PS Article: AD Revenue and Football

[JackBauer44]

I wonder if Luke Jensen is still collecting a check

 

[JackBauer44]

I wonder if Luke Jensen is still collecting a check

Do not care for him at all. He was horrible at SU and is even more questionable in person.

 

[whobut03]

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'm really not comfortable sharing specific examples on a public forum. If you want, DM me, others have and I think (hope) they'll tell you I'm pretty open on honest.

Rest easy that the problems are being corrected.

 

[cuse10]

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.

Sums it up. They don't move the bottom line and most students don't care about them. Only ones invested in it are those that play for the teams.

A drop in the bucket in funding could prove dividends for the football program by adding a new coach, recruiter or nutrionist; the latter of which many have complained about recently. SU has to increase their investment in the football program if they want to be competitive. The more money football makes, the better off everyone is.

 

[storange]

They once asked Dean Smith about UNC being a basketball school, he replied were not, were a Womens soccer school. UNC had won 12 out of 14 NCs under Anson Dorance at the time.

 

[xc84]

Sums it up. They don't move the bottom line and most students don't care about them. Only ones invested in it are those that play for the teams.

A drop in the bucket in funding could prove dividends for the football program by adding a new coach, recruiter or nutrionist; the latter of which many have complained about recently. SU has to increase their investment in the football program if they want to be competitive. The more money football makes, the better off everyone is.

I disagree with the statements that most students "don't care" about non-revenue sports but it does not matter. Title IX requires equal "scholarship" spending on men v. women so even if you just have basketball and football teams on the mens side, you will need to spend just as much on the womens side on teams you say the students "don't care" about. That drives it as much as anything.

 

[cuse10]

I disagree with the statements that most students "don't care" about non-revenue sports but it does not matter. Title IX requires equal "scholarship" spending on men v. women so even if you just have basketball and football teams on the mens side, you will need to spend just as much on the womens side on teams you say the students "don't care" about. That drives it as much as anything.

Pull up the attendance for those games. Ask students what they think about the programs, if they actually know they exist. That's the proper way to gauge the temperature.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Even if we were to eliminate all the unpopular non-revenue sports and pump that money into football, it still wouldn't come close to what the big boys spend.

Getting rid of Rowing and Tennis won't make us competitive with Alabama.

 

[xc84]

Pull up the attendance for those games. Ask students what they think about the programs, if they actually know they exist. That's the proper way to gauge the temperature.

Ok... go for it. In any case, that was not the main point of what I said. e.g. When you have 85 football scholarships, you need to have 85 scholarships for women's sports/ (non revenue sports students "don't care" about). You can't just cut them.

In addition, the ACC does not want schools that neglect non-revenue sports.

 

[anomander]

Ok... go for it. In any case, that was not the main point of what I said. e.g. When you have 85 football scholarships, you need to have 85 scholarships for women's sports/ (non revenue sports students "don't care" about). You can't just cut them.

In addition, the ACC does not want schools that neglect non-revenue sports.

Well the NCAA doesn't have to worry about Syracuse neglecting them since they spend the most in the country for most of them. That's a little aggressive and very unnecessary. As I said if you can't afford to spend more than 49 other schools in Football then there is absolutely no reason they should be spending more than everyone else in the entire country for these non-revenue sports. It's irrelevant if it's a drop in the bucket to Football. That excuse only tries to justify poor management.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I disagree with the statements that most students "don't care" about non-revenue sports but it does not matter. Title IX requires equal "scholarship" spending on men v. women so even if you just have basketball and football teams on the mens side, you will need to spend just as much on the womens side on teams you say the students "don't care" about. That drives it as much as anything.

Soccer stadium is always overflow with fans at men's games. Lots of students in the mix.

 

[lincolncuse]

Even if we were to eliminate all the unpopular non-revenue sports and pump that money into football, it still wouldn't come close to what the big boys spend.

Getting rid of Rowing and Tennis won't make us competitive with Alabama.

Agree we will never be a big boy football school but was a bit disappointed with 50. Was hoping it was in the 25-30 range but I have no idea what it would take to get there or if it is realistic.

 

[OttoMets]

Student recruitment tools...SU want kids that are lax, rowers, field hockey types, etc or are drawn from areas that like that stuff.

