(03-04-2019 03:06 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  ...For the Recruiting Expenses line item (for all sports) Syracuse ranks 11th in the conference at $1,431,550. My question is why do we rank so low when we tend to be far away from a lot of recruits AND we show a profit of $10 million plus for each of the last two years?

Now, of course, money spent on recruiting doesn't necessarily mean better recruiting AND we know that Syracuse has less number of sports to recruit for than some others in the conference. Still it is rumored by some in the know that Babers wanted more $$$ for that particular item. So after seeing what the institution has reported over the past two years, and the surplus each year has made, it does at the very least beg the question, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Neil

I'll go out on a limb and guess that travel cost is not the biggest part of recruiting expenses - I'm thinking it's the NUMBER OF RECRUITERS on the payroll is where Syracuse lags.

(03-04-2019 12:22 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  K's salary at Duke is about $5 million per year. JB's salary is about half that. He doesn't try to manipulate his alma mater for more money and he could have made a lot more money elsewhere if he wanted to. Whether you hate him or love him that aspect of his personality has to be admired.

Coach K got a raise this year to $8,982,325.

Here are the top five highest-paid college basketball coaches:

1. Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski – $8,982,325
2. Kentucky’s John Calipari – $7,994,147
3. Ohio State’s Chris Holtmann – $7,149,849
4. Kansas’ Bill Self – $4,954,877
5. Michigan State’s Tom Izzo – $4,359,979

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/03/5-highe...k-calipari

(03-05-2019 12:03 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 12:22 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  K's salary at Duke is about $5 million per year. JB's salary is about half that. He doesn't try to manipulate his alma mater for more money and he could have made a lot more money elsewhere if he wanted to. Whether you hate him or love him that aspect of his personality has to be admired.

Coach K got a raise this year to $8,982,325.

Here are the top five highest-paid college basketball coaches:

1. Duke’s Mike Krzyzewski – $8,982,325
2. Kentucky’s John Calipari – $7,994,147
3. Ohio State’s Chris Holtmann – $7,149,849
4. Kansas’ Bill Self – $4,954,877
5. Michigan State’s Tom Izzo – $4,359,979

https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/03/5-highe...k-calipari

Then its worse than I thought. Viewing these figures makes one respect JB even more for not trying to cash in at his alma mater. Pretty sure JB doesnt make $3 million a year. If SU goes outside of the Boeheim tree they will have to pay big time. Or if they try to lure back Mike Hopkins from Washington. I hope they have been saving the money that they are not paying JB for the next coach.

(03-04-2019 03:06 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-04-2019 02:00 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(03-03-2019 12:12 AM)OrangeDude Wrote:  Yes, I like data mainly because I think without data it's hard to make good decisions. But I am always suspect of data as well, which is why you will often see in my data driven posts me saying "make of it what you will".

Here's an example of such data:

Net Revenue (Total Revenue minus Total Expenses) 2017-18:

01. SU - $16,692,167
02. FSU - $10,458,575
03. UVA - $7,119,537
04. GT - $3,129,991
05. Clem - $1,685,854
06. NCST - $1,599,060
07. UNC - $1,476,266
08. UL - $1,447,195
09. VT - $461,169

Duke, Miami, Pitt, BC, and Wake all reported zero net revenue.

Like last year, SU finished towards the top. Rah! Rah! Right? Not to me. It means like last year, if the numbers are even close to accurate, SU could have spent MORE on athletics than they did - something I and other SU fans feel should be happening.

Last year when this was pointed out to our AD in terms of the 16-17 numbers he brushed it off as being some kind of fluke that was unlikely to repeat again. Yet here the numbers are again, another year (17-18) when we might have spent more and didn't. Now it could be that the AD is actually building up a "nest egg" of sorts from the surplus from 16-17 and now 17-18 to assist with the Dome renovations that will start soon. In which case, I would be fine with it. But then why not point that out?

And for those wondering, all of the above doesn't mean those institutions that show a net revenue of zero are well run ADs, in fact, the general consensus is that such institutions actually had to inflate their revenue figures so as not to show the fact that athletics actually lost $$$ in a given year.

Cheers,
Neil

My take on this is that the school is taking the profit and investing in facilities, such and the indoor practice facility for football, the television studio for the ACCN, and upgrades to the Carrier Dome and Archbold Gym. These facilities will serve the athletic program for years to come. If the school is able to maintain its revenue levels moving forward, when these investments have been paid for, the revenue will be available to fund operating expenses, like coaches salaries, etc.

