Recently, it
has been rumored the FSU athletic department and Seminole Boosters are preparing
to upgrade the TLCC. No firm figures
have been floated, but based on recent history and figures spent by other
universities for new facilities, an educated guess would put the figure at
somewhere around $40 to $75 Million.
This will likely include reupholstering the seats to a Garnet color and
some upgrades to the outside of the facility.
This upcoming upgrade makes it an interesting time to
look at the history of the TLCC and its financial history. The TLCC was built around 1982 at an original
cost of $33.8 Million. Of that amount,
approximately $12 Million was paid for by the state. That left the city of Tallahassee, the owner
of the facility, with an approximately $21 Million debt when it was built.
*In 2004, FSU assumed $18 Million in debt on the TLCC
in exchange for being given 7 of the 13 board members on the committee that
runs the TLCC.
*In 2005, FSU spent $23 Million in upgrades to the
TLCC. This mainly included the sky boxes
across the middle of the facility.
*In 2005, FSU spent $10 Million for a practice
facility next to the TLCC.
*In 2012, FSU acquired the facility:
"The cost of acquisition is about $7 million - most of it assumed debt - and the
university is expected to pick up $4.6 million of the bill. Seminole Boosters
Inc. will contribute the remainder. "
"The need to take over the arena first became apparent to school officials this past basketball season. At the time, the Donald L. Tucker Center was placed on a list of distressed properties. Learning that was agonizing to members of the school's leadership, Barron said.
"All of a sudden, the Civic Center went from doing OK to being a distressed property," Barron said. He believed financially, taking over the space and renovating it was the best thing for the school to do. "This is not the time to ask the state for a bond," Barron said. "We have to be frugal, responsible. "Of a once $25 million bond, only $4.4 million remains to be paid, Barron added."
Just considering those major investments, FSU has spent somewhere in the vicinity of $58 Million on the TLCC. With an upcoming upgrade to the facility, that figure could rise to somewhere from $98 to $133 Million. That is a decent sum considering FSU has to share it with monster truck events and other entertainment acts. It is also interesting when you consider the original price tag was $33.8 million in 1982.
To gain some perspective, in the last 10 years or so,
there have been a decent number of new facilities built by some of FSU’s
competitors. Here is a list of some of those
facilities and some facts on each of them:
UVA
3.1 Stars out of 5
Built in 2006
Cost $131 Million
Seats 14K
Miami
3.6 Stars out of 5
Built in 2003
Cost $48 Million
Seats 8K
UCF
3.9 Stars out of 5
Built in 2007
Cost $107 Million
Seats 10K
Auburn
Built in 2010
Cost $92 Million
Seats 9K
Maryland
3.7 Stars out of 5
Built in 2002
Cost
Seats 18K
Some random rankings of ACC arenas generally show FSU
with a facility that is near the very bottom of ACC basketball arenas:
FSU 12 out of 12
FSU 10 out of 12
There is no
doubt that the land the civic center sits on is priceless given FSU’s land lock
status. The area is right across the
street from FSU’s campus and with the expansion of FSU closer to the state
capital (FSU has received a few downtown buildings from the state in the last
few years), it will be even more valuable.
With talk of facilities, it might be important to discuss revenue, given that basketball is one of the two revenue sports at most college athletic programs. Let’s look at FSU basketball’s revenue producing ability for fiscal year 2011 (as reported by the businessofcollegesports.com):
Of the 12
ACC schools (data prior to recent ACC expansion), there are 24 ‘revenue sports’.
Of those, 3 made $0 or less: Wake
football, BC Basketball, and FSU basketball.
FSU Football made the most at $17 Million.