And I've got no figures on this, but anecdotally kids in a lot of those sports go on to be big donors.

 

[OttoMets]

Pull up the attendance for those games. Ask students what they think about the programs, if they actually know they exist. That's the proper way to gauge the temperature.

Asking the dead-eyed Pajama Boys (credit to some other poster on this board, I forgot which one) what sporting events they attend is how the university should make its policy decisions?

I don't entirely agree with this take.

 

[SoBristol]

There are two parts of this equation. How much is SU spending on football? Where does SU rank in revenues for football -- not only ACC dollars, but how much comes in for paid attendance, premiums paid for the best seats, luxury box revenues, corporate advertising and corporate donations, and alumni donations aimed at the football program. Our season ticket revenue, even with low pricing, must be near the bottom of the ACC. We give away or sharply discount game tickets to get respectable attendance.

I get that some will say that spending more on the program will produce wins, and better attendance etc. Still, if you generate big football revenues (Clemson for example) you can spend a lot. If you don't generate the revenues, you might have to budget ...

 

[SkyTopBus44]

So encouraging that they are providing this information. One thing I have realized is that everyone has an opinion on how everyone else should spend their money. Opening up with this much information is putting yourself out there for criticism. There is no way that TGD or Jake would have put something like this out for the world to see.

 

[xc84]

Well the NCAA doesn't have to worry about Syracuse neglecting them since they spend the most in the country for most of them. That's a little aggressive and very unnecessary. As I said if you can't afford to spend more than 49 other schools in Football then there is absolutely no reason they should be spending more than everyone else in the entire country for these non-revenue sports. It's irrelevant if it's a drop in the bucket to Football. That excuse only tries to justify poor management.

Another point missed. Let's say the cost of attendance is $30K at Clemson and $60K at SU. A team of 10 is fielded for each. That's $300K for Clemson and $600K for SU. You could look at the numbers and say "Syracuse is spending twice as much as Clemson" but that is really misleading. For all intents and purposes, it is the same.

 

[NJCuse97]

I'd be more interested in spending with tuition spending taken out.

This is crucial. Title IX plays into this. We are required to spend on these sports and with tuition costs having to match men’s sports combined with the proportional lack of spending otherwise, it’s not hard to be in the top ten of these non-revenue sports. To say they should be 50% self sufficient is to make them all club, and in the process lose football to Title IX

 

[NJCuse97]

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.

I think there are plenty who care. I think the SU soccer team holding their own with Georgetown keeps a rivalry alive. I think having a great lax program is of enormous value to SU's brand. Yes I am talking about the men's teams because they too are non-revenue sports. SU has made major strides in soccer and it's showing up on the MLS radar. As for women's athletics, our FH and lax teams should be as good as they can be if we're going to field a team. We are in an extremely competitive conference for those sports as well. Those games are played in fertile recruiting grounds where it is good to spread the brand of Syracuse success. We play in the DMV, the south, and other football battlegrounds and athletes see Syracuse Orange crossing the finish or winning the games. It creates a culture of excellence that extends to the entire AD and high school athletic departments and student athletes see that.

If you want to assure your place among the major prestigious institutions of the ACC, you have to bring it somewhere. We are doing it more with lax, soccer, XC, FH, and women's hoops than we are with football and men's basketball right now. I don't think an extra $million in the football till is going to have the same impact it does to three of those other sports and keeps us in the top tier of the ACC, rather than being a Rutgers with an image of perennial losers in all facets of athletics. tuition costs are a big component to this, but even if they weren't, I would still be happy to see SU spend near the top and for the most part getting results. Football will get back god willing, and until then these are the sports showing athletes that they can succeed at Syracuse on a national level.

 

[NJCuse97]

Pull up the attendance for those games. Ask students what they think about the programs, if they actually know they exist. That's the proper way to gauge the temperature.

So the student section at football games is at capacity?

 

[cuse10]

I think there are plenty who care. I think the SU soccer team holding their own with Georgetown keeps a rivalry alive. I think having a great lax program is of enormous value to SU's brand. Yes I am talking about the men's teams because they too are non-revenue sports. SU has made major strides in soccer and it's showing up on the MLS radar. As for women's athletics, our FH and lax teams should be as good as they can be if we're going to field a team. We are in an extremely competitive conference for those sports as well. Those games are played in fertile recruiting grounds where it is good to spread the brand of Syracuse success. We play in the DMV, the south, and other football battlegrounds and athletes see Syracuse Orange crossing the finish or winning the games. It creates a culture of excellence that extends to the entire AD and high school athletic departments and student athletes see that.

