Seminole Booster Info

Seminole Booster info

Jerry Kutz
4/28/2014

"As vice president of Seminole Boosters, I am keenly aware of what we do wrong and what we do right. And yes I do pay attention to this site and others as well as to my email and phone calls. If you would like to take a deeper dive into any of our projects you are welcome to email me (jkutz@fsu.edu or call me on my cell phone 850-508-8690). That's an open invitation to anyone on these boards who wants to know more about the Boosters and these projects as I am happy to discuss any of them with a person in detail, which is hard to accomplish in any other format that an interactive phone call.

The stadium wall will be pressure washed, as it always is, during the summer months and yes, facilities will commemorate the national championship appropriately before the season. And yes, the field is painted when recruits come to town to visit. Jimbo is very detailed about recruit visits and by all accounts very successful in signing them.

Seminole Boosters is currently tackling some major projects. Let me enumerate:
1. The $15 million IPF was completed this past year with money raised by Seminole Boosters.
2. The apartment/dorm for football, funded by Seminole Boosters, will open in August.
3. We have a $6 million locker room/meeting room renovation now underway to be completed by August.
4. We are reviewing cost estimates for stadium repair, maintenance,painting and concourse improvements to Doak that are over $50 million and will require Seminole Boosters to borrow the money necessary to make those improvements. Those improvements generate no money so in order to borrow the money to make them, you must have a revenue source which is the $38 million club seat project. The revenue generated by the club seats can pay for the club seats and the stadium improvements.
5. We continue to work to raise $15 million a year in order to fund competitive coaches salaries and budgets for athletics (almost $10 million for scholarship costs) so that we can compete for national championships and top 5 rankings in our overall sports programs.
6. We also continue to raise money to pay for about $5 million of mortgage payments per year on all the facilities we've built for our sports teams over the past 10 years.
7. We have the  $6 million in seats for the Tucker Center going in this summer and know that there will be more once the needs assessment is complete.

We have a lot on our plate so that's why I want all Seminoles to be inclusive of all other Seminoles. We need every Seminole fan, whether a Booster, season ticket holder, or not, to get involved in whatever way they can in order for us to be competitive with our rivals.

I don't want you to shut up. I want you to speak up and to contribute in any way you can. If you'd like to discuss any of these projects, or find a way to help us with any of them, feel free to give me a call.

We can use your help."

FSU computer science feeds job pipeline

Computer science program at FSU addressing critical state requirements

"The fast-growing department pays for itself, thanks to federal and state grants secured by the 17 tenure-track faculty. Many of its 600 plus students pay little or no tuition, as a result of scholarships that those grants provide.
Almost every student in the program has a job before he or she has even walked across the stage at the Civic Center to receive their diploma. And it is the “T” in STEM, properly crossed.
Penny Kincannon, the chief information officer at Florida Department of Law Enforcement, is keenly aware of how important FSU’s computer science program is to her — and the state’s — urgent needs. This spring, she worked with Robert van Engelen, chair of FSU’s department for the past three years, to establish 13 paid internships at FDLE beginning this summer.

“There’s a tremendous demand for IT (information technology) professionals. Computer science graduates can pretty much work where they want to work, do what they want to do and say how much they’re going to get paid,” Kincannon said. “It’s a big enough issue that we need to be looking at how we partner with our universities to try and solve it. This is a problem that really hasn’t gotten too much attention.”

“Information security and homeland security are very hot topics these days, and many of our students are focused in these areas. There’s a strong relationship between computer science and security,” van Engelen said. “Our placement of students is perfect, or almost perfect. Our students will find a job before they graduate.”

"
FSU’s computer science department has experienced significant growth in the past 15 years, despite the ups and downs in the economy. There were 12 total faculty when van Engelen arrived in 1998; today there are 22. The number of undergraduate and graduate students – a total of 620 – is almost double what it was just three years ago, van Engelen said.
“We’ve been doing more advertisements, but we also make it clear while we’re advising the students that they are aware of the many career opportunities in computer science,” he said.
Xiuwen Liu joined the department’s faculty in 2000. He is a co-principal investigator on two grants totaling almost $4 million that can support up to 45 students at any one time. He has also been in charge of the department’s graduate division for the past few years.
Liu credits van Engelen for establishing internship programs for students, and connecting students with jobs.
“Robert’s made a lot of changes to the department. He’s streamlined a lot of things,” he said. “I think we’re much more efficient.”
Van Engelen also works closely with the Jim Moran Institute at FSU’s business school, the entrepreneur focused center that encourages undergraduates to develop their own start-up businesses.
Van Engelen and his wife, Susan, have a thriving computer consulting firm, Genivia, and have committed to donating $150,000 to the Jim Moran Institute to help students develop business ventures."

COE split is dead

Not unexpected, sadly.

Keep in mind, Thrasher couldn't make this happen in a position of power......how idiotic is it that FSU will claim Thrasher will deliver the goods when hired as a president (and no longer has power in the state leg.)?

Like TK, he won't.  It is simply going to be a horrible hire justified with promises never to be delivered.  This is just proof the promise is empty.


Senate offers to study, not split for now, FAMU-FSU College of Engineering

"A proposal that sent shock waves through Florida A&M and Florida State universities – splitting up their joint College of Engineering after more than three decades of operation – was in doubt Sunday after the Senate appeared to cave on the idea.

Senate budget negotiators offered to give the Board of Governors $150,000 to study the proposed split rather than immediately proceed with one. The study would begin no later than Jan. 1, 2015, with the Board of Governors making a final decision no later than March 1.

As part of the study, the Board of Governors would analyze whether the joint college should remain as-is, whether a new college should be located at one or both of the universities or whether each university should have its own “differentiated” engineering programs.

Solomon Badger, chairman of the FAMU Board of Trustees, said afterward he respects the decision by the Senate.

