, or just slightly below the top tier, and those who, simply put, will never have the resources to do so. Without fundamental changes that middle tier will slowly disappear as a small number will ascend, but the majority will not. I think Syracuse falls in that middle tier and is trying to tread water until there is legislation (governmental or NCAA) that reins in the madness or market forces and a diminished ROI stops megawealthy boosters from escalating the nuclear arms race.
As far as tax implications, I won;t pretend to have a clue. It is a sign of the times, however, that three states now have pending legislation to exempt "NIL" payments from state income tax. It should be no secret that those three states have large land grant univesrsities with successful athletic programs. It's really tragic that this toxic environment all emerged from a worthwhile concept to allow student athletes share in the revenue explosion. When we launched the SyraCRUZ Tailgate NIL Initiative we did so by offering modest sums to a broad range of SU athletes. Now, we have some of the higher profile ones scoff at the thought of spending two hours interacting with fans at a tailgate blocks away from their rooms for a pittance of $500 - $1000.

 

[sufan59]

I don't get how you can say you don't understand. The money is going to help us compete in athletics. The rest sounds lazy to me IMO. People here love to complain there's no solution and then when there is a solution its never good enough for some of you. If you donate to XYZ the University has always done a great job explaining to me where that money goes. Maybe it's just because I've been giving to my alma mater forever and understand the process, but the complaints about this make no sense.

Those buildings you see being built are built by money donors(usually alumni) give. Hence the names on those buildings. Project typically has a fundraising component where dollars are specifically allocated for those projects.

They have to get major volume of small to medium sized donors. I’m sure the NIL fees on tickets is coming, this campaign is just a start. Major donors can only be tapped so often before they question why they can’t join in the revenue sharing when they are basically the main funders of the operation. Major donors I’m sure will still have influence moving forward, but this is truly the only way that works that ultimately keeps some semblance of college sports. As fans we can keep an athletic department much more honest on its priorities to win for the benefit of everyone vs an owner who could have their own self interests once this is an investment opportunity. Ultimately the athletic department is expanding in ways it hasn’t in decades and they need more funds in order to continuing furthering the mission that we as fans believe in such as paying players. We may not like how they approach that mission some of the time. However, the other option essentially is the end of college sports for real. You would have to legit put measures in the contract agreements that the athletic programs need to stay in Syracuse if sold to investors. Maybe investors see better opportunity for the program in Florida or Arizona.

 

[Consigliere]

Correct, I was being a little sarcastic, no one has said not our fault. But, the narrative of needing more NIL and blaming lack of it for this seasons performance, has come to the front lines on radio, and numerous interviews once the season went in the hole. I didn’t hear that conversation as much in November/December when possibilities were on the table. I didn’t hear this when we won 20 games last season. Alan griffin went on radio and said “we need our Kyle McCord”, which I get that, I really do. I would never expect a coach to go on an interview saying yeah our coaching is lack luster. But the conversation is clearly being pointed to NIL, and that’s the focus and word to get out right now. Again, it is not wrong! It really isn’t. They are trying to utilize the poor performance to motivate NIL. They HAVE to do that and I do not blame them. But, NIL doesn’t mean successful teams. There’s many examples in CFB and CBB where teams with extreme budgets under perform. So clearly it’s not just NIL, it takes the right system and coaching too.

For example, let’s say we have the same NIL and players last year but Dino was the coach and all his assistants. Do you think we have the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not. Point is we didn’t win 10 games ONLY because of NIL and players, it took coaching and proper preparation too. Why was Tx AM with Jimbo fisher not winning championships even tho their war chest was enormous? It takes both to be successful.

My point is the narrative is essentially, we have the coaches that’s not the problem, the problem is money.

