(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 05:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  31 of the 220 schools in the USA Today report spent less than $10 million.
83 spent 10-20 million-only 6 played FBS football
44 spent 20-30-30 played FBS
14 spent 30-43-12 played FBS (James Madison and Delaware were the exceptions)
57 spent 43-140 million-all played FBS and 52 were P5 schools.

Link?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

You can sort by any of the columns. It only includes public schools (schools subject to FOIA).

Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well. So add those into equation above Washington State's position and it gives you a better pecking order on the top 71 schools. Then subtract any service academies (Air Force for instance) because I'm fairly certain their commandants have determined that playing in an upper tier is not in keeping with the mission of their schools and you have a great list from which to judge level of investment.

Now you are 1/3rd of the way done on an evaluation for the upper tier. Eliminate all schools that do not offer 16 varsity scholarship sports. (To make this easy it should be any FCS programs as I believe all FBS programs are required already to meet this requirement, so I wouldn't expect there to be any at the 43 million dollar level of investment.)

Now take the chart ranking the average attendance at Football and Basketball games for the various schools and cross reference it with the level of investment by schools offering 16 or more varsity sports and you have a much better idea of where the cutoff for participation will likely occur.

P5 Conferences are looking for schools that are willing to invest to make their sports competitive and who are willing to level the playing field by offering the requisite number of sports, and which have the largest proven attendance which frequently but not always correlates with the size of the alumni base and with potential audience for televised events. Those are the schools that have the greatest potential to be P5 schools. The stipends will raise the level of commitment but not as significantly as many might think if you consider the schools most likely to participate are already committing more than 43 million per year to athletics.

Not sure why USA Today does not print the Private Schools' numbers, but they are readily available from the EIE website. For 2011-12:

014.) University of Notre Dame - $97,112,859
016.) Stanford University - $89,132,990
020.) University of Southern California - $84,149,146
032.) Duke University - $78,604,895
035.) Syracuse University - $73,287,687
040.) Texas Christian University - $68,050,907
041.) Baylor University - $67,823,109
043.) Boston College - $66,197,029
051.) University of Miami - $62,099,601
053.) Northwestern University - $61,187,691
059.) Vanderbilt University - $55,836,373
064.) Brigham Young University - $53,033,500
065.) Wake Forest University - $48,776,185
071.) Southern Methodist University - $42,632,627
079.) University of Tulsa - $31,128,157
083.) Rice University - $30,256,637
086.) Tulane University - $27,952,840

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-612312.html

I will add that Syracuse's and TCU's numbers are both impressive because they were not in P5 conferences in 2011-12.

I know that Tulane is going to be about 30-34M for Year 1 in the AAC.

I think the exact number was somewhere around 31M.

...that's not good enough. Tulane is not going to see permanent benefits to athletic investment until they cross the $40M threshold.

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well.

Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 05:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  31 of the 220 schools in the USA Today report spent less than $10 million.
83 spent 10-20 million-only 6 played FBS football
44 spent 20-30-30 played FBS
14 spent 30-43-12 played FBS (James Madison and Delaware were the exceptions)
57 spent 43-140 million-all played FBS and 52 were P5 schools.

Link?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

You can sort by any of the columns. It only includes public schools (schools subject to FOIA).

Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well. So add those into equation above Washington State's position and it gives you a better pecking order on the top 71 schools. Then subtract any service academies (Air Force for instance) because I'm fairly certain their commandants have determined that playing in an upper tier is not in keeping with the mission of their schools and you have a great list from which to judge level of investment.

Now you are 1/3rd of the way done on an evaluation for the upper tier. Eliminate all schools that do not offer 16 varsity scholarship sports. (To make this easy it should be any FCS programs as I believe all FBS programs are required already to meet this requirement, so I wouldn't expect there to be any at the 43 million dollar level of investment.)

Now take the chart ranking the average attendance at Football and Basketball games for the various schools and cross reference it with the level of investment by schools offering 16 or more varsity sports and you have a much better idea of where the cutoff for participation will likely occur.