“The Board of Governors needs to play a role in this, and they’ve been silent because they have not been part of it,” he said. “People are starting to align this whole thing in the right direction. The Board of Trustees needs a role in this, too. This is taking the right step to turn around and let everybody have who should have a hand in it have an opportunity.”

In a surprise move earlier this month, Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, proposed giving FSU $13 million to start its own engineering college, and senators signed off. But in recent days, House Speaker Will Weatherford signaled he was more interested in taking a slower approach and allowing input from the Board of Governors.

Thrasher, whose name has surfaced as a possible contender for the FSU presidency, along with others want a separate engineering school to help FSU achieve its goal of becoming a top 25 public university.

And while he pledged that the Legislature would continue funding a separate FAMU engineering college, newly installed FAMU President Elmira Mangum expressed major doubts, saying the university would be unable to sustain one. FSU Interim President Garnett Stokes said at the time the university would support the move only if it didn’t hurt FAMU.

Thrasher said Sunday he was satisfied with the $150,000 line-item for a feasibility study, adding his main intention was to get the issue discussed by the universities and lawmakers.

“The House probably didn't want to do the full amount of the money, which I understand,” he said. “I've said all along I wanted to start a conversation about this and by putting the money in the budget we started the conversation. I think the Board of Governors is well-suited to continue the discussion and look at it, and hopefully make some positive recommendations for moving forward.”

When asked about the proposed deal after an afternoon budget meeting, Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, and chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the Senate hadn’t changed its position.

“We're looking at the speaker's request of having the Board of Governors involved in that process,” he told reporters, adding he didn’t know whether the proposal to split was dead this legislative session.

Rep. Alan Williams, D-Tallahassee and a FAMU graduate, said the Senate offer will allow more time to examine the proposal, though he said the Legislature should focus instead on finding ways to support the joint college.

“Obviously, both institutions have some concerns that we need to address,” he said. “But we should be looking for that Rose Garden moment here where both institutions if they ever decide to split should have the opportunity to do it on their terms and not the Legislature’s terms.”

FSU - TMH Medical Education Building

"Proposed FSU - TMH Medical Education Building to be approximately 72,340 SF. The proposed structure is three stories, with covered and surface parking. Exact location of new facility has not be announced although based on project design, it is more compatible with hospital area architecture than campus design. Budget for this project is currently: $19,000,000.00"

CRA Authorizes Notice of Proposed Sale of O'Connell Parcel

CRA Authorizes Notice of Proposed Sale of O'Connell Parcel


"Statement of Issue In January 2010, the City of Tallahassee Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) purchased the O’Connell property located at 402 W. Gaines St. for $4.65 million dollars. The property, which is immediately south of the Donald L. Tucker Civic Center (Civic Center) is a vacant 5.3 acre parcel within the All Saints – D (AS-D) zoning district.  The AS-D zoning district encourages the creation of a high-intensity urban activity corridor with a pedestrian orientation. Permitted uses in the district include; mixed uses, colleges, universities, restaurants, and office and entertainment establishments.  The property is located within the Greater Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Area.

In the summer of 2012, Florida State University (FSU) acquired ownership of the Civic Center, although operation of the Civic Center remained under the Tallahassee-Leon County Civic Center Authority (TLCCC).  In the summer of 2013, the TLCCC Authority was repealed and FSU assumed management of the Civic Center.  Starting in 2012, FSU began examining master planning options for the Civic Center.  This eventually led to the Arena District Concept in early 2013, which included conceptual redevelopment plans for the Civic Center and adjacent properties, including the O’Connell property.

In mid-2013, FSU approached the CRA and expressed an interest in exploring the possibility of purchasing the former O’Connell site from the CRA for a combination of cash and the exchange of land along Gaines Street that is owned by FSU.  Since that time, CRA staff, led by the City Manager and City Commissioner and CRA Board Member Andrew Gillum, has been discussing the possible sale and transfer of the property.  Staffs believe we are at a point now where there are sufficient details regarding the proposed O’Connell land sale, property transfers and proposed FSU redevelopment of the Donald L. Tucker Civic Center to present to the CRA Board for consideration and discussion, prior to the presentation of a final proposal by FSU.   

Based on recent appraisals prepared for FSU, and verified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Lands Management, the O’Connell property has an appraised value of $5,810,000.  FSU, CRA and City staffs have developed a proposal that involves the sale of the O’Connell property at 402 West Gaines Street from the CRA to FSU for $960,000 in cash and the transfer of the Firestone Building and Bloxham Annex properties on east Gaines Street and 715 East Gaines Street, which have a combined appraised value of $4,850,000, from FSU to the CRA.

 

The immediate purpose of this agenda item is to update the CRA Board on the anticipated FSU offer for the O’Connell property, and have the Board members provide staff with direction as the negotiations enter their final stages. 

Prior to its sale of any property, by statute the CRA must give notice to the public of its intent to dispose of the property and must request competing offers. The notice of intent to dispose of CRA property must be published in the newspaper for at least 30 days prior to the execution of any contract.

Due to the required statutory notice, which applies in any case, staff is requesting authorization to publish the notice concerning sale of the O'Connell property. Although the CRA must publish the notice, the CRA will have discretion as to which offer it may choose to accept. Additionally, although the CRA can discuss potential terms with a prospective purchaser prior to publication of the notice, the statute precludes the CRA from entering into a contract until it has satisfied the notice requirement.

Recommended Action

Option 1 - Authorize CRA staff to notice the proposed sale of the O’Connell property consistent with the Chapter 163.380(3)(a).   

