If not Petersen (Boise), PSU on the record as interested in Grobe

[PhillyDeac]

Also, for those of you that don't want Grobe to leave.... my buddy and I counted, there are roughly 8 coaches throughout the country rumored to being offered this job.

 

[RacerDeac]

Grobe's salary is among the highest in the ACC, and for that we still don't have a football program that turns a profit, so it is clearly draining money from basketball.

Where have you seen the numbers to show that our football program isn't turning a profit? I find that impossible to believe...especially with bowl revenue sharing. If our football program isn't turning a profit, what is supporting all of our non-revenue sports? Are you suggesting basketball, even in it's current state, is funding all non-revenue sports and a shortfall in football?

 

[WRS]

Basketball is underfunded. We have hired the past two coaches on the cheap, neither one nationally prominent. We desperately need to upgrade the playing and practice facilities to match what other ACC schools have done recently (compare our facilities to UVA's JPJ Arena or Va Tech's new basketball practice facility).

Do you happen to know who coughed up the money for JPJ arena? If we find a donor like him I'm pretty sure we'll be all set to do whatever we want.

 

[WFU71]

Do you happen to know who coughed up the money for JPJ arena? If we find a donor like him I'm pretty sure we'll be all set to do whatever we want.

His son, Paul Tudor Jones

 

[WRS]

His son, Paul Tudor Jones

Oh I knew that. Just wondering if FreeState knew where we could find any billionaire donors looking to hand us money

 

[ChrisL68]

Where have you seen the numbers to show that our football program isn't turning a profit? I find that impossible to believe...especially with bowl revenue sharing. If our football program isn't turning a profit, what is supporting all of our non-revenue sports? Are you suggesting basketball, even in it's current state, is funding all non-revenue sports and a shortfall in football?

Wake excludes all TV revenues from football and basketball revenues.

And to act like we aren't getting a significant return on our increased football revenues is ridiculous.

Bowl games.
Notre Dame in BB&T Field.
Fans envious of our football facilities?
Full stadium at least a few games a year.

 

[PhDeac]

Why is DeaconBrad such a flamer on these boards? I don't remember him being an idiot on the scout boards. Does anybody know?

He was like a young 81Deac with a little keeper in him. With time, most of his flaming was just over on premium. He also started posting under the handle, ImissRandolph.

The main thing I remember him for was criticizing anybody who criticized Lobo. This has been going on as long as I can remember. He's been posting at least as long as I have. I think I knew him back at Wake. What was funny about it was that he always shifted his position when presented with new facts. There was a big stink about using total offense (yards) vs. total scoring to judge an offense. When presented with the facts that Lobo's offenses were among the worst regardless of the measure, he shifted to something like, "Well I didn't say Lobo was good, just that he gets too much criticism that should have gone to Lambert." Of course, he started this in Lambert's 1st or 2nd season in which most posters were giving him a fair shot and it didn't explain is longtime claim that people who criticized Lobo were off-base.

He's got a well-defined trolling style that made him easy to ID over here.

 

[TBR]

Where have you seen the numbers to show that our football program isn't turning a profit? I find that impossible to believe...especially with bowl revenue sharing. If our football program isn't turning a profit, what is supporting all of our non-revenue sports? Are you suggesting basketball, even in it's current state, is funding all non-revenue sports and a shortfall in football?

Impossible to believe is pretty strong. We have the smallest stadium in the ACC and one of the higher coaching budgets (I'd imagine anyway). As has already been noted, we have spent a lot of money on facility upgrades, much of which were not fully funded with donations and were thus debt financed.

The latest Equity in Athletics numbers show the basketball program making $1mm and the football program losing $4mm. If, as already noted, these numbers do not include TV revenue (which would make sense), you'd have to imagine that the programs are more or less equally profitable.

It is also worth noting that the basketball expenses inexplicably increased $3mm from the previous data. I have no clue what the money is being spent on since there have been no noticeable changes in facilities or coaching staff between this period (that ends 6/30/2011) and last period (that ended 6/30/2010), other than the DBO change (and I doubt compensation between Nix and Corbean as DBO was substantively different). Regardless, assuming the money is being spent wisely I'm glad that the Wellman is finally investing more money in our premier program (and there have some signs of this, ie the locker room remodel and the hiring of a dedicated S&C coach).

ETA: Don't read anything into this that isn't there. The football program as been great for the greater university. It has become a wonderful marketing tool. I just hope that it's success doesn't come at the expense of the basketball program which can also be a great tool.

