Norm Wood ‏@normwood 35m35 minutes ago

Babcock said #Hokies' athletic budget of $80 million has fallen to 10th out of 15 ACC schools and 40th among Power 5 schools.

My point is that there's a wrong assumption that big football stadiums equal big athletic department budgets. Contributions are a big, big part of the equation, probably a lot bigger than football attendance. Most people who post on sports message boards don't make contributions so they underestimate their importance.

(12-12-2016 11:51 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Norm Wood ‏@normwood 35m35 minutes ago

Babcock said #Hokies' athletic budget of $80 million has fallen to 10th out of 15 ACC schools and 40th among Power 5 schools.

My point is that there's a wrong assumption that big football stadiums equal big athletic department budgets. Contributions are a big, big part of the equation, probably a lot bigger than football attendance. Most people who post on sports message boards don't make contributions so they underestimate their importance.

their stadium is pretty small compared to Big 10 and SEC stadiums.

what was their athletic budget when they were winning in football with Beamer? It has most likely dropped off as they became mediocre.

it seems to me all those Thursday night games hurt their gameday revenue, b/c Blacksburg isn't that close to major cities. It would make a lot more sense for them to have games on Saturday unless I'm missing something.

(12-12-2016 11:51 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Norm Wood ‏@normwood 35m35 minutes ago

Babcock said #Hokies' athletic budget of $80 million has fallen to 10th out of 15 ACC schools and 40th among Power 5 schools.

My point is that there's a wrong assumption that big football stadiums equal big athletic department budgets. Contributions are a big, big part of the equation, probably a lot bigger than football attendance. Most people who post on sports message boards don't make contributions so they underestimate their importance.

Without seeing the actual basis for accounting and who foots the bill for capital improvements and how they show said expenditures, I have to wonder about that statement. ACC school reported total REVENUES go as follows:

Tier 1 - FSU and ND
Tier 2 - Louisville
Tier 3 - UNC/Duke/UVa/Syracuse
Tier 4 - NC State/Clemson/GT/VT

Now VT may indeed be at 10, but they can't get above 8 because they make no money off of basketball and don't have the potential donor base of ND, UNC, UVa, and especially Duke.

(12-12-2016 12:24 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 11:51 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Norm Wood ‏@normwood 35m35 minutes ago

Babcock said #Hokies' athletic budget of $80 million has fallen to 10th out of 15 ACC schools and 40th among Power 5 schools.

My point is that there's a wrong assumption that big football stadiums equal big athletic department budgets. Contributions are a big, big part of the equation, probably a lot bigger than football attendance. Most people who post on sports message boards don't make contributions so they underestimate their importance.

their stadium is pretty small compared to Big 10 and SEC stadiums.

what was their athletic budget when they were winning in football with Beamer? It has most likely dropped off as they became mediocre.

Lane seats 66K, but revenue and budget are two different things. VT's ability to raise money off it's alumni and boosters is not near the capacity of Duke, ND, UNC, UVa, or even BC, - I'm not talking about annual contributions to get tickets, I'm talking real money deposited by sugar daddies.

(12-12-2016 12:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 12:24 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 11:51 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Norm Wood ‏@normwood 35m35 minutes ago

Babcock said #Hokies' athletic budget of $80 million has fallen to 10th out of 15 ACC schools and 40th among Power 5 schools.

My point is that there's a wrong assumption that big football stadiums equal big athletic department budgets. Contributions are a big, big part of the equation, probably a lot bigger than football attendance. Most people who post on sports message boards don't make contributions so they underestimate their importance.

their stadium is pretty small compared to Big 10 and SEC stadiums.

what was their athletic budget when they were winning in football with Beamer? It has most likely dropped off as they became mediocre.

Lane seats 66K

i understand that but that is small compared to SEC and BIg 10 schools, and Clemson and FSU.

it is hard to believe Va Tech doesn't receive more money from alumni than Duke, because it has much larger alumni base than Duke.

