Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 35m35 minutes ago
According to Warchant FSY will institute a 2 percent budget cut across the board in Seminole athletics to fund FCoA scholarships.

Things about to get interesting.

How many sports does FSU sponsor compared to other ACC schools?

(03-09-2015 01:21 PM)nole Wrote:  Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 35m35 minutes ago
According to Warchant FSY will institute a 2 percent budget cut across the board in Seminole athletics to fund FCoA scholarships.

Things about to get interesting.

Funny it came from the dude

Warchant.com @Warchant · 56m 56 minutes ago

FSU plans budget cuts to offset $2 million annual increase for 'full cost of attendance.' https://floridastate.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1744745 …

(03-09-2015 01:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  How many sports does FSU sponsor compared to other ACC schools?

Not that many...somewhere around 21...give or take.


FSU recently added Sandy Volleyball (because it is cheaper to add) due to Title 9.

An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

(03-09-2015 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

I thought that schools with huge football stadiums were rolling in dough. How is it that Duke, with a small football stadium that it can't even fill can sponsor more sports than mighty FSU even though the athletic department at Duke has to pay much higher tuition costs? Could it be that there is more to college athletic budgets than conference distributions and football ticket sales?

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

I thought that schools with huge football stadiums were rolling in dough. How is it that Duke, with a small football stadium that it can't even fill can sponsor more sports than mighty FSU even though the athletic department at Duke has to pay much higher tuition costs? Could it be that there is more to college athletic budgets than conference distributions and football ticket sales?

Hall, your fundraising far outstrips FSU's. You, UNC, UVa, and BC raise big money from your booster club. FSU, like Clemson is amazingly dependent on the football gate. VT and GT less so, and NC State more in the middle.

FSU is a girls school and girls don't donate like men. While FSU has been coed for 50 years, as you know, it takes decades to catch up when it comes to donations.

Now, just because the FSU AD imposed a 2% tariff, that does not mean that FSU won't go out and raise 4-5% more to cover said costs. It's like a form of internal cost accounting.

FSU poor mouths to raise funds. NC State does this at times, so does Clemson and VT. Without the poor mouth some will not donate.

(03-09-2015 02:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

I thought that schools with huge football stadiums were rolling in dough. How is it that Duke, with a small football stadium that it can't even fill can sponsor more sports than mighty FSU even though the athletic department at Duke has to pay much higher tuition costs? Could it be that there is more to college athletic budgets than conference distributions and football ticket sales?

Hall, your fundraising far outstrips FSU's. You, UNC, UVa, and BC raise big money from your booster club. FSU, like Clemson is amazingly dependent on the football gate. VT and GT less so, and NC State more in the middle.

FSU is a girls school and girls don't donate like men. While FSU has been coed for 50 years, as you know, it takes decades to catch up when it comes to donations.

Now, just because the FSU AD imposed a 2% tariff, that does not mean that FSU won't go out and raise 4-5% more to cover said costs. It's like a form of internal cost accounting.

FSU poor mouths to raise funds. NC State does this at times, so does Clemson and VT. Without the poor mouth some will not donate.

Exactly. My point is that a difference of $2 million or $5 million a year in conference distributions isn't that big a deal. It certainly doesn't doom any school to a second class status. Schools like FSU need to get their alumni bases motivated to give money -- and maybe they need more prosperous alumni. I don't know how contribution income sorts out today but traditionally fundraising has been a source of strength for the ACC.

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

I thought that schools with huge football stadiums were rolling in dough. How is it that Duke, with a small football stadium that it can't even fill can sponsor more sports than mighty FSU even though the athletic department at Duke has to pay much higher tuition costs? Could it be that there is more to college athletic budgets than conference distributions and football ticket sales?

There is much more to it.......but at the end of the day, conferences with lower conference distributions are less stable and more likely to break up.


Conferences with wealth, like the SEC and B1G are much more stable.