 

[RacerDeac]

Impossible to believe is pretty strong. We have the smallest stadium in the ACC and one of the higher coaching budgets (I'd imagine anyway). As has already been noted, we have spent a lot of money on facility upgrades, much of which were not fully funded with donations and were thus debt financed.

And yet, there's no way we could operate with an athletic department that's bleeding huge sums of money. Something has to fund non-revenue sports, and we know that basketball is really hurting right now. So yes, I find it impossible to believe that our other revenue sport, football, is losing $$. If football were losing money, our entire athletics department would be deep in the red (rather than the little bit in the red that seems to be the norm). The additional bowl revenue from a 2nd BCS game will be nice this year.

The latest Equity in Athletics numbers show the basketball program making $1mm and the football program losing $4mm. If, as already noted, these numbers do not include TV revenue (which would make sense), you'd have to imagine that the programs are more or less equally profitable.

It's an entirely different ballgame if we're not counting TV revenue into the equation for football. Does anyone know where bowl revenue falls? If those are the numbers being used to show our football team is "losing money", then there's no point in arguing with FreeStateDeac. That's just using Wake's internal accounting practices to try to win an argument. Besides, our Revenues and Expenses for the entire athletic department are exactly the same, which indicates the numbers are massaged anyway.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDet...d31322f32372f323031312031313a34363a353020414d

 

[TBR]

And yet, there's no way we could operate with an athletic department that's bleeding huge sums of money. Something has to fund non-revenue sports, and we know that basketball is really hurting right now. So yes, I find it impossible to believe that our other revenue sport, football, is losing $$. If football were losing money, our entire athletics department would be deep in the red (rather than the little bit in the red that seems to be the norm). The additional bowl revenue from a 2nd BCS game will be nice this year.



It's an entirely different ballgame if we're not counting TV revenue into the equation for football. Does anyone know where bowl revenue falls? If those are the numbers being used to show our football team is "losing money", then there's no point in arguing with FreeStateDeac. That's just using Wake's internal accounting practices to try to win an argument. Besides, our Revenues and Expenses for the entire athletic department are exactly the same, which indicates the numbers are massaged anyway.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDet...d31322f32372f323031312031313a34363a353020414d

I assume they are manipulated to some extent, but my best guess is that there is some small short fall that is paid for by the university and this evens things up (or perhaps a similar arrangement going the opposite direction?). They aren't going to report false information to the federal government.

The long and the short of it is that if those numbers have any validity to them then there's a $5mm difference in profitability sans TV money. Add in TV money and you're pretty much at the same place. Use the expense numbers before [Redacted] was hired and basketball makes a lot more money.

There isn't necessarily a substantive difference between bowl revenue whether we have a good team or a bad one.

 

[freakadeac]

Where have you seen the numbers to show that our football program isn't turning a profit? I find that impossible to believe...especially with bowl revenue sharing. If our football program isn't turning a profit, what is supporting all of our non-revenue sports? Are you suggesting basketball, even in it's current state, is funding all non-revenue sports and a shortfall in football?

Here's a graph (from Business of College Sports) showing football hasn't been turning a profit for two straight years, and basketball's $3.5mil profit in '10-'11 is funding non-revenue sports.
http://businessofcollegesports.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/acc-10-112.jpg?w=788

The numbers can definitely be misleading; FSU just started to break out their contributions by sport which explains their huge profit jump. Also Wake has $24mil listed as non-sport specific revenue on op.ed.gov (UVA is $48mil), which is a combination of contributions and student fees.

Unfortunately, WFU profits are down $2.88mil from last year, for football and basketball. op.ed.gov stats show that Wake turned a profit of $888,960 in '09-'10, but $0 profit in '10-'11.
http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDetails.aspx?756e697469643d31393938343726796561723d323031302673656172636843726974657269613d3331336437373631366236353230363636663732363537333734323637323634373433643331333232663332333732663332333033313331323033313332336133303335336133313337323035303464267264743d31322f32372f323031312031323a30353a313720504d

 

[freakadeac]

And yet, there's no way we could operate with an athletic department that's bleeding huge sums of money. Something has to fund non-revenue sports, and we know that basketball is really hurting right now. So yes, I find it impossible to believe that our other revenue sport, football, is losing $$. If football were losing money, our entire athletics department would be deep in the red (rather than the little bit in the red that seems to be the norm). The additional bowl revenue from a 2nd BCS game will be nice this year.