Va Tech has 3rd highest student enrollment in ACC, with no. 1 being FSU, and NC State no. 2. THat is one reason I've always been surprised NC State isn't a better program in football, they are the largest university in the Carolinas and Virginia.

(12-12-2016 12:28 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 12:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 12:24 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 11:51 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  Norm Wood ‏@normwood 35m35 minutes ago

Babcock said #Hokies' athletic budget of $80 million has fallen to 10th out of 15 ACC schools and 40th among Power 5 schools.

My point is that there's a wrong assumption that big football stadiums equal big athletic department budgets. Contributions are a big, big part of the equation, probably a lot bigger than football attendance. Most people who post on sports message boards don't make contributions so they underestimate their importance.

their stadium is pretty small compared to Big 10 and SEC stadiums.

what was their athletic budget when they were winning in football with Beamer? It has most likely dropped off as they became mediocre.

Lane seats 66K

i understand that but that is small compared to SEC and BIg 10 schools, and Clemson and FSU.

Lane is 80% the size of Doak or Memorial.

The 90K plus monsters are at PSU, OSU, Michigan, Wisky, Neb, Bama, Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, LSU, TAMU, Texas, OU, UCLA, USC - many of these are partial gifts of the WPA and WWII.

In Millions from http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/details:

In 2015 Duke grossed 33.7 from basketball and 32.4 from football.
NC State grossed 13.5 from basketball and 39.9 from football.
VT grossed 9.1 from basketball and 50.3 from football.
Clemson grossed 6.6 from basketball and 43.9 from football.

With the $4,000 a seat donation require to get basketball tickets at Duke, Duke makes a **** pot of money through basketball and then can ask for any needed donation after the 66 million they take in off men's sports. No other basketball program in the nation squeezes so much out of their basketball arena.

If you look at the three cow colleges you can see how they compare and Memorial seats 82K, Carter Finley seats 58K, and of course Lane seats 66K. The three cow colleges don't have fortunes from the 18th or 19th Century boosting them.

Clemson and VT are located in rural areas so they did not have a steady pool of spectators to tap for middle of the week basketball games like Louisville, Syracuse, or UNC/NC State/Duke/WF.

Clemson does not gouge it's football ticket holders. Clemson and NC State charged nearly the same price for football tickets this year - think about that $70 bucks for a home NC State versus $70 bucks for a home Clemson game - who gets more value?

Anyway, while Whitt may be making a factual statement, it's not like they can do much to alter the math.

(12-12-2016 12:36 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  it is hard to believe Va Tech doesn't receive more money from alumni than Duke, because it has much larger alumni base than Duke.

Va Tech has 3rd highest student enrollment in ACC, with no. 1 being FSU, and NC State no. 2. THat is one reason I've always been surprised NC State isn't a better program in football, they are the largest university in the Carolinas and Virginia.

Clem, there's a hell of a difference between what millionaires and billionaires can donate and what people making 80K a year can donate. The number of your students is just one part of the equation.

You don't have a frame of reference for what real money is until you have been around Duke. The capacity to raise money of a university can be seen not just in their athletic revenues but their overall endowment. Trust me, there is a high degree of correlation.

(12-12-2016 12:36 PM)ClemVegas Wrote:  it is hard to believe Va Tech doesn't receive more money from alumni than Duke, because it has much larger alumni base than Duke.

Va Tech has 3rd highest student enrollment in ACC, with no. 1 being FSU, and NC State no. 2. THat is one reason I've always been surprised NC State isn't a better program in football, they are the largest university in the Carolinas and Virginia.

Several years ago Dook started an endowment campaign with a goal of 2 Billion dollars. They reached their goal in less than two years
The same year that Dook started their campaign Carolina started with a goal of 1 Billion, but raised the goal to 2 Billion to match Dook's effort. It took Carolina 10 years to reach the 2 Billion dollar mark.
BTW Dook has already started another endowment campaign (Duke Forward, goal 3.25 Billion).
There are no shortages of money at Dook University.