If you want to assure your place among the major prestigious institutions of the ACC, you have to bring it somewhere. We are doing it more with lax, soccer, XC, FH, and women's hoops than we are with football and men's basketball right now. I don't think an extra $million in the football till is going to have the same impact it does to three of those other sports and keeps us in the top tier of the ACC, rather than being a Rutgers with an image of perennial losers in all facets of athletics. tuition costs are a big component to this, but even if they weren't, I would still be happy to see SU spend near the top and for the most part getting results. Football will get back god willing, and until then these are the sports showing athletes that they can succeed at Syracuse on a national level.

That's how to spin spending a 750k on a women's lax coach that hasn't won anything.

 

[NJCuse97]

That's how to spin spending a 750k on a women's lax coach that hasn't won anything.

Is that what you said about Boeheim in 2002? At least Gait won 3 as a player.

 

[NJCuse97]

That's a little aggressive and very unnecessary. As I said if you can't afford to spend more than 49 other schools in Football then there is absolutely no reason they should be spending more than everyone else in the entire country for these non-revenue sports. It's irrelevant if it's a drop in the bucket to Football. That excuse only tries to justify poor management.

Not at all correct or true. These numbers include the cost of tuition. All things entirely equal, and we spend $1 on tape, we are the #1 spending school on women's hockey. If every school in the country only covers that 10 times plus equipment and ice time as their investment into a women's hockey program (made up) then SU's tuition against North Dakota State probably automatically again puts us at #1. If we cut one scholarship from that 10 to reduce spending, we have to cut one from a men's sport. That puts us cutting scholarships on national championship caliber teams (soccer, lax, track?) we saw what reduced scholarships has done to our prestigious hoops team. What if the ice time at SU is more expensive? Whoops, we climb the list again. So we should cut coaching salaries for nationally recognized non-revenue sports? We should save $400k so that the football team can eat better meals in their private dining hall? This is not a shot at the football program from me and it shouldn't be a witch hunt on the non-revenue sports. Football's place at 50 has more to do with what we spend on football vs what others spend on football and nothing to do with how much we spend on non-revenue sports.

 

[orangenauburn]

Agree we will never be a big boy football school but was a bit disappointed with 50. Was hoping it was in the 25-30 range but I have no idea what it would take to get there or if it is realistic.

Probably a financial bump of $10-$15m more per year

 

[nzm136]

1. There isn't a finite pool of money that we can (or should) spend. It's all relative. We should spend to the point where the incremental cost of the investment equals the incremental return on that investment (highly subjective - how much is imporived student life worth?).

2. Although the exact amount is extremely hard to quantify, an understanding on a directional level isn't. For instance, northeastern schools should absolutely over-index in lacrosse, basketball, field hockey, rowing, and ice hockey, whereas southeastern schools should over-index in football, softball, and baseball.

3. SU's costs are inflated by tuition/scholarships, as are every other private school's.

4. There are Title IX implications. Pulling money out of one sport impacts other sports as well.

5. Being ranked #1 in XC isn't the same as being ranked #1 in football, and that fact is true from an effort required perspective and a cost perspective.

6. Basketball and football are what keeps the lights on, so IMHO, we should prioritize those sports first. I think that we do a good job keeping basketball well fed, but we've been behind the curve in football.

7. It's insane to blame Gross without knowing what his compensation looked like. If the guy was compensated on the overall competitiveness of the athletic department (i.e. Director's Cup standing), then he was just following orders, and he did a great job. If he was asked to win basketball games and football games, then he did a less great job.

**For the record, I think that most schools under-pay football coaches. If hiring a guy like Saban is worth +5 wins a year, and if consistent 9-11 win seasons are worth +$30 MM in donations, merch sales, ticket sales, etc., then we'd be crazy to not spend an incremental $15 million on coaching salaries (+$15 MM mirrored in women's sports) if it meant getting a guy on Saban's level.**