I will die on this hill, it takes BOTH! But guess what who am I, someone gets paid handsomely to figure this out, I don’t. So what do I know lol

Wise words, my friend! And a perfect description of where we are as a program right now. Look at football. Things had stagnated under Dino and the feeling was that we had reached our level and it may be time for a change. Rather than making that change immediately, Wildhack invested in the program by increasing support staff, increasing budget for assistant coaches and announcing major facilities upgrades. It was only after he felt he had given Dino everything he could to support success and agreed to thresholds were still not reached that a change was made. And with that change he doubled down with even more support, arguably at the expense of other programs. Without a massive increase in assistant coach salaray budget, without a substantial augmentation of support staff, without fostering a dialog with a major alumni group that strongly favored a different candidate for head coach over a largely unknown assistant that resulted in an unprecedented infusion of cash used in the transfer portal would we still be as enamored with Coach Fran and a 10 win season, or would the pitchforks be out and torches blazing calling for the head of an AD who went on the cheap and hired an unprovedn commodity to lead his flagship program?
I would expect to see the same approach in basketball and if a investment pays off, Red may become a longer term face of the program. If not, there will almost certainly be a change.

 

[sufan59]

Correct, I was being a little sarcastic, no one has said not our fault. But, the narrative of needing more NIL and blaming lack of it for this seasons performance, has come to the front lines on radio, and numerous interviews once the season went in the hole. I didn’t hear that conversation as much in November/December when possibilities were on the table. I didn’t hear this when we won 20 games last season. Alan griffin went on radio and said “we need our Kyle McCord”, which I get that, I really do. I would never expect a coach to go on an interview saying yeah our coaching is lack luster. But the conversation is clearly being pointed to NIL, and that’s the focus and word to get out right now. Again, it is not wrong! It really isn’t. They are trying to utilize the poor performance to motivate NIL. They HAVE to do that and I do not blame them. But, NIL doesn’t mean successful teams. There’s many examples in CFB and CBB where teams with extreme budgets under perform. So clearly it’s not just NIL, it takes the right system and coaching too.

For example, let’s say we have the same NIL and players last year but Dino was the coach and all his assistants. Do you think we have the same outcome? Maybe, maybe not. Point is we didn’t win 10 games ONLY because of NIL and players, it took coaching and proper preparation too. Why was Tx AM with Jimbo fisher not winning championships even tho their war chest was enormous? It takes both to be successful.

My point is the narrative is essentially, we have the coaches that’s not the problem, the problem is money.

I will die on this hill, it takes BOTH! But guess what who am I, someone gets paid handsomely to figure this out, I don’t. So what do I know lol

You can be selective in the programs you designate funds. Like I’m very skeptical of the men’s basketball program future because I believe we’re seeing larger issues than a talent problem with our results this season. Now I’m not exactly a will never donate to men’s basketball or even men’s basketball under Autry, but I personally need to see more the rest of this season and the end of season messaging to donate to them in this campaign. Football and Women’s Basketball was easy to give to. I truly believe we have the right staff and culture in place that can win at very high levels with funds to attract the best talent that fit the culture of their programs.

 

[SUFan44]

The collectives will still matter, this isn't one or the other.

$20.5M is substantially larger than we're raising now through the NIL collectives. One step at a time. Doing it through the school is better for tax reasons and helps the school run things in a more organized way. You can then still use collectives to organize marketing deals and a lot of other stuff on top of it.

The collectives will matter much, much less, due to the way third-party agreements will be scrutinized. It's a reason many schools are shuttering their collectives.

 

[CNYGuy]

Just a reminder that many in the AD don’t do a whole lot and make a real pretty penny. Everywhere in college athletics. So it’s always a little gross when the schools come shaking their coffee cup at fans

Honestly I would rather them do ticket increases and take that into the campaign or do events for fans where they pay a little bit and get something in return

Otherwise this is basically just asking fans to pay for the players. I get it. That’s where college athletics is… but it’s still gross

Dabbled in college athletics out of college and still have friends in the industry... Got out for the opposite reason. A lot of people are working 70 hour weeks (regular office job Monday-Friday), plus games/events (which are on nights and weekends) from July through the end of May.

Went through a stretch where I worked 7 days a week (including Thanksgiving and Christmas) without a day off in almost six months and had to get out.

 

[HRE Otto IV]

A counterpoint to that could be that a college should compensate players within its means. If that requires increasing ticket prices, finding more lucrative media deals, etc. then that's what should happen.

Basically, if a college can't afford to compensate its players $20.5 million/year via its revenue streams then maybe it shouldn't be spending $20.5 million/year?

