(07-09-2017 09:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 08:44 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 05:33 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 04:41 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-08-2017 03:29 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  I also wonder what happens when you take BE exit money out.

As i noted in the OP, that's something that makes USF's no-subs revenue of $24m even sadder than it looks. We're getting about $5m in extra BExit money per year right now than schools like UCF and Memphis, and they are still beating us in revenue by $7m+ per year.

Why is UCF doing so much better? Was it bigger longer, or is there something else going on?

The common view is that versus UCF, it's UCF's on-campus stadium, and given that other numbers, such as attendance, are very close, I tend to agree with that. UCF controls and owns revenue streams that USF, being a tenant of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, doesn't.

It's a problem for us.

Now Memphis is harder to explain, because IIRC, they rent from the Liberty Bowl like we do. Their attendance at football and basketball has been significantly higher than ours has recently, though.

Basketball makes a huge difference in Memphis. UConn, Cinci, and Memphis all generate a nice chunk of change with thier basketball programs. UConn does pretty well with women's basketball---that's an income stream few schools have,

Yep, even with their recent slump, Memphis hoops still generates way, way more money than does USF hoops. It's a problem for us.

Was USF financially stronger than UCF when they got the BIG EAST offer? I don't remember.

USF BB has always been weak, and I thought I remembered the '06-07 football season being USF's breakout season, but I don't follow USF much, so I could be wrong.

(07-09-2017 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yep, even with their recent slump, Memphis hoops still generates way, way more money than does USF hoops. It's a problem for us.

Basketball revenue is a problem for Houston too. That's our greatest area of potential growth.

I am hopeful the renovated arena combined with Sampson taking UH to the Dance (soon please!) can start to turn things around.

I think 2006/07 was the year USF football got on the SI cover ... cursed.

(07-09-2017 10:02 AM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 09:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yep, even with their recent slump, Memphis hoops still generates way, way more money than does USF hoops. It's a problem for us.

Basketball revenue is a problem for Houston too. That's our greatest area of potential growth.

I am hopeful the renovated arena combined with Sampson taking UH to the Dance (soon please!) can start to turn things around.

Between Elvin Hayes vs Alcindor in the Astrodome and Phi Slamma Jamma, Houston has a hoops history most schools envy, so it seems to me that if you guys start to win, the arena will quickly fill up.

Even though USF does have some spots of success in our hoops past, and even though hoops was our only major sport until 1997, our history isn't anywhere near what Houston's is, so our starting line is way behind yours.

(07-09-2017 10:02 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Was USF financially stronger than UCF when they got the BIG EAST offer? I don't remember.

USF BB has always been weak, and I thought I remembered the '06-07 football season being USF's breakout season, but I don't follow USF much, so I could be wrong.

When USF was invited to the Big East they had played 1 year of CUSA football. They played their second year of CUSA football and then exited to the Big East. Looking back at their schedules they actually played pay day games at non-BCS schools. Utah beat them badly. Northern Illinois beat them. Uconn was like that too. Ball St beat them 3 straight years and Utah St beat them when Utah St was a WAC bottom feeder. It was amazing to me when they got the Big East invite.

(07-09-2017 08:12 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 10:02 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Was USF financially stronger than UCF when they got the BIG EAST offer? I don't remember.

USF BB has always been weak, and I thought I remembered the '06-07 football season being USF's breakout season, but I don't follow USF much, so I could be wrong.

When USF was invited to the Big East they had played 1 year of CUSA football. They played their second year of CUSA football and then exited to the Big East. Looking back at their schedules they actually played pay day games at non-BCS schools. Utah beat them badly. Northern Illinois beat them. Uconn was like that too. Ball St beat them 3 straight years and Utah St beat them when Utah St was a WAC bottom feeder. It was amazing to me when they got the Big East invite.

Then just a few years after joining the Big East USF was ranked #2 in the entire country.

Not many G5 have been ever ranked that high. Air Force and Navy probably the only ones.

(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers.