They are all a**holes, but they are wealthy a**holes.

Here is the regular endowment for each ACC school:

1. ND - 11 Billion
2. UVa - 8 Billion
3. Duke - 7.5 Billion (Hospital on Campus has and extra 4 Billion)
4. Pitt - 3.5 Billion
5. UNC - 3 Billion
6. BC - 2.2 Billion
7. GT - 1.9 Billion
8. NCSU - 1.3 Billion
9. WF - 1.2 Billion
10. Syracuse - 1.2 Billion
11. Louisville - 900 Million
12. VT - 800 Million
13. Miami - 800 Million
14. Clemson - 700 Million
15. FSU - 650 Million

Think of what just a 4% rate of return is on 8 Billion - $320,000,000
Now compare it to just a Billion - $40,000,000

This is why FSU, Clemson, and VT are so dependent on their football stadium to support their athletic programs. They don't have the resources attached to a huge multi-generational endowment to tap to make up a $10-$15 million shortfall.

What these numbers seem to be saying is that there isn't much correlation between endowment size and football success, and that it isn't football that's driving the economic bus in the ACC.

Generally speaking, the uses to which endowment funds are specified aren't heavily weighted toward athletics. The lion's share goes to scholarships, research and professors' salaries.

Also, on the whole, ACC endowments are larger than SEC endowments, and SEC East endowments are higher than SEC West endowments. Football success seems to hinge more on attitudes than on alumni or endowments.

1
Harvard has the world's largest endowment and don't play P5 football.

Academic endowment has little to do with football.

2
Elite academic schools often have super wealthy donors that can cover athletic budgets that other schools don't have (Stanford has $500 million athletic endowment)

3
There is ABSOLUTELY a causation with the largest athletic budgets and football stadium size. Are there exceptions? Maybe....but you are EXTREMELY wrong if you believe there isnt' a tie in.

4
Football drives the money train at ALL P5 conferences.....less so in the BBall driven ACC, but still about football even in the ACC.


This board often seems preoccupied in trying to prove football doesn't matter for some bizarre reason. Old Big East/Tobacco road holding on. Football matters.....a LOT, stop fighting it. Go with the flow.

i think Clemson has a separate athletic endowment. Maybe that is what IPTAY is. but i never cared much about money as it pertains to college athletic programs. if they give me a share of the profits i would be interested.

Emphasis on football is important for football success.

The financial success or failure of the university itself is (and should be) more tied to academics. Florida, Tennessee and LSU have all struggled to make payroll in recent years, despite having some of the highest football revenues in the country.

Ultimately, you need both.
If you don't care about academics, go run a semi-pro team.
If you don't care about football, go to an Ivy League college.

http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

1 Texas A&M SEC $192,608,876 $109,313,651 $0 0.00
2 Texas Big 12 $183,521,028 $173,248,133 $0 0.00
3 Ohio State Big Ten $167,166,065 $154,033,208 $0 * 0.00
4 Michigan Big Ten $152,477,026 $151,144,964 $263,345 0.17
5 Alabama SEC $148,911,674 $132,354,913 $2,616,895 * 1.76
6 Florida SEC $147,105,242 $125,384,443 $1,856,122 * 1.26
7 LSU SEC $138,642,237 $121,947,775 $0 0.00
8 Oklahoma Big 12 $134,269,349 $123,017,251 $0 0.00
9 Tennessee SEC $126,584,033 $113,413,325 $0 * 0.00
10 Penn State Big Ten $125,720,619 $122,271,407 $0 0.00


What is the smallest football stadium size in these top 10 athletic budgets?

Maybe Oklahoma at 86K

A little background on some of the information coming out:

This is a part of a new athletic department initiative called "Drive for 25," with the goal being to raise the number of athletic donors to 25,000. Currently, the Hokie Club has just under 10,000 donors as of 2015.