P5 Conferences are looking for schools that are willing to invest to make their sports competitive and who are willing to level the playing field by offering the requisite number of sports, and which have the largest proven attendance which frequently but not always correlates with the size of the alumni base and with potential audience for televised events. Those are the schools that have the greatest potential to be P5 schools. The stipends will raise the level of commitment but not as significantly as many might think if you consider the schools most likely to participate are already committing more than 43 million per year to athletics.

Is football required as one of the sports? UC Santa Barbara sponsors 20 varsity sports so we are safely above that hypothetical minimum of 16.

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well.

Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures.

I think the conferences look at finances first. Supposedly, one of the first questions Larry Scott asked Utah's AD at their first meeting was something like, "What are your plans for increasing your budget to a Pac-10 level," and the meeting went well because he was prepared with a good answer.

If a school has proven they'll make a huge investment, lower attendance isn't an issue -- TCU is the best example. They raised so much money from boosters it would make your jaw drop; we know they can be competitive even if the Horns sell twice as many tickets.

For sure, if attendance isn't even in the 40s, people would look really, really hard at where the money comes from and are those sources sustainable (whether it's booster money or university subsidies or whatever).

(04-17-2014 11:52 AM)jdgaucho Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:25 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-16-2014 05:19 PM)bullet Wrote:  31 of the 220 schools in the USA Today report spent less than $10 million.
83 spent 10-20 million-only 6 played FBS football
44 spent 20-30-30 played FBS
14 spent 30-43-12 played FBS (James Madison and Delaware were the exceptions)
57 spent 43-140 million-all played FBS and 52 were P5 schools.

Link?

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/s.../finances/

You can sort by any of the columns. It only includes public schools (schools subject to FOIA).

Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well. So add those into equation above Washington State's position and it gives you a better pecking order on the top 71 schools. Then subtract any service academies (Air Force for instance) because I'm fairly certain their commandants have determined that playing in an upper tier is not in keeping with the mission of their schools and you have a great list from which to judge level of investment.

Now you are 1/3rd of the way done on an evaluation for the upper tier. Eliminate all schools that do not offer 16 varsity scholarship sports. (To make this easy it should be any FCS programs as I believe all FBS programs are required already to meet this requirement, so I wouldn't expect there to be any at the 43 million dollar level of investment.)

Now take the chart ranking the average attendance at Football and Basketball games for the various schools and cross reference it with the level of investment by schools offering 16 or more varsity sports and you have a much better idea of where the cutoff for participation will likely occur.

P5 Conferences are looking for schools that are willing to invest to make their sports competitive and who are willing to level the playing field by offering the requisite number of sports, and which have the largest proven attendance which frequently but not always correlates with the size of the alumni base and with potential audience for televised events. Those are the schools that have the greatest potential to be P5 schools. The stipends will raise the level of commitment but not as significantly as many might think if you consider the schools most likely to participate are already committing more than 43 million per year to athletics.

Is football required as one of the sports? UC Santa Barbara sponsors 20 varsity sports so we are safely above that hypothetical minimum of 16.

D1 minimum is 14 sports for non-FBS, which must include 3 men's and 3 women's teams sports (2 men's if one is football).

A non-football school could have men's basketball (13 scholarships), baseball (11.7), soccer (9.9), x-country, indoor and outdoor track (12 combined) and golf (4.5)(51.1 men's scholarships) plus women's basketball (15), volleyball (12), softball (12), x-country, indoor and outdoor track (18 combined) and golf (6) (63 women's scholarships). To get to 16 sports, such a school could add, for instance, men's tennis (4.5) and women's bowling (5), only 9.5 extra scholarships. If that's what it takes to get you access to NCAA Division 1 revenue sharing, well worth it.

(04-17-2014 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well.

Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

Probably 99.999 percent of the G5's will be able to remain, and any that don't probably were already at risk.

Slive addressed most things being speculated about in this thread with the following statement:

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

He meant what he said.

(04-16-2014 02:53 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  Nobody will willingly drop down no matter what...and any attempt to force schools down will get challenged in court.

Winning a BCS bowl and the national championship in basketball provides good ammunition for the AAC.

Sometimes I am more surprised at differences among P5 members than between P5 and G5. UNC is reported to spend some $82 million on athletics. They sponsor a lot of sports - more than most in the P5. They are hardly skimping in their support. Everything is first class. Yet Texas spends over $50 million more a year than UNC does.

