I hope VT's investment into basketball pays off. Early returns are looking good.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...79066.post

(06-28-2014 03:27 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT's investment into basketball pays off. Early returns are looking good.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...79066.post

Before Johnnie Dawkins left Duke to become head coach at Stanford there were reports that he was making about $1 million a year. I wouldn't trust the publicly available figures anyway. There are many ways that coaches' income can be boosted without showing up in official numbers, such as summer camps and direct payments from booster organizations which are charitable organizations that are beyond the reach of state freedom of information laws.

(06-28-2014 03:27 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT's investment into basketball pays off. Early returns are looking good.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...79066.post

I notice that VT is listed as third (in the ACC, not the nation), even though at the time the list was prepared, they didn't actually have any assistant coaches yet. So I take this with a grain of salt. Also, the list doesn't include any of the private schools, including Duke and Syracuse.

I hope VT becomes relevant for the league's sake. But I'm not holding my breath.

I doubt VT is truly third.

I would love to see VT strong again in Basketball. Great games back in the Metro Days.

With Pitino's head coaching tree, UofL is a draw for assistants. Throw in our basketball revenue from various sources and we can steal top flight up and coming recruiters from other powers, such as poaching IU's top assistant from Crean this off season.

Based on performance, Wyking and Balbado should have split $125,000 and Kevin Keatts deserved the rest of the $1,000,000 these past few years. We really need Kenny Johnson to step up big, because those other 2 assistants are dead weight. Almost as bad as Walter McCarty!

(06-28-2014 11:39 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 03:27 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  I hope VT's investment into basketball pays off. Early returns are looking good.

http://www.dailypress.com/sports/teel-bl...79066.post

I notice that VT is listed as third (in the ACC, not the nation), even though at the time the list was prepared, they didn't actually have any assistant coaches yet. So I take this with a grain of salt. Also, the list doesn't include any of the private schools, including Duke and Syracuse.

I hope VT becomes relevant for the league's sake. But I'm not holding my breath.

Yes, IMO, this is a misleading article. I love how the writer just "assumes" what the compensation for the private school Assistants is. FWIW, it has been widely reported that Boston College upped its total budget for Men's BB Assistants to around $750,000 per year. This seems to be corroborated based on the media reports of the compensation for the new hires.

80% of revenue comes from football.


I really hope athletic investments in this conference start reflecting that......common business sense says this is a no brainer.

(06-29-2014 05:07 PM)nole Wrote:  80% of revenue comes from football.
.

Depends on the school.

[quote='TexanMark' pid='10868264' dateline='1403976859']
I doubt VT is truly third.
[/quote
Excuse me, VT is a public school so there is transparency, sorry but simply VT finally put money to the challenge.

VT now has a AD who invests in athletics, as well as new university president (the provost/acting president at Purdue

the previous AD was cheap (a Penn St graduate), his number one matra was remain in the black at all costs by reducing expenses

Therefore while 95% of all div I athletic programs were in the red, VT was in the black

(07-02-2014 06:19 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 05:07 PM)nole Wrote:  80% of revenue comes from football.
.

Depends on the school.

before the acc infusion of cash, the last report I saw that I think was for the 2012-13 athletic year had uofl basketball 21st in revenues when you looked at every program at every school. our basketball brings in more than some power 5 football programs.

Louisville is VERY unusual in that basketball really does bring in more money than football. Here is EADA revenue data for UL, VT and UNC:

Louisville Sports Revenues
Men's Basketball $42,398,758
Women's Basketball $1,485,327
Football $28,069,712

Virginia Tech Sports Revenues
Men's Basketball $10,682,256
Women's Basketball $1,054,142
Football $38,669,555

UNC
Men's Basketball $19,632,779
Women's Basketball $728,131
Football $31,481,105

(07-02-2014 06:19 AM)ULdave Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 05:07 PM)nole Wrote:  80% of revenue comes from football.
.

Depends on the school.

If you look at the revenue of the ACC conference....80% comes from football.


It is about football now. The ACC has to learn this or it will suffer.


If this was the business that is feeding your family, you would already arrive at the conclusion.....put your money in football.....that is where the money is.

The 80/20 football/basketball rule only applies to TV revenue - NOT to total revenue. This is a VERY important distinction which far too many fans completely miss. If you want more TV money, focus on football (something the conference as a whole needs to do and is doing IMO). However, that does NOT mean you can ignore basketball. Consider these numbers as reported by FSU and UL:

FSU Sports Revenues
Men's Basketball $8,959,255
Women's Basketball $3,954,413
Football $43,085,121

Louisville Sports Revenues
Men's Basketball $42,398,758
Women's Basketball $1,485,327
Football $28,069,712

UL makes almost as much money on men's basketball as FSU does on football (meanwhile UL football blows away FSU basketball!)

UL football revenues will surely increase in the ACC. Meanwhile, they could be a model for other ACC teams to significantly increase BASKETBALL revenue. At the end of the day, it's the totals that matter most.

(07-02-2014 04:14 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  The 80/20 football/basketball rule only applies to TV revenue - NOT to total revenue. This is a VERY important distinction which far too many fans completely miss. If you want more TV money, focus on football (something the conference as a whole needs to do and is doing IMO). However, that does NOT mean you can ignore basketball. Consider these numbers as reported by FSU and UL:

FSU Sports Revenues
Men's Basketball $8,959,255
Women's Basketball $3,954,413
Football $43,085,121

Louisville Sports Revenues
Men's Basketball $42,398,758
Women's Basketball $1,485,327
Football $28,069,712

UL makes almost as much money on men's basketball as FSU does on football (meanwhile UL football blows away FSU basketball!)