Plus, there is an exchange of value in the pro model. Of course the revenue is ultimately derived from customers, but that customer is getting a ticket to a game, or a video service that serves them live games, for their money. Here it is a tax break and points for the privilege of buying additional things.

And I do have a question... since a college is a non-profit, what is the tax implication of building these facilities and paying players? The pro teams, for profit entities, are certainly paying a multitude of taxes based on their revenue and real estate holdings, among other things.

Please understand, I'm not saying not to contribute! I'm merely highlighting how messed up the whole model is.

Also generally speaking there is more parity in pro sports. If there is a talent deficiency it is usually the fault of the GM, not the fanbase or lack of funding. The Cavs don't have to worry about not having the $ that the Lakers do. Which makes it harder to want to give money to SU. Will the money make much of a difference vs B1G or SEC teams?

Pro sports have more games too. There is more content, your team plays 82 NBA or 17 NFL games vs 32 BBall or 12 FB in college.

 

[richmondcuse03]

A counterpoint to that could be that a college should compensate players within its means. If that requires increasing ticket prices, finding more lucrative media deals, etc. then that's what should happen.

Basically, if a college can't afford to compensate its players $20.5 million/year via its revenue streams then maybe it shouldn't be spending $20.5 million/year?

Plus, there is an exchange of value in the pro model. Of course the revenue is ultimately derived from customers, but that customer is getting a ticket to a game, or a video service that serves them live games, for their money. Here it is a tax break and points for the privilege of buying additional things.

And I do have a question... since a college is a non-profit, what is the tax implication of building these facilities and paying players? The pro teams, for profit entities, are certainly paying a multitude of taxes based on their revenue and real estate holdings, among other things.

Please understand, I'm not saying not to contribute! I'm merely highlighting how messed up the whole model is.

That's the logical approach.

The whole issue is that two college sports programs subsidize TONS of other sports programs so the comparison to professional sports doesn't work. If basketball was just producing revenue and covering expenses for its own team, we'd be the LA Dodgers or NY Yankees based on historic revenue. Unfortunately, all that money has gone to covering losses in other sports.

The issue is the money doesn't go to pay the players per say, it goes to cover all the other losses. That's where the model no longer makes sense.

 

[Consigliere]

The collectives will matter much, much less, due to the way third-party agreements will be scrutinized. It's a reason many schools are shuttering their collectives.

Hopefully the clearinghouse provision will remain as part of the final settlement but there is serious pushback on that front. There are “fairness” hearings scheduled for early April and that will be a major point of discussion. I would put the odds of it surviving at less than 50% unfortunately.

 

[SUFan44]

Hopefully the clearinghouse provision will remain as part of the final settlement but there is serious pushback on that front. There are “fairness” hearings scheduled for early April and that will be a major point of discussion. I would put the odds of it surviving at less than 50% unfortunately.

I think there's going to be major pushback by the NCAA if there's no third-party review of the outside NIL collective deals. That basically changes everything from getting closer to a level playing field with true revenue sharing, to now just flooding the market with more money and it being even more of a free for all.

I think a more likely scenario is roster limits are removed from the settlement. That is, by far, the biggest pushback the settlement has seen.

 

[Consigliere]

I think there's going to be major pushback by the NCAA if there's no third-party review of the outside NIL collective deals. That basically changes everything from getting closer to a level playing field with true revenue sharing, to now just flooding the market with more money and it being even more of a free for all.

I think a more likely scenario is roster limits are removed from the settlement. That is, by far, the biggest pushback the settlement has seen.

I am reading that the likely outcome on roster limits is that current walkons will be grandfathered in and their roster spot will be maintained.

 

[SUFan44]

I am reading that the likely outcome on roster limits is that current walkons will be grandfathered in and their roster spot will be maintained.

The main consideration is women and female sports that are going to see their opportunities diminish. Which is a Title IX issue. Though with the current admin in D.C., none of that seems to matter.

I could see a more likely scenario of roster limits going away entirely. It could also be a concession that might allow the third-party clearinghouse to stay in.

The timeline of all these things - March 1 opt-in & April 7 settlement final hearing - makes no sense. The opt in deadline should not be before the details are finalized. But what do I know.