But, properly, those contribution ought to be "capitalized" ... put into a per year value for the projects they are helping to fund with the per-year value added into the non-institutional revenue.

(07-09-2017 08:12 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 10:02 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Was USF financially stronger than UCF when they got the BIG EAST offer? I don't remember.

USF BB has always been weak, and I thought I remembered the '06-07 football season being USF's breakout season, but I don't follow USF much, so I could be wrong.

When USF was invited to the Big East they had played 1 year of CUSA football. They played their second year of CUSA football and then exited to the Big East. Looking back at their schedules they actually played pay day games at non-BCS schools. Utah beat them badly. Northern Illinois beat them. Uconn was like that too. Ball St beat them 3 straight years and Utah St beat them when Utah St was a WAC bottom feeder. It was amazing to me when they got the Big East invite.

UConn is an entirely different beast. That was politics + already being in the conference. UConn moved from fcs to AQ in one fell swoop. I know they had a year as an Indy, but that was a formality.

(07-09-2017 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers.

But, properly, those contribution ought to be "capitalized" ... put into a per year value for the projects they are helping to fund with the per-year value added into the non-institutional revenue.

Any school then could issue bonds for a large athletic project, to be financed over 20 years at 20 million per year and increase the budget by 20 million dollars.

Call it the Rutgers plan for pumping up your athletic budget.

If this can be done then what is to stop any G5 from approaching a P5 conference with a proposal of a 300 million dollar stadium expansion if accepted to the conference? It may be a non-starter for other reasons of course (e.g. academics).

(07-09-2017 11:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  UConn is an entirely different beast. That was politics + already being in the conference. UConn moved from fcs to AQ in one fell swoop. I know they had a year as an Indy, but that was a formality.

How much of that fell swoop was due to the new stadium? And wasn't that stadium built because they thought the Patriots were coming? Granted, I know UConn donors stepped up and built some top-notch (at the time) practice facilities for the move to the Big East.

I'm wondering though, if the stadium never gets built ... then UConn might still be playing football games in Storrs against UNH and Maine ... or perhaps it would've partnered with UMass in a smaller scale FBS move up?

(07-10-2017 09:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 11:22 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  UConn is an entirely different beast. That was politics + already being in the conference. UConn moved from fcs to AQ in one fell swoop. I know they had a year as an Indy, but that was a formality.

How much of that fell swoop was due to the new stadium? And wasn't that stadium built because they thought the Patriots were coming? Granted, I know UConn donors stepped up and built some top-notch (at the time) practice facilities for the move to the Big East.

I'm wondering though, if the stadium never gets built ... then UConn might still be playing football games in Storrs against UNH and Maine ... or perhaps it would've partnered with UMass in a smaller scale FBS move up?

There was a moment when the Pats almost moved to that stadium. That's why it's located where it is and not on campus. When that deal fell through it never expanded and is now only the off campus (a long long way off) stadium for Uconn football. What a disaster, unless like one poster said on here they swamp their main campus from Storrs to Hartford.--which is done almost all the time--actually never.

Only 2x miles from UConn to the football stadium. I don't think it's that big of a deal ...

(07-10-2017 01:03 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers.

But, properly, those contribution ought to be "capitalized" ... put into a per year value for the projects they are helping to fund with the per-year value added into the non-institutional revenue.

Any school then could issue bonds for a large athletic project, to be financed over 20 years at 20 million per year and increase the budget by 20 million dollars.

Call it the Rutgers plan for pumping up your athletic budget.

If this can be done then what is to stop any G5 from approaching a P5 conference with a proposal of a 300 million dollar stadium expansion if accepted to the conference? It may be a non-starter for other reasons of course (e.g. academics).

Guidelines say that the bond expense is to be reported. So you hare going to report it over 20 years as an expense.

Again, why I think it a bit silly to try to compare these whole budget figures from school to school.

If you're going to have a college football team, and want it to be successful, then you need to pay a market rate for a head coach. I think that is a better proxy metric for how much the school wants to support its football team.