Fiscal Impact

At this point, there is no fiscal impact.  However, if the sale and property transfer is eventually approved by the CRA and FSU, the CRA will receive a total of $5,810,000 in cash ($960,000) and land value ($4,850,000).  If the exchange is completed, it will result in a generally equivalent exchange of property and other considerations which can be used in future CRA projects.  Once transferred to the CRA, staff expects to quickly market the new properties for redevelopment.  The fiscal impact to the CRA will include both the sale of the properties to private developers and the future tax increment that will be generated when the properties are developed and added to the tax rolls.

CRA Proposal Presented to FSU

Based on recent appraisals prepared for FSU, and verified by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Lands Management, the O’Connell property has an appraised value of $5,810,000.  In response to FSU’s interest in purchasing the O’Connell property to assist in the development and implantation of their Arena District concept, CRA staff, led by the City Manager and Commissioner Gillum, has had a series of meetings and discussions with FSU leadership and staff.  From those discussions, the CRA has provided FSU with a proposal to sell the O’Connell property to FSU for its appraised value of $5,810,000 in cash and property exchanges by FSU to the CRA, as described below, pending CRA Board approval. 

• Cash from FSU - $960,000.  

• Firestone and Bloxham Annex Properties - Appraised value of $4,080,000.  These properties are on East Gaines Street immediately adjacent to Cascades Park (Attachment 1 and 4).  Initial discussions with several developers indicate these properties have very strong potential for redevelopment as mixed-use market rate condominiums or apartments.  There may be some environmental contamination in the area, but that will be addressed as part of the due diligence investigation that would occur as part of a sales and exchange agreement.

• 715 West Gaines Street – Appraised value of $770,000.  This property (Attachment 1 and 5) is in the middle of existing and proposed developments by North American Properties; developers of the Deck and Block projects on Gaines Street.  The property currently houses offices of the FSU School of Social Work.  Given its location within an area undergoing major redevelopment, this property should be of interest to developers.  The CRA may need to assist in the relocation of the current building operations.  Given that most of this part of Gaines Street has a history of rail uses, there is the possibility of some environmental contamination in the area, especially arsenic, but that will be addressed as part of the due diligence investigation that would occur as part of a sales and exchange agreement.

At this point, FSU appears favorably inclined towards the CRA offer and is proceeding with a formal purchase offer for presentation to the CRA Board at a future date.  In addition, they are planning to present the proposal to the FSU Board of Trustees and the Board of Trustees for the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIITF) for approval during the summer, although firm dates for these presentations have not yet been scheduled. 

Other Considerations

In addition to the details of the proposed O’Connell land sale and property exchanges, there are several other issues for consideration and approval by CRA Board members.

It is important to note that the O’Connell property and 715 West Gaines Street are both located within the Greater Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Area, while the Firestone Building and Bloxham Annex properties are located within the Downtown CRA District Community Redevelopment Area.  Because the O’Connell property is the property being proposed for sale to FSU and the property is in the Greater Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Area, the $960,000 in cash proceeds (less closing costs) from the sale of the O’Connell property and the potential sale of the 715 West Gaines Street, the Firestone Building and Bloxham Annex properties will be deposited in the Greater Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Trust Fund for reinvestment within the Greater Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Area; any funds from the sale of the Firestone Building and Bloxham Annex properties will not be used within the Downtown District Community Redevelopment Area. 

Prior to its sale of any property, by statute the CRA must give notice to the public of its intent to dispose of the property and must request competing offers. The notice of intent to dispose of CRA property must be published in the newspaper for at least 30 days prior to the execution of any contract.

Due to the required statutory notice, which applies in any case, staff is requesting authorization to publish the notice concerning sale of the O'Connell property. Although the CRA must publish the notice, the CRA will have discretion as to which offer it may choose to accept. Additionally, although the CRA can discuss potential terms with a prospective purchaser prior to publication of the notice, the statute precludes the CRA from entering into a contract until it has satisfied the notice requirement.

Review by Citizens’ Advisory Committee

The potential sale terms of the O’Connell property was presented to the Greater Frenchtown/Southside Community Redevelopment Agency’s Citizens’ Advisory Committee on April 14^th for information only. No major objections were raised by the committee members. They expressed general support for the exchange but had questions regarding the final development concept, tax increment that would be generated by the development, and the final structure and equivalent values of the proposal."

Dorman & Deviney Hall Replacement

Dorman & Deviney Hall Replacement

"This facility will provide housing for incoming freshman beginning in the fall semester in 2015. This housing replacement project will provide 872 beds in two stand alone buildings to replace the rooms to be eliminated with the demolition of Dorman and Deviney Halls at the completion of this project. The new buildings will be constructed in the parking lot south of Traditions Garage and the Student Services Building along Woodward Avenue. The typical suite will house four persons in two separate bedrooms with a shared bath. Amenities include common kitchens, study spaces, recreational space, lobby and lounge. Other building features include the Living Learning seminar room and Model Resident Room. Support spaces such as office, storage, and custodial spaces are also included. The buildings will total 208,858 square feet.  Improvements are valued at: $51,926,331.00"

Doak Campbell Stadium Improvements

Doak Campbell Stadium Improvements

"I have confirmed that FSU has selected option #2 and will present the plan to the BOT during their June meeting and to the BOG for approval. Expected completion date is Fall 2016.

A little bit on the project and future projects from different emails from a VP of Seminole Boosters:

If this project sells and is approved the revenue generated by it will enable us to pay the bond issue to enhance all of Doak.
You have to have a revenue generator to pay for stadium improvements. The club seat project, along with a Capital Campaign, will be revenue generators so that we can make $80-100 million in necessary improvements at Doak.

Expanding seat width in the main stadium is strongly under consideration to the point we brought in the architects who designed Jerry World and other stadiums. We've even looked at simply renumbering the seats to make them wider but there are a lot of complications, costs, fan displacement and if we make construction changes there will be stadium down time (missed season on one or both sides).