What could they possibly be spending this money on? How much more lavish can their athletes' lounge be? Or their weight room? We know what their coaches are paid, and while UT pays a lot more than UNC, there still has to be a difference of $40 million or more. Where does it all go?

(04-17-2014 12:16 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well.

Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

Probably 99.999 percent of the G5's will be able to remain, and any that don't probably were already at risk.

Slive addressed most things being speculated about in this thread with the following statement:

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

He meant what he said.

I'd say 95%.

(04-17-2014 12:16 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:16 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Notre Dame, Southern California, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Baylor, T.C.U., Syracuse, Duke, Boston College, and Miami all spend $43 million or more on athletics. I've not seen Wake Forest's investment numbers printed anywhere but could easily believe that they spend this much or more as well.

Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

Probably 99.999 percent of the G5's will be able to remain, and any that don't probably were already at risk.

Slive addressed most things being speculated about in this thread with the following statement:

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

He meant what he said.

Ive made it clear I don't think a split is coming and if it is, it would likely be FBS splitting from D1, not the P5 splitting from the G5. Im simply saying if the G5 and P5 DID split, I agree that the base criteria for inclusion would largely be items that test financial commitment to athletics. Under such a scenario, some group of G5 schools would definitely ante up and try to make a go of it.

(04-17-2014 12:33 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 12:16 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

Probably 99.999 percent of the G5's will be able to remain, and any that don't probably were already at risk.

Slive addressed most things being speculated about in this thread with the following statement:

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

He meant what he said.

I'd say 95%.

Well, written!

(04-17-2014 11:17 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Not sure why USA Today does not print the Private Schools' numbers, but they are readily available from the EIE website. For 2011-12:
…
086.) Tulane University - $27,952,840

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-612312.html

(04-17-2014 11:26 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I know that Tulane is going to be about 30-34M for Year 1 in the AAC.

I think the exact number was somewhere around 31M.

...that's not good enough. Tulane is not going to see permanent benefits to athletic investment until they cross the $40M threshold.

Tulane has spent a lot more than $40m on Yulman. I don't remember what the tab on the Hertz Center (opened September 2011) came to, but it wasn't exactly cheap, either.

(04-17-2014 12:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:17 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Not sure why USA Today does not print the Private Schools' numbers, but they are readily available from the EIE website. For 2011-12:
…
086.) Tulane University - $27,952,840

http://www.csnbbs.com/thread-612312.html

(04-17-2014 11:26 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I know that Tulane is going to be about 30-34M for Year 1 in the AAC.

I think the exact number was somewhere around 31M.

...that's not good enough. Tulane is not going to see permanent benefits to athletic investment until they cross the $40M threshold.

Tulane has spent a lot more than $40m on Yulman. I don't remember what the tab on the Hertz Center (opened September 2011) came to, but it wasn't exactly cheap, either.

Running athletic budget =/= facility upgrades

Tulane has dumped serious money in facilities -but the running budget leaves much to be desired.

(04-17-2014 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 12:16 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

Probably 99.999 percent of the G5's will be able to remain, and any that don't probably were already at risk.

Slive addressed most things being speculated about in this thread with the following statement:

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

He meant what he said.

Ive made it clear I don't think a split is coming and if it is, it would likely be FBS splitting from D1, not the P5 splitting from the G5. Im simply saying if the G5 and P5 DID split, I agree that the base criteria for inclusion would largely be items that test financial commitment to athletics. Under such a scenario, some group of G5 schools would definitely ante up and try to make a go of it.

I agree with you about a split. I think what Slive is saying is that it really doesn't matter to the P5 schools what anybody else wants to do or not do. Stay, don't stay - makes no difference to us. Just don't expect us to allow you to tell us what we can or cannot do with our resources.

Faced with that reality, I believe the G5 will take what they can get and stay where they are.

(04-17-2014 12:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  Sometimes I am more surprised at differences among P5 members than between P5 and G5. UNC is reported to spend some $82 million on athletics. They sponsor a lot of sports - more than most in the P5. They are hardly skimping in their support. Everything is first class. Yet Texas spends over $50 million more a year than UNC does.