To give some
perspective to these numbers:
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/28/top-50-most-profitable-fbs-football-and-mens-basketball-programs/
http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/12/28/top-50-most-profitable-fbs-football-and-mens-basketball-programs/
| 10-11 Rank | 09-10 Rank | School | 10-11 Revenue | 10-11 Expenses | 10-11 Profit |
| 1 | 1 | University of Texas (Football) | $95,749,684 | $24,507,352 | $71,242,332 |
| 2 | 3 | Penn State Univ. (Football) | $72,747,734 | $19,519,288 | $53,228,446 |
| 3 | 2 | Univ. of Georgia (Football) | $74,888,175 | $22,036,338 | $52,851,837 |
| 4 | 6 | Louisiana State Univ. (Football) | $68,510,141 | $21,492,741 | $47,017,400 |
| 5 | 4 | Univ. of Michigan (Football) | $70,300,676 | $23,552,233 | $46,748,443 |
| 6 | 5 | Univ. of Florida (Football) | $72,807,236 | $26,263,539 | $46,543,697 |
| 7 | 7 | Univ. of Alabama (Football) | $76,801,800 | $31,580,059 | $45,221,741 |
| 8 | 12 | Notre Dame (Football) | $68,782,560 | $25,164,887 | $43,617,673 |
| 9 | 8 | Univ. of Tennessee (Football) | $56,831,514 | $19,135,650 | $37,695,864 |
| 10 | 9 | Auburn Univ. (Football) | $76,227,804 | $39,069,676 | $37,158,128 |
| 11 | 17 | Univ. of Arkansas (Football) | $61,131,707 | $24,059,193 | $37,072,514 |
| 12 | 10 | University of Oklahoma (Football) | $58,811,324 | $23,191,402 | $35,619,922 |
| 13 | 13 | University of Nebraska (Football) | $54,712,406 | $20,147,302 | $34,565,104 |
| 14 | 18 | Texas A&M (Football) | $45,414,074 | $15,560,216 | $29,853,858 |
| 15 | 16 | Michigan State Univ. (Football) | $45,040,778 | $17,420,499 | $27,620,279 |
| 16 | 21 | University of Louisville (Basketball) | $40,887,938 | $13,336,649 | $27,551,289 |
| 17 | 14 | Ohio State Univ. (Football) | $60,837,342 | $34,373,844 | $26,463,498 |
| 18 | 15 | Univ. of Iowa (Football) | $44,506,832 | $20,510,807 | $23,996,025 |
| 19 | 11 | Univ. of South Carolina (Football) | $45,464,058 | $22,482,479 | $22,981,579 |
| 20 | 19 | Univ. of Kentucky (Football) | $34,020,276 | $14,352,110 | $19,668,166 |
| 21 | 22 | Univ. of Wisconsin (Football) | $43,296,599 | $23,662,925 | $19,633,674 |
| 22 | 20 | Oklahoma State (Football) | $33,213,396 | $13,787,271 | $19,426,125 |
| 23 | 27 | Univ of Washington (Football) | $39,405,237 | $21,306,380 | $18,098,857 |
| 24 | 99 | Florida State Univ. (Football) | $35,870,789 | $18,689,809 | $17,180,980 |
| 25 | 30 | Univ. of Illinois (Football) | $28,079,694 | $12,910,507 | $15,169,187 |
| 26 | 29 | Duke (Basketball) | $28,917,329 | $13,819,529 | $15,097,800 |
| 27 | 26 | Virginia Tech (Football) | $35,083,799 | $20,009,657 | $15,074,142 |
| 28 | 33 | Univ of Arizona (Basketball) | $21,209,980 | $6,918,239 | $14,291,741 |
| 29 | 28 | Clemson Univ. (Football) | $31,730,042 | $17,992,943 | $13,737,099 |
| 30 | 25 | Univ. of Minnesota (Football) | $30,524,945 | $16,985,182 | $13,539,763 |
| 31 | 31 | North Carolina (Basketball) | $19,672,012 | $6,510,942 | $13,161,070 |
| 32 | 34 | Ohio St. (Basketball) | $17,020,807 | $5,251,724 | $11,769,083 |
| 33 | 48 | Univ of Southern California (Football) | $31,148,724 | $19,423,723 | $11,725,001 |
