(11-11-2015 07:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. When's the last time GT had a high revenue number? (I'm hoping that you can save me a bunch of time looking this information up - I'm not trying to make a point)
2. Cornell, Colgate, and Syracuse in one season? Are you sure you're in Georgia?

Cremins built a pipeline out of NY to GT in the heyday. GT has to recruit nationally to get the kids who can do the academics, particularly given how poorly GA High Schools do. GT is always best when it recruits nationally.

Hoops talent in GA is like football talent in FL... most of it is exported.


In terms of the last high revenue number ... see what the numbers were when O'Leary was last head coach. Say 2000, 2001. Inflation, TV, etc were far different then ... so compare relative to everybody else at the time.

(11-11-2015 04:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To the Syracuse fan wondering why GT revenue is low ... GT fans show their satisfaction by withholding money from the A-T Fund and ending their attendance at games. It's a way of putting direct and immediate financial pressure on the GTAA to right the ship.

To give you an idea of the level of dissatisfaction among the basketball fans ... the GTAA is currently selling the following ELEVEN game book for $75.

Cornell - November 13 (Women's Basketball home opener included - doubleheader)
Tennessee - November 16
Green Bay - November 19
East Tennessee State - November 22
Wofford - December 1
VCU - December 15
Southeastern Louisiana - December 21
Colgate - December 23
Duquesne - December 29
Virginia - January 9
Clemson - February 23

(11-12-2015 04:40 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(11-11-2015 04:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  To the Syracuse fan wondering why GT revenue is low ... GT fans show their satisfaction by withholding money from the A-T Fund and ending their attendance at games. It's a way of putting direct and immediate financial pressure on the GTAA to right the ship.

To give you an idea of the level of dissatisfaction among the basketball fans ... the GTAA is currently selling the following ELEVEN game book for $75.

Cornell - November 13 (Women's Basketball home opener included - doubleheader)
Tennessee - November 16
Green Bay - November 19
East Tennessee State - November 22
Wofford - December 1
VCU - December 15
Southeastern Louisiana - December 21
Colgate - December 23
Duquesne - December 29
Virginia - January 9
Clemson - February 23

Seven of (those 11) opponents wouldn't top 50% capacity if the games were free. So the remaining 4 games for $75 ain't bad.

I just did some interesting back of the envelope calculations. They're rough estimates based off of a small sample size (I only looked at '01-'02 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue and '14-'15 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue), so take my findings for what you will, but GT and Clemson are both really, really bad at translating athletic success into athletic department-recognized revenue (Clemson is the worst). I think that I can explain Clemson because I heard that IPTAY isn't on the athletic department's books and that's probably where most of the donations go. So, IPTAY probably sees the most volatility based off of team performance. However, I have no explanation as to why GT isn't higher, and none of the explanations offered on this board fit with the numbers.

I also noticed that out of the 8 pre-BE raid ACC teams still in the conference (i.e. sans UMD), UNC was the best at translating success into revenue. They were followed by Duke, FSU, NCSU, and Wake, leaving UVA, GT, and Clemson at the bottom. To me, that suggests a little home cooking. All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Looking at the conference as a whole, I noticed that almost all the teams that moved did really, really well. Miami, UL, VT, and SU were the top four (with Pitt being #6 and BC being #11). My guess is that's because those schools upgraded conferences.

I think that BC is the lowest ranked former BIG EAST team because the BIG EAST fit BC really, really well - much better than the ACC IMHO, so the gap between the BIG EAST and the ACC is smallest for the Eagles. Also, I don't get the feeling that BC has a lot of political pull, and what pull they do have was spent screwing over UConn, and bringing in northern ACC schools. But those guess are just that - guesses.

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

This may be the most astute observation you have ever made!

(11-12-2015 07:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

This may be the most astute observation you have ever made!

What does it mean to "translate success into revenue"?