The Club Seat section in the South Endzone is relatively easy to do as phase 1 and will give us a gauge of interest. It will also help fund stadium improvements in the rest of the stadium that everyone can enjoy.

imagine two levels of club seats with a 30,000 square foot room, running the length of the endzone in between. That room will be one of the air-conditioned club spaces with food, beverage, televisions, WiFi, etc. with a glass wall looking out at Bobby Bowden Field. Your assigned club seat will be outdoors, in the heat and the gameday atmosphere, but you won't be trapped at your seat. If you want to, you can walk inside or onto the rooftop terrace, to network with friends and still keep visual contact with the game. You'll also be able to keep up with games from around the country on the many video screens in those indoor rooms or on the terrace.

The stadium design experts tell us that with all the changes we are making to the facility that we will exceed the square-foot per person requirement by nearly 30 percent.In order to make this a premium experience, we will add two towers outside the UCC with six high-speed elevators to carry people to the various levels and add some 40,000 square feet of air-conditioned space as well as activate the fifth floor which has never been used on gameday before.

As a guy who owned and ran a business for 18 years I am highly cognisant of projections. The proformas on this project look really good even with "priced to market" seat prices and very conservative first year sales calculations. The break even point is VERY attainable year one for the project by itself. If sales go well we will be able to bond more than what is needed to build the project and create a revenue source that will enable us to bond the improvements for the rest of the stadium. I've had several CFOs from the public sector looking over my shoulder on this project, as well as our internal people, and plan to spend even more time with them as the project progresses. Our next big step is showing the project to the Board of Trustees.

We think Gameday Experience is a huge factor and that was one of Andy Miller's first concerns after hearing about that happening at the Jags stadium. Our concerns about that probably delayed the project for a year or more.

But from talking to our collegiate counterparts, what they tell us is that their club seats remain full during the important games and during the important moments. For the less signifcant games, some of the club seat people will bounce between their seat and the club to cool off or to grab a cold one or to watch other important games in progress. The experience at Clemson and Tennessee is no different than our ticket sales experience which is that the grandstand people are less likely to come to those hot games against a less attractive opponent now so, like us, they have empty seats in the endzone just like we do on those kinds of games. With the club they are at least able to get those types of people to the stadium and in the club seat for part of the game. They have not had problems with seats being full for big games.

We think we can help that too by offering in-seat concession service, wi-fi at the seat, etc.

As for the people who are now buying are cheapest season ticket, we will find another section for them, that they will likely find more attractive yet. Most of the seats in that area are reserved for the Gators and opponents who bring 5000 or more. Historically we have unsold season tickets to the East of the proposed club section that we can push the opponents into. Also, many of the endzone bleacher seats that will be replaced were sold only by offering group packages to youth groups, bands, etc. so those are not your die-hard Seminole fans. They are important however as those types of sales become sampling opportunities. Some of those people, kids even, get a taste and want more. We will always have seats for group sales.

I am a big advocate for having 7 or more gameday experiences, not just one person's definition. I want a student section that never sits. I want the bowl filled with crazies who don't care what the temperature is, they are there. I think its okay that there be a place for the older Seminole fans who want to be a part of the crowd but can't stand the whole game. I think the skyboxes fill a need to for many people. I want cheap seats for that young family of four. I prefer it to be a family-friendly section, where mom and dad don't have to worry about a drunk cursing behind them (very hard to accomplish in our stadium).

I think collectively we all want Doak to be for everyone, not just one faction or the other who wars with each other about "their rights".

Second Major Factor
Some will say we are building the club seat project to make money and they are exactly right. The club seat project will make money that we will turn around and plow right back into Doak Campbell Stadium to improve the gameday experience for everyone.

In order to improve the gameday experience in Doak we have to spend a lot of money to repair, paint, improve concourses, bathrooms, concessions, add WiFi, etc. -- more than the club seat project itself -- and you have to have a funding source in order to borrow the money to make those stadium improvements. We are committed to making those improvements so we looked at our options to fund the money we will have to borrow: 1. raise ticket prices substantially, 2. increase the donation requirement substantially, 3. find alternative revenue streams.

Ideally, the ticket revenue and Booster contribution should go to funding our athletics programs whose costs continue to rise, so any increase in those two areas should be directed primarily to those funding needs.

The club seat project has the potential, if approved by the BOT and BOG and effectively sold, to not only fund itself but to fund a great deal of the improvements to the rest of Doak Campbell Stadium to improve the gameday experience for everyone.

Hope this explanation, though long, helps you understand that the Club Seat project can benefit everyone and not just those who are looking for a club experience."


Pictures

FSU faculty on high alert

FSU's 'good ole boy' BS is in play right now with the FSU presidential search and the FSU faculty knows it....as does EVERYONE else.

It is just some folks trying to PRETEND FSU is doing a search.  They aren't.  They are purposely trying to scare away legit candidates to allow the good ole boys to bring in John Thrasher.

Really a sad situation for FSU.

I'll go on record as saying Thrasher would be a total joke hire and a bitter pill I would only be willing to swallow if he gets FSU's it's own College of Engeering......and even then it sucks.


FSU faculty on high alert

"There was a palpable tension in the air last week as Florida State University’s presidential search panel held its initial session with the high-profile head hunter FSU hired in late March.

There are five faculty members on the 27-person committee. They were joined by a half-dozen or so of their colleagues, associate and assistant professors from FSU’s various colleges. They represented the bulk of the visitors at the meeting, and they were responsible for almost all of the public comments to open the web-cast session.

Not one of them said directly that they were worried about the direction the search might take, but their body language and even their comments said so loudly and clearly.

The rumors that state Sen. John Thrasher is the leading candidate to fill the vacancy left by Eric Barron’s unexpected departure to Penn State is the subject of constant conversation at FSU – and at select watering holes around town. One professor talked to me candidly about Thrasher’s chances of getting a majority of FSU’s trustees to endorse his candidacy – which hasn’t even been declared. Thrasher would need seven votes, and this professor said he counted no more than four, possibly five, trustees who would raise their hands in favor of a Thrasher presidency.

