Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="nzm136, post: 3557950, member: 2531"] The numbers are interesting to me because we aren’t as as constrained by politics as our public friends. (Although it’s much easier to get Pennsylvania taxpayers to polish Beaver Stadium than it is to get them to keep academic buildings from falling down, so the political component may not help in this regard.) Per Equity in Athletics, which I know has dubious numbers due to differences in accounting, PSU spends about ~40 MM to make ~100 MM. We spend about ~23 MM to make -44 MM. (I’m not counting scholarship costs because I don’t think they actually represent variable/marginal costs.) My initial reaction is to question why we don’t spend closer to them. I know we won’t get 100 MM in revenue, and I know we still won’t be as good as them (a filled 110k stadium is a pipe dream at SU, and it, along with other football-related CapEx investments, sell PSU to recruits). But +20 MM would be good at first glance, even if it gets us 8-9 win seasons and 65 MM. The financials would mostly wash, and the soft benefits (exposure, alumni engagement, student spirit, etc.) would be fantastic. However, after thinking about it a little more, Title IX probably complicates things. I doubt any major school in America is truly in compliance with the act, but all give some degree of lip service. If we have to spend somewhat evenly between men’s sports and women’s sports to keep up the illusion of compliance, then the extra ~20 MM is really ~35-40 MM, pushing the break even to ~80-85 MM (less soft benefits). Unfortunately, 80-96 MM isn’t going to happen. For anyone interested in what money buys, the difference between PSU and ‘Bama is roughly SU and PSU, albeit I’m sure Texas burns money left and right for dubious results, so money is admittedly not everything. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?