(03-09-2015 02:48 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

I thought that schools with huge football stadiums were rolling in dough. How is it that Duke, with a small football stadium that it can't even fill can sponsor more sports than mighty FSU even though the athletic department at Duke has to pay much higher tuition costs? Could it be that there is more to college athletic budgets than conference distributions and football ticket sales?

Hall, your fundraising far outstrips FSU's. You, UNC, UVa, and BC raise big money from your booster club. FSU, like Clemson is amazingly dependent on the football gate. VT and GT less so, and NC State more in the middle.

FSU is a girls school and girls don't donate like men. While FSU has been coed for 50 years, as you know, it takes decades to catch up when it comes to donations.

Now, just because the FSU AD imposed a 2% tariff, that does not mean that FSU won't go out and raise 4-5% more to cover said costs. It's like a form of internal cost accounting.

FSU poor mouths to raise funds. NC State does this at times, so does Clemson and VT. Without the poor mouth some will not donate.

Exactly. My point is that a difference of $2 million or $5 million a year in conference distributions isn't that big a deal. It certainly doesn't doom any school to a second class status. Schools like FSU need to get their alumni bases motivated to give money -- and maybe they need more prosperous alumni. I don't know how contribution income sorts out today but traditionally fundraising has been a source of strength for the ACC.

Overly simplistic.


The complex version for the ACC is this.


The schools with means and resources refuse to compete in football at a national title level (or even the level right below that).

UVA, UNC, Ga Tech, Duke for example.

UNC, for example.....as you noted has it's scholarships endowed, HUGE brand, is in the southeast and still doesn't compete in football. That is purely about will. They dont' care to do it.



The 'football schools' in the ACC lack resources.

Miami, FSU, Clemson......just don't have those bases like Texas, Michigan, UNC, etc.

The double whammy is they are in the poorest conference......so they have to try to compete being less wealthy AND in the poorest P5 conference.


That is the complexity of the ACC. The football schools can't just dream up more money. BUT the MONEY schools could DECIDE to compete and increase the competitiveness and revenue of the ACC.

(03-09-2015 01:21 PM)nole Wrote:  Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 35m35 minutes ago
According to Warchant FSY will institute a 2 percent budget cut across the board in Seminole athletics to fund FCoA scholarships.

Things about to get interesting.

Context needed...

Who or what da heck is "FSY"?

- An element?
- Medical code?
- A division of Fox Sports?
- Something to do with Florida education...?

Free Sex Ya'll

Two big issues with FSU...

1) Youth of the program. Yes, they were a girls school in 1950, but the bigger issue is they weren't really a player on the scene in football until the early 80s. Sure, there were plenty of graduates from the early 70s who retroactively became mega boosters when FSU became a big time program. But frankly, people weren't going to FSU for football, or graduating as die-hard football fans until 30-35 years ago. Most of the real potential boosters are still in my age range...early-mid 40's, still families to feed and kids to educate. Sure, there are a lot of people that age that hit it big, and are wealthy, and can afford to cut big checks regardless, but not having a law or medical school even undermined that.

Just go to a game at Tennessee or Alabama and count the blue hairs in attendance...it's crazy if you are an FSU fan. There's no doubt there are some at our games, but it's remarkable how few compared to the old-time schools. Those people just don't exist in big time numbers...yet.

Given another 30 years, this gap can largely close.

2) Location. FSU is the most isolated campus from population of any football program of its size. There just isn't enough population. You need to go 2.5 hours just to get to Jacksonville. A huge majority of the fans are 4.5-5 hours away. And Tallahassee is expensive to fly into.

That means that FSU is always going to struggle to fill that 80k stadium, and basketball (although it could be better) is never going to be a hot ticket. And that is important, because a TON of the fundraising at schools revolve around donating big bucks for tickets. That's how Duke fundraises so well...how much do you have to donate to get season tickets in Cameron?