What could they possibly be spending this money on? How much more lavish can their athletes' lounge be? Or their weight room? We know what their coaches are paid, and while UT pays a lot more than UNC, there still has to be a difference of $40 million or more. Where does it all go?

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/a.../index.htm

Quote:Having spent the last decade perennially one-upping each other with $5 million head-coaching salaries, high-tech locker rooms and weight rooms the size of a city block, the latest college football arms race is playing out in programs' staff directories. While NCAA rules strictly define the number of coaches that can instruct players on the field (the head coach, nine assistants and four GAs), there are no limits on how many people can help behind the scenes. Over the past few years—and this off-season in particular—the nation's richest programs have loaded up on these largely invisible but invaluable figures, some with job titles lifted straight from the NFL and others known by the vague descriptor of analyst. Most deal primarily with recruiting. Although they can't call, write or visit prospects, they can field calls, contact high school coaches, maintain databases and set up visits and camps. "In the last year, you've heard more head coaches say, 'He's going to join our recruiting department,' " says Pete Roussel, publisher of the industry news site CoachingSearch.com. "Three years ago, there was no such thing as a recruiting department."

Other staffers break down game and practice tape and handle tedious but helpful special projects. (One such request from Meyer: "List in order our most efficient run [plays] last year against teams that run the 3--4 [defense].") Meanwhile, titles like player development coordinator might be cynically viewed as code for babysitter. "You've got 125 to 130 players a year, and coaches are gone so much," says Texas head coach Mack Brown. "You'd like to have people that have coached be around them on a daily basis."

Previously, a coach might have handed out a low-paying, entry-level office job to a former player trying to break into the business. Now, bolstered by revenue from the boom in conference television contracts, many athletic departments are ponying up for legitimate salaries.

(04-17-2014 12:51 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 12:42 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:26 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  Tulane is not going to see permanent benefits to athletic investment until they cross the $40M threshold.

Tulane has spent a lot more than $40m on Yulman. I don't remember what the tab on the Hertz Center (opened September 2011) came to, but it wasn't exactly cheap, either.

Running athletic budget =/= facility upgrades

Tulane has dumped serious money in facilities -but the running budget leaves much to be desired.

True, but if we're looking at $$$-spent as a barometer of "seriousness" about athletic competition, then that needs to be accounted for somehow.

(04-17-2014 12:35 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 12:16 PM)Seminole Indian Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:57 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:56 AM)Wedge Wrote:  Annual athletic department spending as reported to the federal Department of Education, including private schools. Most recent data was reported in 2012, search it at:

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

(Go to the "Revenues and Expenses" tab for each school)

Wake Forest - $46.7 million

I think that's the lowest reported annual spending for any P5 school. The only other P5 schools reporting less than $55 million were:

Washington State: $50.2 million
Utah: $51.8 million
Texas Tech: $53.6 million
Mississippi State: $53.9 million

G5 schools over $40 million/year:

UConn: $63.3 million
SMU: $52.0 million
BYU: $49.5 million
Cincinnati: $45.1 million
USF: $45.1 million
UCF: $42.0 million

Thanks Wedge. To put some more perspective on it here are the average attendance figures rounded for each of the P5 conferences: SEC: 75,000, Big 10: 70,000, Big 12: 59,000, PAC 12: 53,000, ACC: 49,900

Top 3 attendance leaders by conference:
SEC: Alabama 101,505, Tennessee 95,584, Georgia 92,746
Big 10: Michigan 111,592, Ohio State 104,933, Penn State 96, 587
Big 12: Texas 98,976, Oklahoma 84,722, Oklahoma State 59,126
PAC 12: Southern Cal 73,126, U.C.L.A. 70,285, Washington 68,769
ACC: Clemson 82,048, Florida State 75,421, Virginia Tech 63,999
(If Notre Dame were a football member they would be second 80,795)

Lowest 3 attendance by conference:
SEC: Vanderbilt 35,675, Mississippi State 55,695, Ole Miss 59,393
Big 10: Northwestern 39,307, Maryland 41,278, Illinois 43,787
Big 12: Kansas 37,884, T.C.U. 43,598, Baylor 45,948
PAC 12: Washington State 29,738, Colorado 38,463, Oregon St. 42,964
ACC: Duke 26,062, Wake Forest 28,414, Boston College 33,006

