PS Article: AD Revenue and Football | Syracusefan.com

PS Article: AD Revenue and Football

anomander

Living Legend
Joined
Nov 30, 2012
Messages
14,577
Like
27,346
Syracuse athletics reports record revenues (How much does SU spend on each sport?)

imo this justifies some people's frustration when it comes to investment in the football program.

To me it's simple. You're investment in each program should be equal across the board. There is absolutely no reason we should invest the MOST in the COUNTRY in some sports, but when it comes to your money maker you rank 50th. If the AD can afford to spend the most in Men's and Women's Lacross, 2nd in Women's Field Hockey and Men's Soccer, 3rd in Women's Ice Hockey, 4th and 6th in Mens/Women's Rowing, 6th in Men's Hoops, 8th in Women's Tennis, and 11th in Women's Basketball, then I think we can manage to spend better than 50 other schools when it comes to Football. Other than lack of commitment, there is no reason we should be investing that much in other programs. I get that Football still gets the most money allocated...but it should. It also funds most of the other programs. Especially in this day and age I will never get why the SUAD continues to invest so heavily in sports very few people follow, but when it comes to your most important program you pinch pennies.

I fully expect a lot of people to disagree with this, and I already know the points that will be made, but the numbers are the numbers.
 
Syracuse athletics reports record revenues (How much does SU spend on each sport?)

imo this justifies some people's frustration when it comes to investment in the football program.

To me it's simple. You're investment in each program should be equal across the board. There is absolutely no reason we should invest the MOST in the COUNTRY in some sports, but when it comes to your money maker you rank 50th. If the AD can afford to spend the most in Men's and Women's Lacross, 2nd in Women's Field Hockey and Men's Soccer, 3rd in Women's Ice Hockey, 4th and 6th in Mens/Women's Rowing, 6th in Men's Hoops, 8th in Women's Tennis, and 11th in Women's Basketball, then I think we can manage to spend better than 50 other schools when it comes to Football. Other than lack of commitment, there is no reason we should be investing that much in other programs. I get that Football still gets the most money allocated...but it should. It also funds most of the other programs. Especially in this day and age I will never get why the SUAD continues to invest so heavily in sports very few people follow, but when it comes to your most important program you pinch pennies.

I fully expect a lot of people to disagree with this, and I already know the points that will be made, but the numbers are the numbers.
I found this article fascinating. As you noted, Syracuse spending on field hockey, mens and womens lax, mens soccer, and womens ice hockey (even though the coach is on record as complaining he isn't getting enough support) is big. Our spending on crew for both men and women is high (top 6) as well, despite being a top 20ish program in both. 50th in football is a major reason why we have struggled. 6th in mens hoops is great and we'd be higher if not for saving millions on JB's contract. A lot of these huge budgets for non-revenue sports is a TGD initiative. Be interested to see what this looks like in 5 years, when JW has had a chance to alter his priorities a bit.

BTW: I wonder if we are just now 50th in football? What were we during the Marrone years? Dino's salary as well as high support staff are as large as it has ever been at cuse, so progress is definitely happening.
 
Syracuse athletics reports record revenues (How much does SU spend on each sport?)

imo this justifies some people's frustration when it comes to investment in the football program.

To me it's simple. You're investment in each program should be equal across the board. There is absolutely no reason we should invest the MOST in the COUNTRY in some sports, but when it comes to your money maker you rank 50th. If the AD can afford to spend the most in Men's and Women's Lacross, 2nd in Women's Field Hockey and Men's Soccer, 3rd in Women's Ice Hockey, 4th and 6th in Mens/Women's Rowing, 6th in Men's Hoops, 8th in Women's Tennis, and 11th in Women's Basketball, then I think we can manage to spend better than 50 other schools when it comes to Football. Other than lack of commitment, there is no reason we should be investing that much in other programs. I get that Football still gets the most money allocated...but it should. It also funds most of the other programs. Especially in this day and age I will never get why the SUAD continues to invest so heavily in sports very few people follow, but when it comes to your most important program you pinch pennies.

I fully expect a lot of people to disagree with this, and I already know the points that will be made, but the numbers are the numbers.

I disagree.

We can afford to spend near the top for those other sports, because they don't get a ridiculous amount of $ spent on them.
We will NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD to be a top spender on Football, ever. Period, full stop.

Edited to add: It is less a function of SU "pinching pennies", and more that many other programs are throwing boatloads of ca$h at their Football programs, because they can.

The incremental extra spend to move from say 50 to 10 in Field Hockey, might only be $20k, or $50k, or whatever.
Whereas, the incremental extra spend to move from 50 to 10 in Football might be $1Million, or $5Million.

Meaning - that even if we cut the budgets in HALF for ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS, and put that savings into Football, we might only move up from 50 to 45.