The faculty members made it clear during last week’s meeting that they want another individual with solid academic chops, similar to what Barron brought to Westcott’s second floor.

The faculty was re-energized during Barron’s four years as FSU’s CEO. While their pay still lags behind the national average, as it does at every public university in the state, FSU’s professors felt that in Barron they had someone who talked their talk, that the shared governance model was more than a catch phrase.

The professors who aren’t on the search committee – Nancy Rogers, Jennifer Proffitt and Michael Buchler – told the panel that they want a president much like the one they just lost.

“Anyone else would send the wrong message,” Rogers, from the College of Music, said.

Buchler, also from the music school, came the closest to saying Thrasher’s name (or T.K. Wetherell’s, the one-time politician who preceded Barron as FSU president). “There are problems with politicians,” he said.

When Trustee Ed Burr, chair of the search committee, asked if anyone had any comments on the 16-point list of credentials that would constitute the profile of their top candidates, the faculty was eager to weigh in. Eric Walker, chair of the English department who was also on the search committee that recommended Barron to FSU’s board, immediately introduced the 12-point list of credentials that were used in 2009 as a substitute for the draft document.

The No. 1 quality on that list: “Distinguished intellectual stature with strong academic credentials, proven leadership abilities, and a successful record in senior management.”

After a 10-minute study period, the committee voted unanimously to use the 2009 list – the one that produced only men from academia as finalists – with a few additions from the original list.

Funk, FSU’s head hunter for the search, told the group he understood the desire for someone who comes from an elite university, but he also did not want to eliminate anyone as the search gets under way. If the president of Ford Motor Co. wants to apply, Funk said, he wanted the committee to have an opportunity to review his credentials.

That left some of the professors in the room more than a little nervous. I don’t believe that there is a move afoot by Burr or the board to make Thrasher FSU’s next president. But I don’t blame faculty members for monitoring the search carefully. And constantly."

Big 5 Autonomy Ends Expansion

I never believe everything or even some of what I read (not just on the internet, but anywhere.  It is foolish to believe mainstream media has less bias than anyone else), so I post this with a grain of salt.

Still interesting premise.  Honestly, the scenario is one of the only ones I have seen that is possible and allows the ACC to remain whole and competitive.


Big 5 Autonomy Ends Expansion

"Sometime today the NCAA’s Executive Committee will vote to endorse a plan to give the 65 member institutions of the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac 12 and the SEC the autonomy to make their own rules. 

In August, at the NCAA convention, the 350 schools that comprise the NCAA’s Division 1 will vote to ratify the changes.

There is some thought that the schools not in a power conference will veto the change and make the Big 5 play by the same rules as everyone else – that will not happen.

A veto almost certainly means that the Big 5 will break away from the NCAA and no one wants that.

So the 252 Division 1 schools that play in the 18 conferences not in the Big 5 will vote to ratify the changes along with the rest.

And once they plan then realignment, at least in the next 5 to 10 years,  is over.

Once the Big 5 have the power to make their own rules the desire to add mouths to the table will  shrink as their wallets grow.

The first change the Big 5 will make will be to pay their student-athletes scholarships to cover the full cost of attendance.  At WVU that means about $2,000 extra for every scholarship athlete.  That’s not a problem for WVU. The Mountaineers, flush with cash from the move to the Big 12 and their shinny new deal with IMG, have included that line item in the budget for the past few years.

Expect more changes too -- changes like insurance for athletes and covering other incidentals.

You can also expect the ACC and Big 12 to use their new found autonomy to change the rules for conference championship games.

The Big 12 won’t need the NCAA’s minimum of 12 members to play a championship game and the ACC will no longer be forced to sacrifice a lamb from the Coastal Division to FSU or Clemson.  Each will be free to determine their own rules for who plays in the championship game.

For the ACC that means no more Blue Devils or Deacons offering weak opposition to FSU – it means that two best teams will play to represent the ACC in the playoffs and it means the fans will enjoy a FSU-Clemson rematch nearly every year.

For the Big 12 it means no expansion. The conference is dead-set against expanding if the additions do not add to the television pot. 

I think that’s a huge mistake on the Big 12’s part but you can’t argue with their logic. Right now there isn’t an expansion candidate available that can satisfy the plethora of metrics necessary to justify expansion.

A few are close. A few are tantalizing close and only need a track-record of success and few more points in the college football “Q score” to be worthy of inclusion.

Recently a Big 12 official told me that the conference was prepared to offer BYU and the UCF Knights membership in the conference  if they were forced to meet the NCAA’s minimum number of members (12) for a championship game.

He told me that Bowlsby believed the details with BYU could be worked out and that UCF was by far the next best candidate available.

That won’t happen now – at least for a while. The trick for BYU and UCF will be in finding the money to compete with schools from the Big 5 for recruits and visibility.

It’s not hard to see BYU keeping pace. The Cougars have a contract with ESPN and their independent status will make them an attractive option for scheduling.

UCF will likely need it's alumni and fans to make up the difference to keep the Knight's program moving forward.

 I'm told the Knights will be vetted again in 2020 and if the Knights can continue their success and push themselves over the top in terms of measurable they may just get their ticket punched into the Big 12 when the new television deal is due. 

The change also means stability for the ACC despite the plans for further expansion by the Big Ten. A reliable Big Ten source tells me that UVA has communicated to the Big Ten it is no longer interested in leaving the ACC.

The money UVA receives will be in the same ballpark as the money the Big Ten receives. At least its enough to keep UVA in the ACC rather than being an outlier in the Big Ten.

An athletic department official at North Carolina State spoke candidly with me a few weeks ago about expansion and he had a few surprising observations.