(07-06-2017 06:51 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example, Houston currently has about 80 million in capital athletics projects underway. Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers. Not only that, but the capital expenditures for UH since 2013 is well over a quarter of a billion--more than half of which is all private donations. So it would have affected almost every year since 2013.

I don't know how USA Today accounts for capital projects. I guess they don't include them either, otherwise Houston would be way above the $51 million in overall revenue they list them at. I guess in their way of reckoning, such things don't count.

As a USF fan, this list is really sobering to me. Schools like Hawaii and Arkansas State are generating a lot more athletic dollars than we are. That is pretty sad.

Hawaii is in a unique situation for a GO5 program with no pro team sports in the state and they are the only Division 1 athletic program in their state which generates huge revenues from tourism which props up their economy higher than it would normally be.

Plus I think PAC schools like playing in Hawaii every now and then.

(07-10-2017 10:12 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Again, why I think it a bit silly to try to compare these whole budget figures from school to school.

If you're going to have a college football team, and want it to be successful, then you need to pay a market rate for a head coach. I think that is a better proxy metric for how much the school wants to support its football team.

Market rate in FB can only go so far.

Houston was trying it with Herman. Paid him close to 4 million. That is a handsome sum. Texas steps up with its 100,000 seater and he was gone from Houston in a split second.

In basketball its different when there are about a dozen elite jobs against 350 other D1 jobs. You can do what Wichita State did and pay Greg Marshall 3.3 million and he will stick around for a while.

With the P5 vs. G5 thing, Any P5 with a 70,000 seater has national title potential then any program that has finished in the Top 10 the last 5 years. This covers a Miami, Colorado or Baylor when they are hot but not so much when they are down.

There is about 30 P5 jobs at any given time that are automatic punch the ticket situations for any G5 coach and at least 5 are open at any given off season. There is just no way that a G5 can retain a high paid coach for more than a year or two.

WMU had a billionaire alum offer to step up and give PJ Fleck a 10 year 30 million dollar contract. He still turned it down for a medicore P5 job.

It stinks but that is the way it is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Nothing wrong with your point, but it's not countering what I'm saying.

I'm saying that if you want to compare how much school A is financially supporting its football team, vs how school B is financially supporting its football team, looking at head coach pay is a reasonably proxy statistic for doing that comparison.

That a coach at one of those schools might leave for a different school, doesn't change the comparison ...

(07-10-2017 01:03 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 10:21 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(07-06-2017 06:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  One thing Im noticing is that some schools apparently count capital spending in their annual budgets and some do not. That potentially creates some massive problems when comparing budgets. Just as an example (and because Im very familiar with the situation), Houston currently has roughly 80 million in capital athletics projects underway (basketball arena renovation and new IPF). Of that amount, about 50 million of it is funded by private donations. If these expenditures were included, Houston's numbers would reflect a budget of over 100 million and it would probably sit at the top of your list of budgets minus student fees and transfers.

But, properly, those contribution ought to be "capitalized" ... put into a per year value for the projects they are helping to fund with the per-year value added into the non-institutional revenue.

Any school then could issue bonds for a large athletic project, to be financed over 20 years at 20 million per year and increase the budget by 20 million dollars.

Call it the Rutgers plan for pumping up your athletic budget.

If this can be done then what is to stop any G5 from approaching a P5 conference with a proposal of a 300 million dollar stadium expansion if accepted to the conference? It may be a non-starter for other reasons of course (e.g. academics).

this is like saying you are going to show all your neighbors that are members of the country club that "you belong" by raiding your kids college fund to join the country club and buy an expensive car

while the neighbors all pay for the country club after paying into the college fund and after maxing out their IRA and they pay for the fancy car with cash

no conference is going to be impressed with a school that can take a ton of money from the academic side (that will not last) and pay for stuff for a short term on the athletic side before it all falls apart

or that can inflate their budget hoping to get into a conference and get larger conference revenues and then cut their academic side support so that their budget falls right back down to the level it was prior to being in the conference which would make it much lower than the rest of the conference