The revenue level seems sustainable. Distributions from the ACC for 2016-17 were $25 million (which includes TV revenue, bowl revenue, NCAA distributions, and ACC tournament money), ticket sales for football and basketball of $30-40 million per year), contracts with Nike and IMG totaling around $10 million per year combined, plus donations, student fees and other miscellaneous sources.

I believe all of those items would/should if not listed amongst the expenses of a specific sport then be listed as expenses in the Not Related to Particular Sport Expense. However, since we are not given a detail of precisely what those total expenses represent in either the specific sport expense or in the generic catch all item we simply don't know.

Here's another way of looking at it. For the Recruiting Expenses line item (for all sports) Syracuse ranks 11th in the conference at $1,431,550. My question is why do we rank so low when we tend to be far away from a lot of recruits AND we show a profit of $10 million plus for each of the last two years?

Now, of course, money spent on recruiting doesn't necessarily mean better recruiting AND we know that Syracuse has less number of sports to recruit for than some others in the conference. Still it is rumored by some in the know that Babers wanted more $$$ for that particular item. So after seeing what the institution has reported over the past two years, and the surplus each year has made, it does at the very least beg the question, doesn't it?

Cheers,
Neil

I would definitely like a better accounting. FWIW, it is my understanding that the expense portion of the reports is operating expenses only. If so, if operating revenues were being redirected to capital expenditures, it would not be shown in this report. I'm giving the University the benefit of the doubt. However, it would certainly be nice to have some clarity on the use of the operating profit.

https://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/in...sport.html

Interesting article on how revenues and expenses are accounted for. Syracuse claims its budget is balanced, but that the accounting rules make it appear they are making a profit. However, there's no deeper explanation. I would note that revenues specifically collected to pay for capital projects are not included in the revenue number, but this doesn't preclude using operating revenues, which would be included in the report, from being used for capital expenses. It would be sort of like making an extra payment on your mortgage with money you received from a bonus.

(03-05-2019 12:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/in...sport.html

Interesting article on how revenues and expenses are accounted for. Syracuse claims its budget is balanced, but that the accounting rules make it appear they are making a profit. However, there's no deeper explanation. I would note that revenues specifically collected to pay for capital projects are not included in the revenue number, but this doesn't preclude using operating revenues, which would be included in the report, from being used for capital expenses. It would be sort of like making an extra payment on your mortgage with money you received from a bonus.

That's what he says, but honestly I don't believe him. To my knowledge, Syracuse has never reported "profits" in this range in the past ($19 plus million last year and $16 plus million this year.) And when we look at our "peers" they aren't either. Yet wouldn't the "accounting rules" be the same for all? Or have they found ways to use the rules for their advantage but he has not? I have too much respect for Wildhack to believe that.

Still think it is possible he has been putting the profits away in a nest egg for when the potential overcosts of the upcoming Dome renovations start. As for revenue collected for capital projects (and thus their resulting expenses also) not being reflected on the report, I am not sure about that. Supposedly the increase in Kansas numbers on both ends is partially the result of the recent investments in facilities upgrades. But don't know that for sure, it is just what some are saying on the Kansas boards. Unless of course, facilities upgrades are not what you meant by capital projects?

Cheers,
Neil

(03-05-2019 12:27 PM)orangefan Wrote:  https://www.syracuse.com/orangesports/in...sport.html

Interesting article on how revenues and expenses are accounted for. Syracuse claims its budget is balanced, but that the accounting rules make it appear they are making a profit. However, there's no deeper explanation. I would note that revenues specifically collected to pay for capital projects are not included in the revenue number, but this doesn't preclude using operating revenues, which would be included in the report, from being used for capital expenses. It would be sort of like making an extra payment on your mortgage with money you received from a bonus.

From the Article "The EADA report is prepared in accordance with their instructions," Syracuse said in a statement. "These instructions require the recording of offsetting revenue for administrative and facility expenses. The required entry generates the $20 million surplus even though athletics is running a balanced budget in practice."

Making a guess, it could be that a number of Administrative and Facilities expenses have been unaccounted for in the past as a discrete athletic expense. If you ran your athletic department like an Enterprise Fund in an otherwise Governmental entity, the athletic department would be billed for time and expense or would be assigned a percentage - for instance pegging 10% of the Chancellor's budget to athletics as a cost. The Enterprise Fund accounting is supposed to show the true cost of something so that you know how to price the services. The reality though is anyone adept at accounting and finance can flop funds and costs back and forth.

Our numbers are not what they should be. Once we get our football program back to where it should be, UofL’s numbers should climb.