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I just did some interesting back of the envelope calculations. They're rough estimates based off of a small sample size (I only looked at '01-'02 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue and '14-'15 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue), so take my findings for what you will, but GT and Clemson are both really, really bad at translating athletic success into athletic department-recognized revenue (Clemson is the worst). I think that I can explain Clemson because I heard that IPTAY isn't on the athletic department's books and that's probably where most of the donations go. So, IPTAY probably sees the most volatility based off of team performance. However, I have no explanation as to why GT isn't higher, and none of the explanations offered on this board fit with the numbers.

I also noticed that out of the 8 pre-BE raid ACC teams still in the conference (i.e. sans UMD), UNC was the best at translating success into revenue. They were followed by Duke, FSU, NCSU, and Wake, leaving UVA, GT, and Clemson at the bottom. To me, that suggests a little home cooking. All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Looking at the conference as a whole, I noticed that almost all the teams that moved did really, really well. Miami, UL, VT, and SU were the top four (with Pitt being #6 and BC being #11). My guess is that's because those schools upgraded conferences.

I think that BC is the lowest ranked former BIG EAST team because the BIG EAST fit BC really, really well - much better than the ACC IMHO, so the gap between the BIG EAST and the ACC is smallest for the Eagles. Also, I don't get the feeling that BC has a lot of political pull, and what pull they do have was spent screwing over UConn, and bringing in northern ACC schools. But those guess are just that - guesses.

For 2014-2015, IPTAY raised 60.1 million.
https://www.tigernet.com/update/player/IPTAY-announces-record-setting-donations-2014-15-20069?ref=front

(11-12-2015 08:06 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 07:58 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  ...All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

This may be the most astute observation you have ever made!

What does it mean to "translate success into revenue"?

My methodology is by no means perfect, but it was as follows:

I ranked the schools by revenue for '02 and '15. I then found the difference in rank. For example, if a school was ranked #7 in '02 and #9 in '15, it would have a delta of -2. I then ranked the deltas to find the relative change in financial performance ranking. I then did the same thing for football wins and basketball wins. I then weighted football 80% and basketball 20%, and I used those numbers to rank the schools again to approximate the athletic performance increase/decrease ranking. After that, I subtracted the athletic performance from the financial performance (a school that fielded relatively worse teams, but made relatively more money would have a higher score). I then ranked the schools one last time.

I know that methodology is far from perfect (i.e. using the rankings is very back of the envelope) and there are a number of complicating variables (i.e. the increasing role of TV money will soften the blow of schools that got worse of the field relative to schools that got better). However, I think that it's general direction is pretty good. The end result pretty much makes sense. The schools that switched got better (which is what I would expect), the powers that be in the ACC appear to benefit more from conference moves than the outliers, and Clemson has donations off the books. At the very least, I think that the results are interesting.

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I just did some interesting back of the envelope calculations. They're rough estimates based off of a small sample size (I only looked at '01-'02 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue and '14-'15 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue), so take my findings for what you will, but GT and Clemson are both really, really bad at translating athletic success into athletic department-recognized revenue (Clemson is the worst). I think that I can explain Clemson because I heard that IPTAY isn't on the athletic department's books and that's probably where most of the donations go. So, IPTAY probably sees the most volatility based off of team performance. However, I have no explanation as to why GT isn't higher, and none of the explanations offered on this board fit with the numbers.

I also noticed that out of the 8 pre-BE raid ACC teams still in the conference (i.e. sans UMD), UNC was the best at translating success into revenue. They were followed by Duke, FSU, NCSU, and Wake, leaving UVA, GT, and Clemson at the bottom. To me, that suggests a little home cooking. All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Looking at the conference as a whole, I noticed that almost all the teams that moved did really, really well. Miami, UL, VT, and SU were the top four (with Pitt being #6 and BC being #11). My guess is that's because those schools upgraded conferences.

I think that BC is the lowest ranked former BIG EAST team because the BIG EAST fit BC really, really well - much better than the ACC IMHO, so the gap between the BIG EAST and the ACC is smallest for the Eagles. Also, I don't get the feeling that BC has a lot of political pull, and what pull they do have was spent screwing over UConn, and bringing in northern ACC schools. But those guess are just that - guesses.