UL football revenues will surely increase in the ACC. Meanwhile, they could be a model for other ACC teams to significantly increase BASKETBALL revenue. At the end of the day, it's the totals that matter most.

The best figures I have is FY 2012:

ACC % of revenue 2012 2012-2011
Revenue - $223,500,000
FB TV Rights 47% $104,000,000
Basketball TV Rights 12% $26,000,000
Bowl Games 19.60% $43,800,000
NCAA Bball Tourney 7.92% $17,700,000
NCAA Grant in Aid 4.21% $9,400,000
ACC Bball Tourney 2.28% $5,100,000


Here, just Football TV rights (round down to 47%) and Bow games (round up to 20%) has ACC revenue at around 67%.



Next year fluctuates a bit:

ACC % of revenue 2013 2013-2012
Revenue $232,400,000
FB TV Rights 50% $117,280,000
Basketball TV Rights 13% $28,700,000
Bowl Games 15.79% $36,700,000
NCAA Bball Tourney 7.83% $18,200,000
NCAA Grant in Aid #VALUE! -
ACC Bball Tourney #VALUE! -

Football TV rights at around 50% and bowl games to 16% so total football revenue around 66% from just those two line items.



The most recent, FY 2014, less data, but interesting:

ACC % of revenue 2014 2014-2013
Revenue $291,700,000
FB TV Rights #VALUE! -
Basketball TV Rights #VALUE! -
Bowl Games 15.98% $46,600,000
NCAA Bball Tourney 6.00% $17,507,000
NCAA Grant in Aid #VALUE! -
ACC Bball Tourney #VALUE! -

Bowl games had a decent jump and revenue had a HUGE jump. BBall tourney fell to 6%. It is safe to guess that Football TV revenue was the huge jump here and ACC revenue already came from around 66-67% football on just those two line items.


With the huge increase in TV revenue (80% of which is football) not noted in the 66% estimate, coming football playoff money and new bowl deals (SEC, B1G getting $80 million per conference, ACC getting $40), I expect this 80% figure to be approx. correct for all revenue, not just a TV micro level.



I mainly used Dave Teel numbers, but have a few other sources, but from all I can tell, the revenue, whether you just look at TV revenue or OVERALL revenue is 80% give or take a few percentage.



Invest in where the money is.

What investments in football would you have teams make?

(07-02-2014 09:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What investments in football would you have teams make?

Whatever the SEC and Big 10 are making.


Not tough to figure out. ACC doesn't invest in football like those conference.....not outside Clemson and FSU. That is a core issue for the ACC, but instead of fixing it, it actively ignores that issue. This very board seems to be annoyed by the reality of where the revenue comes from and what should be the focus of athletic departments. This, of course, seems in large part from the conference being mainly basketball schools and ex Big East schools (who arent' used to spending SEC/B1G type money on football).


Thankfully, the Louisville add brings in a school that does invest in football. I am not sure if that helps influence other schools to follow suit or will most stay at a small private school basketball level or ex Big East level. This will likely determine the future of the ACC.

(07-03-2014 06:15 AM)nole Wrote:  

(07-02-2014 09:52 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  What investments in football would you have teams make?

Whatever the SEC and Big 10 are making.

Not tough to figure out. ACC doesn't invest in football like those conference.....not outside Clemson and FSU. That is a core issue for the ACC, but instead of fixing it, it actively ignores that issue. This very board seems to be annoyed by the reality of where the revenue comes from and what should be the focus of athletic departments. This, of course, seems in large part from the conference being mainly basketball schools and ex Big East schools (who arent' used to spending SEC/B1G type money on football).

Thankfully, the Louisville add brings in a school that does invest in football. I am not sure if that helps influence other schools to follow suit or will most stay at a small private school basketball level or ex Big East level. This will likely determine the future of the ACC.

I don't disagree with you that ACC teams need to invest in football at a level which allows them to compete with SEC and B1G teams (whether they expect to win a national championship or not).

Having said that, I think I see it happening, or at least beginning.
* Duke hired a REAL coach, built an indoor practice facility, and is planning to renovate their stadium.
* NC State already has a very nice stadium, fired a mediocre coach who was going downhill, and hired who they hope will be an up-and-comer (should they have hired a better coach? maybe)
* Wake saw the writing on the wall and replaced their coach
* Ga Tech has taken [baby] steps to improve recruiting and hired a better Def Coord
* Va Tech hired a new Off Coord a year ago and an OL coach this year (should they have paid more to keep the old OL coach? maybe); VT is also building a new indoor practice facility.
* Syracuse is building an indoor practice facility and looking at upgrading the stadium; should they have spent more on coach? maybe.
* BC FINALLY ditched Spaz last year and hired the Dazzler (huge upgrade) ; maybe a bigger upgrade was the AD, who seems to be a go-getter.
* UNC appears to have a hi-potential coach, but time will tell.
* Pitt appears to be ready to turn the corner this year after Chryst had to do some serious rebuilding.

Two schools are disappointing to me:
* Miami seems to spend very little on facilities (though the Dolphins have nice things which they rent), and they REALLY blew it when they let Cristobal go off the coaching staff, IMO
* UVa actually spends a LOT of money on football - it's just all wasted

What I'd like to see:
* Ga Tech needs to get real - their approach to football is mediocrity
* Va Tech - new AD appears willing to spend more than the old one, so do it (wisely)!
* NC State - if Doeren doesn't work out, the next coach needs to make a splash IMO
* Syracuse - see NC State, only make that Shafer
ALL SCHOOLS - learn how to recruit against the SEC and B1G and win! Too many players still slipping away...