https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/i-have-an-honest-question-regarding-fsu’s-financial-situation.243995/
Couple of points I'd like to clarify.
First, university endowments have little to do with athletics at most public universities. When a donor donates money to an endowment, it is typically earmarked for a department and can only be spent to benefit that department. A gift to nursing can only be used for nursing. A gift to athletics, can only be used for athletics. Furthermore, a gift to soccer, can only be used for soccer.
The FSU Athletics Scholarship Endowment, started in 1985, is growing and is currently at about $70 million. Forget about the $700 million in the university endowment. All that counts is the $70 mil for athletics. I believe the same is true at most public universities so the fact UF has $1.6 Billion doesn't affect their athletics program directly either.
If the $70 million scholarship endowment earns 5 percent annually, that is $3.5 million of earnings that can be used to fund a part of the $11 million annual cost of scholarships.
BTW... very few athletic departments have fully funded scholarship endowments. That is a misnomer. I don't have the numbers in front of me but it is not the norm.
Some schools had major gifts to build facilities -- like a Ben Hill Griffin Stadium or Williams Brice Stadium -- so they have less debt on those facilities than Seminole Boosters has to pay on all the facilities we've built with debt since the 1990s. We carry about $10 million in debt service we have to pay each year to pay the bond issues on Doak expansion since the 1990s, Howser, softball/soccer, track etc. Most athletic departments (or direct support organizations like Seminole Boosters) are carrying debt with donor pledges against that debt but maybe not quite as much as FSU.
Second, USA Today reports the NCAA's financial data each year which showed FSU was ranked 8th in spending last year and 14th in revenue generated by athletics and athletic contributions (Seminole Boosters) so when people say "we don't have money", I ask compared to who?
Our budget was over $110 million which was larger than any other ACC school. There were only seven schools in the nation whose athletic budget was greater than FSU and some of those schools have 25 to 30 sports compared to our 20 sports.
While we don't generate the level of money as 13 other schools, like Texas and Texas AM and Florida, we generate more than most every opponent we play.
While I agree with JMGNole that we are relatively young in terms of endowments and the funding of facilities, I would add the following current sources of income:
1. The ACC Network currently generates $15 million less per team, per year than SEC, BIG, Big12 and Pac12 teams receive from their network contracts. Hopefully when the ACC network fully launches this August, it will close the gap. If only by $5 million, it would help. But remember, in spite of the huge difference in network revenues, FSU was still 8th in spending last year and 14th in revenues which is pretty amazing when you think about it.
2. Population, or lack thereof, within 150 miles of the FSU campus has a very detrimental effect on revenue. I've written it ad nauseum but FSU has less than 1 million people within a 150 miles compared to 8-10 million the same distance from cowtowns like Gainesville, Auburn or Clemson. I haven't found a 70,000 seat stadium, east of the Mississippi River, with less than FSU. Heck, other than maybe Penn State, I can't find anyone with less than 5 million. And that has a very detrimental effect on all ticket sales, contributions associated with ticket sales, corporate spending, etc. I am talking about $5 to 10 million a year type of affect.
In the SWOT analysis location is one of, if not the, greatest weakness. We are way more vulnerable to downturns in season ticket sales, time of kickoff or midweek tip, with 1 million people around us, than are other schools who have 8-10 million people who can drive in and out on gameday.
YET, in spite of 1. and 2. above, FSU was still 14th in revenue generated and 8th in spending so keep that in perspective.
We ain't broke and we're funding our teams at levels where they are winning national championships and finishing in the top 10 in the Directors Cup. The one sport that has unfortunately struggled the past few years, football, has a larger budget than most anyone they play and the No. 2 recruiting budget in the nation.
https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/its-time-for-us-to-decide-if-we-want-to-be-a-top-10-program.243890/page-2#post-4102459
I will add a few investments in football to your list:
- FSU has invested $150 million on football facilities the past 8 years (IPF, new practice fields, football Dorm, Coaches suite, players lounge, locker room, scoreboards, repairs to Doak (funded by champions club seats) and some $300 million since the 1990s with the expansion of Doak back then.
- The football recruiting budget in 2017 was second only to Alabama.
- We spend more in athletics than any other ACC school and were 8th in the nation among ALL schools.
- Only Clemson's football budget was more than FSU's among ACC teams last year and not by much.
We've made the financial commitment to being top 10 in football. That's the expectation of the administration and Willie Taggart himself. The president of the university just reiterated that in Ira's interview with him. As he said, we're committed to do what it takes to help football as it is essential t who we are and to athletics financial health.
https://floridastate.forums.rivals.com/threads/what-am-i-missing-when-people-say-clemson-has-more-money.244026/
Don't think that's true. FSU typically is in the top 10-15 or close when it comes to revenue generated through the Seminole Boosters.
The two schools are pretty close in this department. It's possible Clemson is getting a bit more now because of the recent success in football.
On my short list is to compare athletic budgets between the two schools. Look at Clemson in the Directors' Cup and it's obvious they have very little interest in non-revenue Olympic sports. Heck, until this coming up season they didn't even have a softball team.
Clemson seems to be all in on football while doing the bare minimum with the rest of its sports teams.
Not a big fan of these big picture financial lists put out by national outlets Forbes and USA Today. Problem is every school does its accounting differently so you aren't comparing apples to apples. That being said, this list and others probably provide a very broad overview of athletic department finances.
So as noted, FSU is doing just as well if not better than Clemson financially. But it's obvious that Clemson allocates more of its resources towards football than FSU.
I was the one. Clemson's average ranking in the Director's Cup - a measure of comprehensive team rankings in all sports -- has been about No. 40 compared to FSU's average ranking of 12 or 14.
Clemson competed in 20 sports (like FSU) but dropped 4 sports -- men's and women's swimming and diving -- a few years ago but added women's softball this past year so they now have 17 sports.
Their budget in football is slightly higher than FSU's but not much. FSU's football recruiting budget is more than Clemson and FSU has spent more on football facilities than Clemson over the past 8 years, with more facilities planned by FSU than by Clemson.
Give Dabo credit. While so many fans -- including Tiger fans -- thought he was not going to be successful, he has been. It took a couple of years but he's done a good job of evaluation, creating a culture where kids are having fun and not leaving early. Same can happen here as FSU has the budget and commitment to do it. And if Clemson is doing it then no one can use the ACC as a reason either. We have the resources.
No comments:
Post a Comment