The inability to charge massive donations for tickets, or for good tickets, is a major handicap. You could make a good case that FSU would actually do better if they had a 55k stadium for that reason...the population density assures that supply will almost always be able to meet demand.

And this one will ALWAYS haunt FSU. There's just no way around this.

(03-09-2015 03:08 PM)nole Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:48 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:24 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 02:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  An across the board is a fair way to start budgeting for that cost. 2% of FSU's budget is about $1,600,000. UNC is already fully endowed, but I suspect they will start a fund raiser to boost that endowment some 15-20%

I thought that schools with huge football stadiums were rolling in dough. How is it that Duke, with a small football stadium that it can't even fill can sponsor more sports than mighty FSU even though the athletic department at Duke has to pay much higher tuition costs? Could it be that there is more to college athletic budgets than conference distributions and football ticket sales?

Hall, your fundraising far outstrips FSU's. You, UNC, UVa, and BC raise big money from your booster club. FSU, like Clemson is amazingly dependent on the football gate. VT and GT less so, and NC State more in the middle.

FSU is a girls school and girls don't donate like men. While FSU has been coed for 50 years, as you know, it takes decades to catch up when it comes to donations.

Now, just because the FSU AD imposed a 2% tariff, that does not mean that FSU won't go out and raise 4-5% more to cover said costs. It's like a form of internal cost accounting.

FSU poor mouths to raise funds. NC State does this at times, so does Clemson and VT. Without the poor mouth some will not donate.

Exactly. My point is that a difference of $2 million or $5 million a year in conference distributions isn't that big a deal. It certainly doesn't doom any school to a second class status. Schools like FSU need to get their alumni bases motivated to give money -- and maybe they need more prosperous alumni. I don't know how contribution income sorts out today but traditionally fundraising has been a source of strength for the ACC.

Overly simplistic.


The complex version for the ACC is this.


The schools with means and resources refuse to compete in football at a national title level (or even the level right below that).

UVA, UNC, Ga Tech, Duke for example.

UNC, for example.....as you noted has it's scholarships endowed, HUGE brand, is in the southeast and still doesn't compete in football. That is purely about will. They dont' care to do it.



The 'football schools' in the ACC lack resources.

Miami, FSU, Clemson......just don't have those bases like Texas, Michigan, UNC, etc.

The double whammy is they are in the poorest conference......so they have to try to compete being less wealthy AND in the poorest P5 conference.


That is the complexity of the ACC. The football schools can't just dream up more money. BUT the MONEY schools could DECIDE to compete and increase the competitiveness and revenue of the ACC.

How exactly are UVA, UNC, Ga Tech and Duke "refusing" to compete in football? UNC tried a little too hard to compete in football and got slammed by the NCAA and there are probably more NCAA sanctions coming. Ga. Tech just went to the Orange Bowl this past year. Duke has made massive strides in football over the last 5 years. It's hard to imagine how any school could have improved more than Duke has in recent years. U.Va. really sucks in football but it's not for lack of trying.

Florida State’s Board of Trustees on Friday unanimously approved issuing up to $85 million in bonds to pay for an anticipated $79.5 million project to update sky box suites, add a new premium outdoor seating section, make structural repairs and repaint the stadium.

The project, the board’s materials note, is seen as a way to create new revenue streams to be used to support FSU athletic programs that ultimately will result in better recruiting, coaching and “results on the playing fields.”
-- Tallahassee Democrat

PITY PARTY

(03-09-2015 03:44 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How exactly are UVA, UNC, Ga Tech and Duke "refusing" to compete in football? UNC tried a little too hard to compete in football and got slammed by the NCAA and there are probably more NCAA sanctions coming. Ga. Tech just went to the Orange Bowl this past year. Duke has made massive strides in football over the last 5 years. It's hard to imagine how any school could have improved more than Duke has in recent years. U.Va. really sucks in football but it's not for lack of trying.