| 34 | 41 | Syracuse University (Basketball) | $19,017,231 | $7,532,455 | $11,484,776 |
| 35 | 51 | Univ. of North Carolina (Football) | $26,385,760 | $15,050,721 | $11,335,039 |
| 36 | 37 | Arizona State (Football) | $27,842,879 | $16,564,598 | $11,278,281 |
| 37 | 76 | Mississippi State Univ. (Football) | $22,575,985 | $11,766,024 | $10,809,961 |
| 38 | 38 | Texas Tech (Football) | $26,569,287 | $15,788,943 | $10,780,344 |
| 39 | 23 | Univ. of Mississippi (Football) | $28,515,471 | $17,764,174 | $10,751,297 |
| 40 | 36 | North Carolina State (Football) | $21,856,742 | $11,329,718 | $10,527,024 |
| 41 | 90 | University of Louisville (Football) | $25,658,653 | $15,582,161 | $10,076,492 |
| 42 | 42 | Wisconsin (Basketball) | $16,353,313 | $6,394,547 | $9,958,766 |
| 43 | 46 | Indiana (Basketball) | $17,804,586 | $7,945,102 | $9,859,484 |
| 44 | Utah (Football) | $21,235,202 | $11,426,280 | $9,808,922 | |
| 45 | 43 | Illinois (Basketball) | $15,408,818 | $5,630,297 | $9,778,521 |
| 46 | 32 | University of Colorado (Football) | $25,955,136 | $16,308,544 | $9,646,592 |
| 47 | 49 | Minnesota (Basketball) | $15,141,713 | $5,549,650 | $9,592,063 |
| 48 | 39 | Univ of Oregon (Football) | $27,713,278 | $18,198,476 | $9,514,802 |
| 49 | 53 | Oregon State (Football) | $21,690,794 | $12,282,221 | $9,408,573 |
| 50 | 61 | Iowa State (Football) | $21,862,535 | $12,513,317 | $9,349,218 |
| 10-11 Rank | 09-10 Rank | School | 10-11 Revenue | 10-11 Expenses | 10-11 Profit | % Invested |
| 51 | 62 | Kansas State (Football) | $19,731,620 | $10,867,052 | $8,864,568 | 55.07% |
| 52 | 56 | Northwestern Univ. (Football) | $28,198,769 | $19,430,675 | $8,768,094 | 68.91% |
| 53 | 60 | University of Texas (Basketball) | $16,437,705 | $8,195,360 | $8,242,345 | 49.86% |
| 54 | 45 | Indiana Univ. (Football) | $24,230,741 | $16,112,930 | $8,117,811 | 66.50% |
| 55 | 40 | Univ of Arizona (Football) | $25,448,212 | $17,965,169 | $7,483,043 | 70.60% |
| 56 | 50 | Michigan St. (Basketball) | $16,479,208 | $9,263,945 | $7,215,263 | 56.22% |
| 57 | 44 | Georgia Tech (Football) | $22,557,020 | $15,463,243 | $7,093,777 | 68.55% |
| 58 | 66 | Univ of California, Berkeley (Football) | $24,328,784 | $17,398,649 | $6,930,135 | 71.51% |
| 59 | 58 | Univ. of Tennessee (Basketball) | $13,785,893 | $6,863,233 | $6,922,660 | 49.78% |
| 60 | 24 | West Virginia University (Football) | $19,960,732 | $13,230,226 | $6,730,506 | 66.28% |
| 61 | 100 | Oklahoma State (Basketball) | $12,262,241 | $5,658,993 | $6,603,248 | 46.15% |
| 62 | 52 | North Carolina State (Basketball) | $10,490,494 | $3,947,120 | $6,543,374 | 37.63% |
| 63 | 67 | Northwestern (Basketball) | $11,018,639 | $4,577,278 | $6,441,361 | 41.54% |
| 64 | 54 | University of Pittsburgh (Basketball) | $13,574,317 | $7,181,490 | $6,392,827 | 52.90% |
| 65 | UNLV (Basketball) | $10,123,168 | $3,806,508 | $6,316,660 | 37.60% | |
| 66 | 71 | Univ. of Kentucky (Basketball) | $18,557,243 | $12,355,375 | $6,201,868 | 66.58% |
| 67 | 128 | Vanderbilt Univ. (Football) | $22,455,110 | $16,507,997 | $5,947,113 | 73.52% |
| 68 | 63 | Purdue Univ. (Football) | $18,359,413 | $12,420,742 | $5,938,671 | 67.65% |