After Jim Weaver's retirement, one of the apparent reasons Whit Babcock was hired in January 2014 was his penchant for fundraising. While he's done a tremendous job in hiring new coaches for men's bball, football and most recently women's bball, his biggest priority has been to overhaul the Hokie Club and this announcement has been in the works for a while now. Weaver was successful in many aspects during his tenure as AD at Virginia Tech - he oversaw the program as they jumped on to the national stage in the old Big East, guided us into the ACC, facilities investments for the revenue generating sports, and kept the athletic department running in the black. Apparently one of his shortcomings as an AD was his inability to grow the Hokie Club (or he didn't seem to view it as a priority).

That's all changing now. With Babcock's hire, plus fresh faces in football and basketball, Virginia Tech's athletic programs have a new coat of paint. VT has also announced facilities upgrades to most of the Olympic sports programs, so now is the the time to push for growth on the donor side. When I was in school from 2006-2011, there was no push to engage students in the Hokie Club and instill a sense of athletic giving in the student body (where Clemson's IPTAY program has been extremely successful).

Additionally, the Hokie Club has long been geared towards benefiting those who want football tickets and little else, and that is now changing as it re-brands itself to be a way for donors to benefit all student athletes. Football will obviously always be king and a major driver for donations, but for someone like me who isn't going to buy season tickets for football, the Hokie Club was essentially useless beyond "feelgood" reasons.

The overhaul is a long time coming, and while that 25,000 number is ambitious, I think that Babcock is the right guy to make that push.

Agree pretty strongly with OP. IPTAY is a huge part of Clemson's success. I wish GT would go back to the how things were setup before Dan Radakovich started the TECH Fund (a mandatory donation required to get good tickets at football games) and have the Alexander-Tharpe Fund once again be the be-all end-all for non-ticket sale income to the GTAA. The way the A-T Fund is run feels bush league compared to IPTAY.

(12-12-2016 04:10 PM)nole Wrote:  http://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances/

1 Texas A&M SEC $192,608,876 $109,313,651 $0 0.00
2 Texas Big 12 $183,521,028 $173,248,133 $0 0.00
3 Ohio State Big Ten $167,166,065 $154,033,208 $0 * 0.00
4 Michigan Big Ten $152,477,026 $151,144,964 $263,345 0.17
5 Alabama SEC $148,911,674 $132,354,913 $2,616,895 * 1.76
6 Florida SEC $147,105,242 $125,384,443 $1,856,122 * 1.26
7 LSU SEC $138,642,237 $121,947,775 $0 0.00
8 Oklahoma Big 12 $134,269,349 $123,017,251 $0 0.00
9 Tennessee SEC $126,584,033 $113,413,325 $0 * 0.00
10 Penn State Big Ten $125,720,619 $122,271,407 $0 0.00


What is the smallest football stadium size in these top 10 athletic budgets?

Maybe Oklahoma at 86K

There's always the question when numbers like this are presented whether they're including student PE and recreation or just intercollegiate athletics. Athletic departments aren't just intercollegiate athletics.

(12-12-2016 04:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Agree pretty strongly with OP. IPTAY is a huge part of Clemson's success. I wish GT would go back to the how things were setup before Dan Radakovich started the TECH Fund (a mandatory donation required to get good tickets at football games) and have the Alexander-Tharpe Fund once again be the be-all end-all for non-ticket sale income to the GTAA. The way the A-T Fund is run feels bush league compared to IPTAY.

Just about everybody else does as well. There's a reason that IPTAY is considered the gold standard of booster organizations.

(12-12-2016 06:05 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-12-2016 04:55 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Agree pretty strongly with OP. IPTAY is a huge part of Clemson's success. I wish GT would go back to the how things were setup before Dan Radakovich started the TECH Fund (a mandatory donation required to get good tickets at football games) and have the Alexander-Tharpe Fund once again be the be-all end-all for non-ticket sale income to the GTAA. The way the A-T Fund is run feels bush league compared to IPTAY.

Just about everybody else does as well. There's a reason that IPTAY is considered the gold standard of booster organizations.

Gold standard? You're not in the same zip code with Stanford.