Now here are some of the most frequently mentioned P5 schools for expansion:
Connecticut, 30,932
Cincinnati, 31,771
Central Florida, 42,084
South Florida, 34,702
East Carolina, 43,985
and the only one that looks like it should be in is:
B.Y.U., 61,225

The simple issue is that there has to be a compelling financial reason for the inclusion of any team that is below, or well below each of the P5 conference's average attendance figures. It is also why the SEC and Big 10 will expand out of other P5 conferences but are extremely unlikely to expand out of the G5. It is also why, when you check attendance levels and investment levels that the PAC 12 is extremely unlikely to expand at all unless B.Y.U. does an about face on policies, or it is out of the Big 12. It is why the Big 12 can't find a suitable expansion target and why the only way the ACC expands out of the G5 is if it suffers additional raids (which isn't likely).

It is for these reasons that the only way I see a proposed upper tier moving beyond those that presently comprise them would be simply to include those schools choosing to make the economic commitment to full cost of tuition and stipends. If there were enough of them I could see a new conference being formed, or if there were too few of them I could see the conferences considering taking them in. With the additional support of the Athletes I could see the cutoff for inclusion moving to around the 50 million figure for overall athletic investment. I think it likely that minimum attendance goals will be set between 40-45,000 as well.

While Washington State, Colorado, Kansas, Vanderbilt, Duke, Wake Forest, Boston College, and Syracuse all fall below the 40,000 mark for football attendance based upon 2013 figures I believe the goal for the P5 would be not to look at anymore that fell below that level unless, again, there were compelling financial, or academic reasons to do so.

That's basically the way I would see it happening. The P5, plus one large national grouping of the G5 schools willing to make the financial commitment. That might be a 10 team conference or a 24 team--just depends on how many are willing to man up.

Probably 99.999 percent of the G5's will be able to remain, and any that don't probably were already at risk.

Slive addressed most things being speculated about in this thread with the following statement:

"Those are the fears but those matters are not on the big five agenda," Slive said. "They are the fears of others but they are not part of our thinking."

He meant what he said.

Ive made it clear I don't think a split is coming and if it is, it would likely be FBS splitting from D1, not the P5 splitting from the G5. Im simply saying if the G5 and P5 DID split, I agree that the base criteria for inclusion would largely be items that test financial commitment to athletics. Under such a scenario, some group of G5 schools would definitely ante up and try to make a go of it.

The Big East complicates that.

A10 and MVC, not so much, even though they are stronger than the MAC and Sun Belt virtually every year in basketball. If the A10 loses Dayton, St. Louis and UMass, they are almost all very small schools with tiny gyms but good basketball teams. MVC is still usually a 1 bid conference and just lost Creighton.

Remember, the athletic department revenues are highly suspect in some cases. I believe the new Uconn poster Upstater has stated many ways that a school can shift donor money into revenue. For example, if Tulane said that $50 million of its stadium construction is from donors, it can just allocate that over the 2012, 2013, 2014 years. Viola! It's AD budget is now $15 million a year more!

Likewise, a school like Louisville that has the Yum center lease where the:

“One way to shore up the financial future of the arena is to make more dates available for attractions but that will not happen until the lease agreement with the University of Louisville is reviewed and restructured,” Johnson said. “It is time to have a wider variety of events that will attract the kind of revenues that will stabilize the bonds and the financial future of the arena."

The lower rating of "BB" from "BBB-" on senior lien bonds stems from concerns that the tax increment financing district used to pay part of the debt isn't performing as previously expected, the financial services agency said. The downgrade lowers the bonds below investment grade to "junk" status.

The revenue to UofL athletics from the KFC Yum Center was a major factor in Forbes magazine proclaiming the Cardinals college basketball's most valuable franchise in March."

http://wfpl.org/post/louisville-metro-co...ers-rating

So there is a lot of smoke and mirrors with hard numbers. Be leery of huge gains in a short period of time (Louisville), etc.

That's one reason why a AD revenue cutoff for some FBS split might be difficult to do.