| 69 | 81 | University of Missouri (Basketball) | $11,084,210 | $5,391,400 | $5,692,810 | 48.64% |
| 70 | 68 | Marquette (Basketball) | $15,568,569 | $10,348,303 | $5,220,266 | 66.47% |
| 71 | Boise State (Football) | $12,950,605 | $7,834,316 | $5,116,289 | 60.49% | |
| 72 | 55 | Univ of California, Los Angeles (Football) | $23,017,910 | $17,913,658 | $5,104,252 | 77.82% |
| 73 | 47 | Univ. of Arkansas (Basketball) | $14,608,513 | $9,548,135 | $5,060,378 | 65.36% |
| 74 | 65 | Univ of California, Los Angeles (Basketball) | $11,621,364 | $6,702,818 | $4,918,546 | 57.68% |
| 75 | 69 | Maryland (Basketball) | $10,965,638 | $6,062,659 | $4,902,979 | 55.29% |
| 76 | BYU (Football) | $15,664,108 | $10,764,814 | $4,899,294 | 68.72% | |
| 77 | 64 | Univ of Washington (Basketball) | $10,474,040 | $5,702,562 | $4,771,478 | 54.44% |
| 78 | 80 | Penn St. (Basketball) | $9,485,900 | $4,851,361 | $4,634,539 | 51.14% |
| 79 | 78 | University of South Florida (Football) | $17,017,821 | $12,657,523 | $4,360,298 | 74.38% |
| 80 | 79 | Univ. of Alabama (Basketball) | $11,016,184 | $6,819,080 | $4,197,104 | 61.90% |
| 81 | 98 | Purdue (Basketball) | $9,396,189 | $5,204,365 | $4,191,824 | 55.39% |
| 82 | 89 | Michigan (Basketball) | $9,154,689 | $5,102,129 | $4,052,560 | 55.73% |
| 83 | 70 | Georgia Tech (Basketball) | $8,543,269 | $4,625,109 | $3,918,160 | 54.14% |
| 84 | 35 | University of Missouri (Football) | $24,694,807 | $20,806,778 | $3,888,029 | 84.26% |
| 85 | 82 | Stanford University (Football) | $19,521,092 | $15,888,069 | $3,633,023 | 81.39% |
| 86 | 86 | Washington State (Football) | $12,741,698 | $9,193,553 | $3,548,145 | 72.15% |
| 87 | 75 | Wake Forest (Basketball) | $8,261,666 | $4,773,315 | $3,488,351 | 57.78% |
| 88 | 84 | Univ. of Georgia (Basketball) | $8,718,363 | $5,253,434 | $3,464,929 | 60.26% |
| 89 | 94 | Texas A&M (Basketball) | $9,786,655 | $6,340,072 | $3,446,583 | 64.78% |
| 90 | 111 | Duke University (Football) | $18,243,589 | $14,837,825 | $3,405,764 | 81.33% |
| 91 | 95 | Clemson (Basketball) | $7,705,630 | $4,417,665 | $3,287,965 | 57.33% |
| 92 | 72 | Univ. of South Carolina (Basketball) | $7,849,818 | $4,618,566 | $3,231,252 | 58.84% |
| 93 | Army (Football) | $8,839,775 | $5,620,774 | $3,219,001 | 63.59% | |
| 94 | 77 | Virginia Tech (Basketball) | $7,858,609 | $4,782,477 | $3,076,132 | 60.86% |
| 95 | Cal State – Fresno (Football) | $10,059,929 | $7,040,523 | $3,019,406 | 69.99% | |
| 96 | Wyoming (Football) | $8,677,505 | $5,770,034 | $2,907,471 | 66.49% | |
| 97 | 88 | Univ. of Mississippi (Basketball) | $7,175,223 | $4,270,576 | $2,904,647 | 59.52% |
| 98 | 85 | Mississippi State Univ. (Basketball) | $6,914,565 | $4,052,623 | $2,861,942 | 58.61% |
| 99 | Utah (Basketball) | $6,220,172 | $3,516,570 | $2,703,602 | 56.53% | |
| 100 | 57 | West Virginia University (Basketball) | $7,968,819 | $5,333,891 | $2,634,928 | 66 |
Among all colleges, the number 100 revenue producing school/sport is West Virginia basketball, which produced $2.6 Million. Over 10 years, that is $26 Million. That is a huge sum of money and that is the #100 revenue producing school/sport. It clearly shows what FSU is up against financially