Does your GT math include the Alexander-Tharpe Fund? http://www.atfund.gatech.edu/

(11-13-2015 12:47 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I just did some interesting back of the envelope calculations. They're rough estimates based off of a small sample size (I only looked at '01-'02 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue and '14-'15 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue), so take my findings for what you will, but GT and Clemson are both really, really bad at translating athletic success into athletic department-recognized revenue (Clemson is the worst). I think that I can explain Clemson because I heard that IPTAY isn't on the athletic department's books and that's probably where most of the donations go. So, IPTAY probably sees the most volatility based off of team performance. However, I have no explanation as to why GT isn't higher, and none of the explanations offered on this board fit with the numbers.

I also noticed that out of the 8 pre-BE raid ACC teams still in the conference (i.e. sans UMD), UNC was the best at translating success into revenue. They were followed by Duke, FSU, NCSU, and Wake, leaving UVA, GT, and Clemson at the bottom. To me, that suggests a little home cooking. All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Looking at the conference as a whole, I noticed that almost all the teams that moved did really, really well. Miami, UL, VT, and SU were the top four (with Pitt being #6 and BC being #11). My guess is that's because those schools upgraded conferences.

I think that BC is the lowest ranked former BIG EAST team because the BIG EAST fit BC really, really well - much better than the ACC IMHO, so the gap between the BIG EAST and the ACC is smallest for the Eagles. Also, I don't get the feeling that BC has a lot of political pull, and what pull they do have was spent screwing over UConn, and bringing in northern ACC schools. But those guess are just that - guesses.

Does your GT math include the Alexander-Tharpe Fund? http://www.atfund.gatech.edu/

Probably not. I used whatever was given to the DoE. I'm not sure if those numbers are included in the equity in athletics numbers or not.

(11-12-2015 08:31 PM)irish red homebrew Wrote:  

(11-12-2015 07:27 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I just did some interesting back of the envelope calculations. They're rough estimates based off of a small sample size (I only looked at '01-'02 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue and '14-'15 football and basketball seasons and reported revenue), so take my findings for what you will, but GT and Clemson are both really, really bad at translating athletic success into athletic department-recognized revenue (Clemson is the worst). I think that I can explain Clemson because I heard that IPTAY isn't on the athletic department's books and that's probably where most of the donations go. So, IPTAY probably sees the most volatility based off of team performance. However, I have no explanation as to why GT isn't higher, and none of the explanations offered on this board fit with the numbers.

I also noticed that out of the 8 pre-BE raid ACC teams still in the conference (i.e. sans UMD), UNC was the best at translating success into revenue. They were followed by Duke, FSU, NCSU, and Wake, leaving UVA, GT, and Clemson at the bottom. To me, that suggests a little home cooking. All four NC schools + the conference's lone football super power rounding out the top 5 is straight fishy. My guess is that there is a significant amount of politics at play - especially since the top three are UNC, Duke, and FSU in that order. If there isn't special treatment, then that's one heck of a coincidence.

Looking at the conference as a whole, I noticed that almost all the teams that moved did really, really well. Miami, UL, VT, and SU were the top four (with Pitt being #6 and BC being #11). My guess is that's because those schools upgraded conferences.

I think that BC is the lowest ranked former BIG EAST team because the BIG EAST fit BC really, really well - much better than the ACC IMHO, so the gap between the BIG EAST and the ACC is smallest for the Eagles. Also, I don't get the feeling that BC has a lot of political pull, and what pull they do have was spent screwing over UConn, and bringing in northern ACC schools. But those guess are just that - guesses.

For 2014-2015, IPTAY raised 60.1 million.
https://www.tigernet.com/update/player/IPTAY-announces-record-setting-donations-2014-15-20069?ref=front

Yeah, I thought that Clemson had a bunch of money off the books. I wonder how much is off everyone else's books.