Ooh, let me take this one!

Duke HAS improved by leaps and bounds - the Blue Devils should get a pass for now (though what is needed is to maintain this level of play for 10+ years, long after other ACC programs pass Duke and relegate the football team to 6th place in the Coastal).

Virginia keeps making foolish hire/fire decisions (exhibit A: Mike London)

UNC went cheap when they hired Larry Fedora, and he has a low ceiling (though it will be interesting to see what happens now that Chizik is on the staff).

Ga Tech shot itself in the foot by dropping just about all sports-friendly majors, then requiring all students to take calculus - and they just keep reloading the gun!

(03-09-2015 04:19 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 03:44 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  How exactly are UVA, UNC, Ga Tech and Duke "refusing" to compete in football? UNC tried a little too hard to compete in football and got slammed by the NCAA and there are probably more NCAA sanctions coming. Ga. Tech just went to the Orange Bowl this past year. Duke has made massive strides in football over the last 5 years. It's hard to imagine how any school could have improved more than Duke has in recent years. U.Va. really sucks in football but it's not for lack of trying.

Ooh, let me take this one!

Duke HAS improved by leaps and bounds - the Blue Devils should get a pass for now (though what is needed is to maintain this level of play for 10+ years, long after other ACC programs pass Duke and relegate the football team to 6th place in the Coastal).

Virginia keeps making foolish hire/fire decisions (exhibit A: Mike London)

UNC went cheap when they hired Larry Fedora, and he has a low ceiling (though it will be interesting to see what happens now that Chizik is on the staff).

Ga Tech shot itself in the foot by dropping just about all sports-friendly majors, then requiring all students to take calculus - and they just keep reloading the gun!

GT has added several non-engineering majors over the past 10 years in their Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. I think you will find many athletes listing majors such as History, Technology, and Society; Literature, Media, and Communication; & Public Policy.

Duke is finally upgrading Wallace Wade. That definitely shows commitment to football.

Warchant and the "Dude". . .great sources.

The sports blogosphere's largest moron quoting a site run by morons.

(03-09-2015 01:21 PM)nole Wrote:  Christopher Lambert ‏@theDudeofWV · 35m35 minutes ago
According to Warchant FSY will institute a 2 percent budget cut across the board in Seminole athletics to fund FCoA scholarships.

Things about to get interesting.

Considering it's The Dud of Idiotville, this statement clearly means FSU, Clemson, Miami, and VT want in the B12, and Virginia and North Carolina are begging, if not groveling to get into the B1G.

So this wasn't posted to be an "autonomy and full cost of attendance" thread, but instead meant to as an example of "tv revenue and conference realignment" discussion?

Jesus Christo *facepalm*

Of course FSU is going to have to move money around to pay for the increased costs, just like every other single school. This is a non-story, but Warchant loves to release these articles/interviews in order to get clicks and get linked by other media outlets.

Notice how the article says, "We're looking to take care of this issue in-house without having to rely on [Seminole] Boosters for any additional dollars." In other words, FSU has the money to pay for it, just like FSU had the money to cover the ballyhooed "budget shortfall" several years ago. But that doesn't make the news and gets lost in the headline.

I have no idea what kind of absurd crusade "nole" is on right now.

And FSU has 20 scholarship sports (counting indoor and outdoor track as separate sports), since it was asked.

I don't think it will be very hard to come up with $2M. Instead of a $300/night hotel, do a $200/night room. Instead of crab and lobster for dinner, do crab OR lobster. Quit sending recruits 50 pieces of mail at a time.

FSU isn't broke, nor is it "crying poor". While there are very real conference revenue concerns, this isn't related.

EDIT: Since some of you clearly didn't even bother reading:

Quote:FSU already is in the midst of a $250 million fundraising campaign that is designed to support athletics facilities, scholarships and team operating budgets.

Also, I believe FSU is already receiving about $20M/year in contributions.