All this information leads to questions with possible upcoming upgrades:
*Can the TLCC be viable in today’s competitive college
athletics market?
*Is it wise to reinvest in the TLCC or is a new structure the
future?
*Is the TLCC part of the reason for lack of revenue coming
from FSU basketball?
*What is the longer term strategy of FSU basketball facilities given the current one is now 3 decades old
*What is the longer term strategy of FSU basketball facilities given the current one is now 3 decades old
*Will the current facility allow FSU to be competitive in the future?
The good news: with the big-time football schedule and coming off the BCS championship, the football program should make even more money this year. If basketball can at least break-even (and really, there's no reason FSU can't make money on hoops) then you guys should be right up there financially with Florida, Alabama, etc.
ReplyDeleteMark, Not to be disagreeable, but UF and Bama, have $3 for every $1 FSU has. From what I can make out, FSU needs to spend at least $40 Million to do any kind of renovation that has an impact.
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting article that details some of FSU's issue (and this is the positive portrayal from one of FSU's booster employees):
http://allthingsfsu.blogspot.com/2014/03/doak-renovations-info-from-jerry-kutz.html
"Over the past 15 years we've borrowed more than 100 million to build Athletics Facilities including the IPF, the baseball stadium, the softball/soccer complex, the swimming pool, the indoor tennis facility, the track, the basketball practice facility, the expansion of Doak, the Moore Athletics facility. Sure, there were a lot of major gifts raised during the three Booster capital campaigns -- some $160 million in pledges -- but those major gifts were largely pledges of cash paid out over 10 or more years or will gifts and not outright cash. While payments on those pledges allow us to make our "mortgage payment" our ability to borrow more is limited by the size of our existing debt."
So FSU is tapped out on what it can do. It needs to spend $40-$100 million on the basketball arena and $100-$500 Million on the football. So total we are at $140 Million MINIMUM to $600 Million and FSU has no ability to add bonds (or very little).
Add to this that FSU does not have the big donors of a UF, Bama, UNC, UVA.....it is really up a creek.
That said, FSU is a VERY good out of making chicken salad out of chicken poop (forgive the expression).....so maybe they make it work.
But FSU has very very real money issues. It is why I have very real concerns with ACC revenue, TV contracts, and basically being the poorest Power 5 conference. Worse, FSU has been in a position where it was financially punished for producing in football (lost money in ACC title game,etc).
FSU is getting basketball revenue while trying to compete with the UFs/Bamas of the world who are getting football revenue.
Not sure what the future is for FSU......but there are real issues. I think that is partly why you saw FSU's president leave recently.