He told me that only NC State and FSU would be willing to leave the ACC and then only if the offer came from the SEC and he doesn’t expect that offer to come anytime soon.

The source at NC State said that FSU agreed to sign the ACC’s Grant of Rights shortly after being  rejected by the Big Ten (academics).  Once FSU signed then all the others were eager to sign.

I asked the NC State official about the Big Ten’s belief that the ACC grant of rights could be circumvented and his answer was surprising.

He confirmed that the only consideration ACC member institutions received for signing the grant of rights were intangibles like security and that NC State thought the grant of rights could broken.

“There is some question that a state institution like NC State could legally assign broadcast rights without compensation at true market value.” He said.

But it’s his opinion it doesn’t matter.  The only schools in the ACC that meet Big Ten academic standards are not interested in leaving.  No amount of money is going to convince UVA or UNC to leave the ACC especially with the new autonomy of the power conferences on the horizon.

The reason is money.  Very soon the Big 5  will distance themselves from the rest. The ability to make their own rules allows them to eventually claim all the money and once that happens its just a matter of time before the Big 5 have their own commissioner and a unified television contract.  When (and if) that happens the difference between what the Big Ten earns and what the ACC earns will be negligible."

ACC National Championships in Football

Great info.  Always debatable, but still good stuff.

Over the last 30 years, the ACC has had 3 teams win a national title.  Ga Tech, Miami, and FSU.  Notre Dame is not an ACC school in football, I don't count them.

It is nice to have titles before then, but unless that history was capitalized on, it means little.  Minnesota and Army have titles back in the day....it doesn't make them relative today.

For the ACC, the issue is, of those 3, Ga Tech has just completely fallen apart.  They are no longer relevant barring major change at the school.  They have money, history, and location....but as of now, they do not matter and have all but given up in football.  A huge issue they have is they have limited degrees that your average football player can major in and still pass.  It stinks for Tech, but it doesn't matter....the end result is still the same, they are no longer anywhere near a national title program anymore.

Miami is still Miami.....best geography in the nation and horrible support.  But still relevant.  10 years from now, Miami might find itself in a Ga Tech situation....but I can't put them there yet.

Clemson and Va Tech are great football schools.....but they are just not quite there.  Yes, Clemson has the 1981 title, but 33 years ago doesn't put them in the picture today.  They have to make a big jump to get to national title level.

FSU does well, but it has limited resources which makes it tough.  It is not optimal for the ACC to have one legit national title contender have much less resources than the SEC.

The ACC simply needs more schools that are legit threats to compete and win national titles in football and they have nothing outside of Miami and FSU right now.  The ACC lacks balance in football and it is a huge issue.  The conference needs to invest in football beyond just 2-4 football schools and get more schools elevated into national title programs.


National Championships in Football 

Orange fan
4/17/2014

"My Two Cents. The only pre-AP championships worth counting are Helms. They did their retroactive analysis back in 1936, and have been published for such a long time as to give the championships value. Others are either too recent, have too many co-champions, or just are not well enough recognized.

The prominently recognized contemporaneous awards are the AP (1936-present), Coaches (UPI 1950-1990, USAT 1991-present), FWAA (Grantland Rice Trophy 1954-present), NFF (MacArthur Bowl 1959-present), and the BCS (1998-2013, with the Coaches and NFF titles automatically awarded to the winner). I have also included below the USAT media championships (1982-1990) and the International New Service media championships (1952-1957) because these were widely publicized championships. However, these really don't have as much value as the other titles, because they were discontinued, and because they started later than and were not as widely respected at the time as the AP and the UPI.

Finally, note that some championships were awarded before the bowls. The FWAA was the first to start awarding after the bowls in 1954 (after the 1951 and 1953 champions, Tennessee and Maryland, lost their bowl games). The AP started doing so in 1965, and UPI (Coaches) in 1974.

Of all of the listed champions below, I would identify 1952 Georgia Tech (undefeated, but not recognized by the AP or UPI), 1953 Maryland (lost their bowl), and 1964 Notre Dame (had one loss as compared to undefeated and untied FWAA champ Arkansas, and not recognized by the AP or UPI) as arguably weak claims.

Really, Helms is the gold standard up until 1935. Since 1936, the AP has been the gold standard except for 1960 and 1964, when their champions lost their bowls and the FWAA awarded a post bowl championship. With respect to 1990 Georgia Tech (11-0-1), I think the AP got it wrong. GT was the better team over Colorado (10-1-1) and deserved the championship based on generally accepted criteria.

2013 Florida State (AP, BCS, FWAA, NFF, USAT(coaches))
2001 Miami (AP, BCS, FWAA, NFF, USAT-ESPN(coaches))
1999 Florida State (AP, BCS, FWAA, NFF, USAT-ESPN(coaches))
1993 Florida State (AP, FWAA, UPI, USAT-NFF, USAT-CNN(media))
1991 Miami (AP)
1990 Georgia Tech (UPI)
1989 Miami (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI, USAT-CNN(media))
1988 Notre Dame (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI, USAT-CNN(media))
1987 Miami (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI, USAT-CNN(media))
1983 Miami (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI, USAT-CNN(media))
1981 Clemson (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI)
1977 Notre Dame (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI)
1976 Pittsburgh (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI)
1973 Notre Dame (AP, FWAA, NFF)
1966 Notre Dame (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI)
1964 Notre Dame (NFF)
1959 Syracuse (AP, FWAA, NFF, UPI)
1953 Maryland (AP, UPI, INS)
1952 Georgia Tech (INS)
1949 Notre Dame (AP)
1947 Notre Dame (AP)
1946 Notre Dame (AP)
1943 Notre Dame (AP)
1937 Pittsburgh (AP)
1930 Notre Dame (HELMS)
1929 Notre Dame (HELMS)
1928 Georgia Tech (HELMS)
1924 Notre Dame (HELMS)
1918 Pittsburgh (HELMS)
1917 Georgia Tech (HELMS)
1916 Pittsburgh (HELMS) "

SEC vs ACC revenue

SEC vs ACC revenue

"People are always comparing the ACC and SEC, and I promised to discuss financials this week, so... how does the ACC compare to the SEC in terms of revenue? If there is a money gap, how big is it?