And then ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS would slide into mediocrity, without having bolstered Football in a meaningful way.

(OK, I just read the article, and my example $'s are all WAY low, but my overarching point still stands)
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

We can afford to spend near the top for those other sports, because they don't get a ridiculous amount of $ spent on them.
We will NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD to be a top spender on Football, ever. Period, full stop.

Edited to add: It is less a function of SU "pinching pennies", and more that many other programs are throwing boatloads of ca$h at their Football programs, because they can.

The incremental extra spend to move from say 50 to 10 in Field Hockey, might only be $20k, or $50k, or whatever.
Whereas, the incremental extra spend to move from 50 to 10 in Football might be $1Million, or $5Million.

Meaning - that even if we cut the budgets in HALF for ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS, and put that savings into Football, we might only move up from 50 to 45.

And then ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS would slide into mediocrity, without having bolstered Football in a meaningful way.

I've always wanted to be known as a Rowing School:(
 
I've always wanted to be known as a Rowing School:(

Just because you don't give a crap about non-revenue sports, doesn't mean lots of other SU fans don't also.

I'm really proud that my alma mater has kicked ass recently in things like Soccer, XC and Indoor Track, Field Hockey, etc.
 
I disagree.

We can afford to spend near the top for those other sports, because they don't get a ridiculous amount of $ spent on them.
We will NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD to be a top spender on Football, ever. Period, full stop.

Edited to add: It is less a function of SU "pinching pennies", and more that many other programs are throwing boatloads of ca$h at their Football programs, because they can.

The incremental extra spend to move from say 50 to 10 in Field Hockey, might only be $20k, or $50k, or whatever.
Whereas, the incremental extra spend to move from 50 to 10 in Football might be $1Million, or $5Million.

Meaning - that even if we cut the budgets in HALF for ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS, and put that savings into Football, we might only move up from 50 to 45.

And then ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS would slide into mediocrity, without having bolstered Football in a meaningful way.

(OK, I just read the article, and my example $'s are all WAY low, but my overarching point still stands)
This guy/gal gets it. Its all relative, people.
 
Just because you don't give a crap about non-revenue sports, doesn't mean lots of other SU fans don't also.

I'm really proud that my alma mater has kicked ass recently in things like Soccer, XC and Indoor Track, Field Hockey, etc.

This guy/gal gets it. Its all relative, people.

If we are talking relative ......
 
Dr. Daryl Gross continues to be an albatross.

Tough for new AD's to come in and immediately slash budgets without losing staff/high-quality coaches.

There's a delicate process to this all. I completely agree with you and the premise that we should not be out-spending the entire nation on sports like field hockey & rowing when our football team is in the doldrums.

Amazing that they're spending as much as they are on rowing and ice hockey when they add nothing of value. At least field hockey, men's soccer & the other sports near the top of the lists win a lot at a national level and I'm aware of their successes. Women's ice hockey, for instance, is 9-17-2. That's terrible.

But I would also argue that slashing the budgets of Olympic sports would only provide a drop in the bucket more for football on a year-to-year basis.
 
My concern is football and basketball make the money that feeds the other programs. Without a successful football program, you don’t have the money to spend top 5 for multiple non revenue sports.

If they can’t support at least 50% of their cost they should probably be club team level. Individual sports teams should have some self sufficiency built in because if ACC money ever goes away or the ncaa is forced to pay the revenue sport athletes, our women’s field hockey or intramural quidditch team will be in a real world of hurt.
 
Would be interesting to put together some sort of ROI ranking based on wins across the different sports.

Honestly, the fact that ice hockey has the third highest budget in the country is unfathomable. That they have a .333 winning percentage and haven't been relevant in the 10 years the sport has existed at SU is just horrendous.
 
Last edited:
Said it before. The Athletic Department is a battleship that is turning. It takes time but JW will make his mark and soon. What he inherited will blow A LOT of people's minds.

The renegotiation of our apparel deal comes to mind as something that will provide more $$ for the department.
 
Said it before. The Athletic Department is a battleship that is turning. It takes time but JW will make his mark and soon. What he inherited will blow A LOT of people's minds.

The renegotiation of our apparel deal comes to mind as something that will provide more $$ for the department.

You are right. I shouldn't be blaming him for this mess. I guess my frustration is even more towards TGD and the decisions he made that are still haunting the SUAD.

Hopefully JW gets this straightened out.
 
Just because you don't give a crap about non-revenue sports, doesn't mean lots of other SU fans don't also.

I'm really proud that my alma mater has kicked ass recently in things like Soccer, XC and Indoor Track, Field Hockey, etc.
I agree with you. Heck I watch FH, women’s hoops, women’s lax live all the time. Q’s squad is way more fun to watch this year than JBs. Tiana is awesome! I support all SU sports, men’s and women’s. I want to win national championships in all of them and realize that being competitive across the board is wonderful for the school and brings in better talent. That said, I think the idea that we should try and leverage our money making sports to generate more for the entire program is a sound one. More success in football, I would think means more revenue for everyone... no?
 