It's an entirely different ballgame if we're not counting TV revenue into the equation for football. Does anyone know where bowl revenue falls? If those are the numbers being used to show our football team is "losing money", then there's no point in arguing with FreeStateDeac. That's just using Wake's internal accounting practices to try to win an argument. Besides, our Revenues and Expenses for the entire athletic department are exactly the same, which indicates the numbers are massaged anyway.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/InstDet...d31322f32372f323031312031313a34363a353020414d

I believe bowl revenue is baked into Wake's $24mil 'Non Allocated Revenues'. Here's a breakout of UVA's $48mil non allocated revenue in the article:

Contributions $25,961,417
Student Fees $12,160,103
Royalties, Ads, Sponsorships $6,627,911
Conference Distributions/Post Season $1,831,625

http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/02/24/acc-football-no-cash-cow/

 

[RacerDeac]

I believe bowl revenue is baked into Wake's $24mil 'Non Allocated Revenues'. Here's a breakout of UVA's $48mil non allocated revenue in the article:

So, the numbers being used to show that football isn't profitable exclude TV revenue and bowl revenue, two revenue streams that exist solely because we have a football team in the ACC. If that's the definition people want to use, then yes, football loses tons of money. :tard:

 

[ChrisL68]

And it isn't like our basketball expenses are materially below the rest of the conference anyway.

 

[deacondamo]

Back to the thread, Petersen officially declines PSU's flirtation per cbssports.

 

[RacerDeac]

I'd love to see how each of these schools is account for various revenues/expenses. Duke football making a $3.4 million profit while Wake takes a $3.7 million loss tells me that things are weird. Even if all of the Groves stadium improvement debt is being accounted for in football (which would seem strange since much of the tower is general athletic department space), that gap only makes sense if each school accounts for certain revenues and expenses differently. One need look no further than the number of butts in the stands at each school (i.e. the key revenue driver if TV and bowl revenue are being left out) to know that. Cutcliffe is earning $1.5+ million, so it's not as if they have a budget staff.

It will also be interesting to see what the '11-'12 basketball numbers look like. Non-DC members were able to buy season tickets DOWNSTAIRS at the Joel this season. That indicates a serious drop-off in DC contributions (overall AD revenue) and season ticket purchases (basketball only revenue). It can't be calculated, but I guarantee that being bowl eligible in football this season will limit the DC dropoff seen from another season with Bzz. It won't make football's accounting look better since it's general DC giving, but it's definitely a case of football helping to carry basketball.

 

[freakadeac]

So, the numbers being used to show that football isn't profitable exclude TV revenue and bowl revenue, two revenue streams that exist solely because we have a football team in the ACC. If that's the definition people want to use, then yes, football loses tons of money. :tard:

Exactly. It's not like WFU football is a cash cow, but we're not losing millions of dollars like the stats show.

 

[freakadeac]

I'd love to see how each of these schools is account for various revenues/expenses. Duke football making a $3.4 million profit while Wake takes a $3.7 million loss tells me that things are weird. Even if all of the Groves stadium improvement debt is being accounted for in football (which would seem strange since much of the tower is general athletic department space), that gap only makes sense if each school accounts for certain revenues and expenses differently. One need look no further than the number of butts in the stands at each school (i.e. the key revenue driver if TV and bowl revenue are being left out) to know that. Cutcliffe is earning $1.5+ million, so it's not as if they have a budget staff.

It will also be interesting to see what the '11-'12 basketball numbers look like. Non-DC members were able to buy season tickets DOWNSTAIRS at the Joel this season. That indicates a serious drop-off in DC contributions (overall AD revenue) and season ticket purchases (basketball only revenue). It can't be calculated, but I guarantee that being bowl eligible in football this season will limit the DC dropoff seen from another season with Bzz. It won't make football's accounting look better since it's general DC giving, but it's definitely a case of football helping to carry basketball.

The Duke football revenue is pretty funny, also BC had more football revenue than FSU in '09-'10 (IIRC the statements are tied to title IX compliance). The statements are useful for comparing one school's #s over a time period assuming they use the same standards (e.g. Wake football/bball profits fell $2.88mil from last year), but accurately comparing multiple schools requires a lot of digging. I'd love to see the breakout of the $24mil non allocated revenue.

 

[mebanedeac]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11354/1198052-143-0.stm

 

[PhDeac]

So, the numbers being used to show that football isn't profitable exclude TV revenue and bowl revenue, two revenue streams that exist solely because we have a football team in the ACC. If that's the definition people want to use, then yes, football loses tons of money. :tard:

True, but we'd still get that money if we didn't pay our coach $2.5 million. Using the money that Wake generates is more accurate in that sense.