Let me start by stating up front that some of these numbers are very difficult to get. Therefore, I'm going to analyze this 2 ways: first using best-guess data for the entire leagues (using data from various sources), and then I'll compare 2 comparable programs - Florida and Florida State - using USA Today published data.

Conference Estimates.
First, in order to get a feel for the numbers, let's look as some well-documented older data. Here is the breakdown from actual 2011 SEC records as reported by Forbes.com:

2011 SEC Revenues	Conference	Per Team*
TV + Other Production	$163,319,999	$12,563,077
Postseason Events	$92,757,645	$7,135,203
Sponsorship Royalties	$7,137,245	$549,019
Prior Year Events	$4,308,926	$331,456
Scholarships, etc	$4,245,946	$326,611
Investment Income	$1,293,765	$99,520
Totals	$273,063,526	$21,004,887

* in 2011 the shares were divided 13 ways: 12 teams + SEC HQ

Now I'm sure you guys want to see how the numbers look going forward; these are the estimated future revenue sources as reported by USA Today:

ESPN + CBS contracts: $21.43M per SEC school ($300 million total)

The SEC Network: $1.5M per SEC school ($21 million total)

Postseason football: At least $7.1M per SEC school ($100 million total)

$50M from the college football playoff [LINK]
$40M from the Sugar Bowl
$6M for each team in the playoffs (assume 1)
$4M for each at-large team in a New Year's bowl

NCAA and other revenue: $4M per SEC school ($56 million total)

$15.3M from the SEC football championship game (75K tickets @ $204 avg).

$5.0M from the SEC men’s basketball tournament (10K * 13 games @ $38.46 avg).

$35.7M from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and other pooled funds.

TOTAL, per team: $34MNOTE: it appears that this number for the SEC championship game comes from ticket sales (75,000 X $204 avg); I will use the same assumption when computing ACC CG revenue below. 

With that in mind, let's look at estimated revenues for the ACC:

TV Contract: ESPN $18M per ACC team
ACC Network: $2M per team if there is no cable network
Postseason football: at least $5.8M per school ($87.5M+ total)
$50M from the college football playoff [LINK]

$27.5M+ from the Orange Bowl [3]
$6M for each team in the playoffs (assume 1)
$4M for each at-large team in a New Year's bowl

NCAA and other revenue: $6M per ACC school ($90 million total)

$4.6 M from the ACC football championship game (65K tickets @ $71 avg).

$46.8 M from the ACC men’s basketball tournament (20K * 13 games @ $180 avg).

$38.7 M from the NCAA men’s basketball tournament and other pooled funds (est).

TOTAL, per team: $31.8M

NOTE: There is a virtual reversal in terms of SEC football and ACC basketball revenues, but the totals are actually quite close, based on the best available data. If anyone has better data, please let me know.

Do these numbers hold up when comparing known tax return data? Let's compare UF vs FSU to see:

YEAR: 2012	Florida	FSU	DIFF
Ticket Sales	$23,580,698	$20,379,815	-$3,200,883
Contributions	$46,125,987	$31,000,624	-$15,125,363
Rights / Licensing	$42,120,499	$36,511,620	-$5,608,879
Student Fees	$2,420,030	$7,778,861	$5,358,831
School Funds	$1,936,427	$0	-$1,936,427
OTHER	$4,588,465	$4,378,524	-$209,941
Total Revenues	$120,772,106	$100,049,444	-$20,722,662
Coaching / Staff	$40,671,539	$27,504,602	-$13,166,937
Scholarships	$9,306,748	$9,542,715	$235,967
Buildings / Grounds	$17,613,294	$15,549,350	-$2,063,944
OTHER	$38,015,617	$37,682,211	-$333,406
Total Expenses	$105,102,198	$90,278,878	-$14,823,320

COMMENTS:

Rights / Licensing apparently includes TV media rights, apparel licensing, etc. This is conference money, if I understand correctly. The Gators have just over a $5M advantage here (less than 5% of the total, and our analysis above suggests that when ESPN either creates an ACC network or kicks in the extra $2M per year, either way, the gap should shrink), yet this gets the majority of the attention on the internet.

According to public data for last year, the SEC paid Florida $21.4M [1] while the ACC paid FSU $19.7M [2] (see notes below).

Ticket Sales and Contribution - both of which are largely affected by the undergraduate enrollment size - give Florida the majority of their revenue advantage: $18M. This is just a case of bigger schools having a built-in advantage over smaller ones, and if we are honest, this completely dominates the other numbers. Florida has 51,474 students while FSU has only 31,851 - a difference of nearly 20,000.

In fact, the only thing which really helps close that gap is the TV media rights fees, bowl payouts, etc.  As those numbers keep increasing, to some extent that waters down the ticket sale and contribution disparity.

Student Fees + School Funds - both of these are just another way of saying the school is helping to pay for athletics. Contrary to what you might think, it's not the other way around at most places.

I have no idea what's included in "other".