Last edited:
The school runs a balanced AD budget. Not sure, please correct me.if I am wrong, I think k this means that the AD turns over surplus cash to the general University fund.

As noted above, the SU spending is based on the SU private school tuition and is not truly comparable to a Big State U tuition, thus SU numbers are inflated and Big State U's numbers are deflated by hiding costs paid by taxpayers. As noted above, a comparison without tuition included would be best.

Regardless, the SU ship is being righted and AD Wildhack has resources...not to mention he should have more resources once the ACCN is up and running. Add to that, HCDB has the team going in the right direction so it is likely that football will generate more money soon. The staff will be paid accordingly.
 
Said it before. The Athletic Department is a battleship that is turning. It takes time but JW will make his mark and soon. What he inherited will blow A LOT of people's minds.
Please tell. And yes, name names. It's about time.

I'm really sick of all the allusions and innuendo. The incompetence that has become routine at the AD thrives on being kept on the dark. So out with it. And I'm calling on everyone.
 
I disagree.

We can afford to spend near the top for those other sports, because they don't get a ridiculous amount of $ spent on them.
We will NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD to be a top spender on Football, ever. Period, full stop.

Edited to add: It is less a function of SU "pinching pennies", and more that many other programs are throwing boatloads of ca$h at their Football programs, because they can.

The incremental extra spend to move from say 50 to 10 in Field Hockey, might only be $20k, or $50k, or whatever.
Whereas, the incremental extra spend to move from 50 to 10 in Football might be $1Million, or $5Million.

Meaning - that even if we cut the budgets in HALF for ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS, and put that savings into Football, we might only move up from 50 to 45.

And then ALL THOSE OTHER PROGRAMS would slide into mediocrity, without having bolstered Football in a meaningful way.

(OK, I just read the article, and my example $'s are all WAY low, but my overarching point still stands)

If we experience a major drop in performance in sports that very few care about...to make a minimal jump(let’s say a perennial 6-7 win team) in a visible sport like football, is it worth it?

With minimal thought, I think it absolutely is. What value do some of these sports have to anybody beyond the 15-20 people on the team, a few coaches, and the players parents? Makes zero money, does nothing for the school’s rep or brand, and barely anybody cares.
 
Please tell. And yes, name names. It's about time.

I'm really sick of all the allusions and innuendo. The incompetence that has become routine at the AD thrives on being kept on the dark. So out with it. And I'm calling on everyone.
I wonder if Luke Jensen is still collecting a check ;)
 
We definitely don't have a lot of bargains among the Olympic sports. As some have suggested, that is the Gross legacy. It did definitely pay off in terms of our Sears Trophy (is it still called that?) standings. But some programs more than others. Gait took the women's lax team to a whole new level. Field hockey was nothing before Bradley arrived. The track coach we poached from Auburn has been excellent. Women's tennis, though, has been a huge money pit. The established guy they brought from SLU to start up women's ice hockey still hasn't gotten them over the hump. I don't understand why so much is spent on rowing but that's also a very expensive sport. We need to keep in mind too that our expenses are going to generally be higher than public schools because of tuition costs.

I'd like to see them put more money into football but there has to be a limit. Alabama is outspending everyone by $15 million. At a state school in a state where costs for virtually everything are lower than almost anywhere else. $60-plus million a year on football is a travesty. Scratch that, it's a tragedy for a state where educational outcomes are also among the lowest in the country---heck, they're among the lowest in the developed world! I don't want us to be Alabama. But I'd like for us to compete with our peers in this region. As long as we do that, I'm okay if we're spending way less than SEC schools. Those schools, plus some of the other football factories, have completely lost the plot.
 
If we experience a major drop in performance in sports that very few care about...to make a minimal jump(let’s say a perennial 6-7 win team) in a visible sport like football, is it worth it?

With minimal thought, I think it absolutely is. What value do some of these sports have to anybody beyond the 15-20 people on the team, a few coaches, and the players parents? Makes zero money, does nothing for the school’s rep or brand, and barely anybody cares.


Student recruitment tools...SU want kids that are lax, rowers, field hockey types, etc or are drawn from areas that like that stuff.
 
one thing thats over looked is what they get back for the investment.. I know here rowing is a minor sport too to the fans, but the money they get back in endowment is far greater than other sports its probably the same at SU.. Spending money on some of these lower hanging fruit sports but creating tons of good will on the back end cant be overlooked.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,142
Messages
4,682,922
Members
5,901
Latest member
CarlsbergMD

Online statistics

Members online
50
Guests online
923
Total visitors
973


Top Bottom