BOTTOM LINE:The ACC is very competitive with the SEC in terms of conference-controlled revenue. Attendance at the ACC football championship game is good, but ticket prices are nowhere near as high as SEC tickets. Still, the conference more than makes up for that with high demand for basketball tournament tickets, so that in the end, the revenue difference is probably no more than a couple of million dollars (2% to 3% of a school's total athletic budget). The big difference between SEC revenues and ACC revenues on a per school basis is tickets and donations - and the size of the school has more to do with that than being a member of a conference.
__________

[1] Missouri and Texas A+M each received [in total] about $19.5 million from the SEC, while the other 12 schools received around $21.4 million apiece, giving an average of 21.2M - LINK

[2] Excluding expenses owed to the ACC (i.e. "apples to apples with the SEC numbers"), FSU's revenues for the 2012-13 year from the ACC were $19.7M - LINK

[3] The Orange Bowl contract is complex, which makes it more difficult to calculate payout. The minimum it will pay to the ACC in a given year is $27.5M, but there are provisions which could cause it to pay up to twice that amount - $55M - in a given year. We may not know the truth until it happens."

http://csnbbs.com/thread-686551-page-2.html

Marge Schott
4/17/2014

"1. Ticket Sales/Contributions
For the sake of accuracy, in 2011 FSU had 41,710 students (31,851 undergrad). Not sure where you got 51,474. I'm seeing two different figures. One of 48,748 (doesn't specify undergrad) and another of 49,785 (33,513 undergrad).

While they do have more students than FSU due to some professional programs we don't have, a bigger issue is that they're 2 hours closer to Orlando, Tampa and all of south Florida than Tallahassee. Travel is just easier. They likely have more interesting home matchups due to SEC play than we do despite their notoriously poor OOC scheduling practices. And FSU's attendance still hasn't fully recovered due to the combination of the final Bowden years, coaching change, economy and awful home schedules the last few years due to WVU and the 8/9 conference game thing.

The general theme in regards to contributions is that since FSU restarted football just ~60 years ago and since we lack some of the professional programs UF has while simultaneously having younger programs in the ones we do have, the "matured, wealthy" donor base is still building up. I think there's some merit to that but I wouldn't ever expect FSU to catch UF given the current difference in enrollment and professional programs.

It's also important to note that FSU only hit $31M in contributions ($100M in revenue) in 2012 because it included 1-time gifts for the construction of our indoor practice facility that I think was in the ~$15M range. Last year revenue was $89M with $18M listed as not allocated by gender/sport (this might be contributions?).

2. Rights
The $5.6M discrepancy is mainly due to 3rd tier rights, I think. Their deal is worth $10-11M and ours is $6.6M. They signed theirs at the height of their football/basketball title runs and we had already been declining for a handful of years after our run in the 80s and 90s. I have no idea if they lost any value in their deal given the SEC buyback and if so, how much.

Where are you getting championship revenues from? Where are you seeing the Orange Bowl paying up to $55M?

I also think the SEC is likely to receive more bids to the playoff over time than the ACC, even if it's only something like 1.2/year vs .8/year.

The overall ACC vs SEC numbers look nice, but I'm just unsure on those championship/bowl payouts, which are significant. And what type of tv revenue raise did the SEC get after adding Mizzou and A&M?

3. School Funds/Student Fees
I'm not sure what school funds is as UF doesn't need the university to maintain their athletic budget. I do know FSU doesn't charge students for football tickets but UF does.

4. Other
Might it include concessions (if not in tickets) and apparel sales (speaking about at campus-owned/stadium-based stores, not fees generated from merchandise at malls/online, etc)? I'd imagine real estate holdings would also fall under this category. FSU's Boosters built an apartment building with ground floor retail and restaurants along with a separate building with restaurants/bars and a club near campus/the stadium and has plans to add additional buildings to the property as well. They're also building a Booster-owned dorm that will house "49%" athletes (basically just recycling athletes' "cost of living" costs through the dorm, right, and freeing up that otherwise already spent money on other items?). "

"UF has fluctuated above and below 50,000 for years now based on what I saw when I looked up their enrollment. Not sure what would explain swings of 3,000+ students over a few years period like that. I mainly just wanted to post their undergrad figure for a better comparison.

Donations have rebounded after taking a bit of a dive the last 5-10 years for the same reason attendance had been an issue. I expect there to be a nice increase this year in both ticket sales and contributions. It's the perfect combination of National Champs, Heisman Winner and great home schedule. I hope it's a $5+M jump in combined ticket sales/contributions but we'll just have to see. Anything higher seems unreasonable (10% increase is ~$4+M) and anything lower would be disappointing.

Those tier 3 rights include the rights all schools retain (except Pac 12?), such as websites, advertising, radio shows and tv coaches shows, etc. It's the same principle that people on here were using as to why FSU/Clemson wouldn't earn more tier 3 money elsewhere, because how much is a scrub football game and some scrub basketball games going to net you? Well, it'll definitely net you some money, but does UF keep the original yearly revenue, similar to how the Big 12 received the same total tv payout despite losing teams? Or did their contract actually decrease in value? I have no idea and doubt that's available online (FOIA would probably work). I'm sure as long as FSU maintains a high level in football that come the next tier 3 negotiations the current gap will close, but depending on which school re-ups first will also play a factor.

Assuming the ACC receives $55M those years just doesn't make sense to me. But I don't know what the alternative would be other than receiving the amount the ACC would typically receive in a given year vs Big Ten/SEC (or ND). Because the money teams/conferences receive from their semi-final appearance is an entirely different disbursement of money, right?

The SEC exchanging an increase in guaranteed tv payouts for SEC network bargaining power hopefully works to the ACC's benefit, but if the network does well it might create more revenue than the increased tv payouts alone would have. And the ACC could still be left at $20M. That USAToday article is screwy. It says the SEC's CBS/ESPN contracts work out to $14M/school with 14 schools, then goes on to say it's worth $21.4M, and then continues by saying $25M.

I now see where you got the SEC championship/tournament figures, I just have trouble believing the ACC makes that much more from basketball than the SEC does football and basketball combined. I'd imagine that revenue is more complex than seats by ticket price. Wouldn't it have to include sponsorship like with Dr. Pepper and whomever sponsors ACC basketball? "