FB revenues/expenses

[TIGER-PAUL]

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search




School

Revenue

Expenses

Boston College

$26,991,209

$21,347,885

Clemson

$45,930,086

$34,668,941

Duke

$31,795,916

$23,468,721

Florida State

$55,708,828

$42,457,103

Georgia Tech

$43,605,746

$17,375,756

Louisville

$40,568,726

$23,428,841

Miami (FL)

$34,217,378

$28,467,129

North Carolina

$40,523,499

$23,461,114

North Carolina State

$39,539,832

$19,194,988

Notre Dame

$98,532,894

$38,971,302

Pitt

$34,336,998

$23,129,559

Syracuse

$38,152,217

$23,219,794

Virginia

$27,931,475

$20,333,481

Virginia Tech

$48,433,646

$31,150,129

Wake Forest

$19,922,855

$16,611,110

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

2014-2015. Institution, Total revenue, Total expenses ... University of Pittsburgh, $34,089,376, $22,314,576

 

[PantherDave724]

2014-2015. Institution, Total revenue, Total expenses ... University of Pittsburgh, $34,089,376, $22,314,576

If Pitt is stuffing 11-13 million in the coffers year after year....where does that money go eventually?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

2014-2015. Institution, Total revenue, Total expenses ... University of Pittsburgh, $34,089,376, $22,314,576

If Pitt is stuffing 11-13 million in the coffers year after year....where does that money go eventually?

I wonder if those numbers include the ESPN TV contract. My guess is it does.

 

[HailtoPitt]

If Pitt is stuffing 11-13 million in the coffers year after year....where does that money go eventually?

Updating/building facilities for the non revenue generating sports.

 

[ThePanthers]

If Pitt is stuffing 11-13 million in the coffers year after year....where does that money go eventually?

That money goes to supporting the entire athletic department. If you look at the overall revenues/expenses in the link above, Pitt had overall revenues of $75M and overall expenses of $75M.

Also had 5th lowest ACC revenues in FB, ahead of BC, Wake, Duke, and UVA.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

2012-19140812 18929148
2013-28226861 20196473
2014-34089376 22314576
2015-34336998 23129559

 

[HailtoPitt]

I'm curious how GT brings in so much revenue and has so little in expenses?

 

[CrazyPaco]

That money goes to supporting the entire athletic department. If you look at the overall revenues/expenses in the link above, Pitt had overall revenues of $75M and overall expenses of $75M.

Also had 5th lowest ACC revenues in FB, ahead of BC, Wake, Duke, and UVA.

On that site, which is the DOE equity in athletics reporting site, almost every athletic department in the country reports equal revenues and expenses. That is essentially gaming the books. Because subsidies to the athletic department from the universities that pay for actual athletic operations deficits are often counted as revenues.

In the annual Snyder Reports to the Commonwealth, Pitt's AD revenues and expenses are reported more accurately reflect the reality we are interested in. For FY2016 athletic department expenses were $64,866,363 with $56,324,373 in revenue (or an operational shortfall of $8,541,990). That $8.5 million has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the university's general operations.

Revenues were actually down in FY2016 compared to FY2015 by $0.89 million.

The FY17 budget called over $7 million in new expenses and revenues maintaining a similar revenue gap to be subsidized by the university.

BTW, the university notes the following with respect to the FY17 budget:
"The FY2017 budgeted increase in revenues (and associated increase in expenses) are primarily driven by projected increases in conference distributions, an additional home football game, and projected increases in attendance, which also results in increased concession and merchandise sales."

 

[CrazyPaco]

I'm curious how GT brings in so much revenue and has so little in expenses?

GT has one of the smallest athletic departments in the Power 5. They sponsor 17 varsity sports (6 of which are men's and women's XC & T&F) and some of their other sports are also very low roster number sports like men's golf and tennis that have a combined 9 scholarship.

They have a 65 to 35 male:female ratio (probably the most unbalanced in all the P5) so they don't have the Title IX concerns of most schools.

At least a third of the expense difference between them and Pitt could be due just to the difference in scholarship numbers. So then you have to look at staff budgets, travel expenses, etc for these teams. Golf and Tennis have to be two of the cheapest sports to operate. How they assign revenue and expenses to the athletic department could also just be very different.

 

[ThePanthers]

On that site, which is the DOE equity in athletics reporting site, almost every athletic department in the country reports equal revenues and expenses. That is essentially gaming the books. Because subsidies to the athletic department from the universities that pay for actual athletic operations deficits are often counted as revenues.

In the annual Snyder Reports to the Commonwealth, Pitt's AD revenues and expenses are reported more accurately reflect the reality we are interested in. For FY2016 athletic department expenses were $64,866,363 with $56,324,373 in revenue (or an operational shortfall of $8,541,990). That $8.5 million has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the university's general operations.

Revenues were actually down in FY2016 compared to FY2015 by $0.89 million.

The FY17 budget called over $7 million in new expenses and revenues maintaining a similar revenue gap to be subsidized by the university.

BTW, the university notes the following with respect to the FY17 budget:
"The FY2017 budgeted increase in revenues (and associated increase in expenses) are primarily driven by projected increases in conference distributions, an additional home football game, and projected increases in attendance, which also results in increased concession and merchandise sales."

Yep. Fully understand that.

 

[HailtoPitt]

GT has one of the smallest athletic departments in the Power 5. They sponsor 17 varsity sports (6 of which are men's and women's XC & T&F) and some of their other sports are also very low roster number sports like men's golf and tennis that have a combined 9 scholarship.

They have a 65 to 35 male:female ratio (probably the most unbalanced in all the P5) so they don't have the Title IX concerns of most schools.

At least a third of the expense difference between them and Pitt could be due just to the difference in scholarship numbers. So then you have to look at staff budgets, travel expenses, etc for these teams. Golf and Tennis have to be two of the cheapest sports to operate. How they assign revenue and expenses to the athletic department could also just be very different.

But just in football, GT appears to spend only $17M while they bring in $43M. That's $26M in profit. Pitt's profit margin is about $11M. FSU has $13M in profit. How is GT able to earn $26M?

 

[ThePanthers]

But just in football, GT appears to spend only $17M while they bring in $43M. That's $26M in profit. Pitt's profit margin is about $11M. FSU has $13M in profit. How is GT able to earn $26M?

Don't spend a ton on football as that money has to subsidize the other sports programs?

 

[HailtoPitt]

Don't spend a ton on football as that money has to subsidize the other sports programs?

They earn almost the same as Clemson and spend half as much. This is JUST for football. Seems odd to me.

Survey Year Institution Name Revenues Expenses Profit
2015 Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus $43,605,746 $17,375,756 $26,229,990
2015 North Carolina State University at Raleigh $39,539,832 $19,194,988 $20,344,844
2015 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University $48,433,646 $31,150,129 $17,283,517
2015 University of Louisville $40,568,726 $23,428,841 $17,139,885
2015 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $40,523,499 $23,461,114 $17,062,385
2015 Syracuse University $38,152,217 $23,219,794 $14,932,423
2015 Florida State University $55,708,828 $42,457,103 $13,251,725
2015 Clemson University $45,930,086 $34,668,941 $11,261,145
2015 University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus $34,336,998 $23,129,559 $11,207,439
2015 Duke University $31,795,916 $23,468,721 $8,327,195
2015 University of Virginia-Main Campus $27,931,475 $20,333,481 $7,597,994
2015 University of Miami $34,217,378 $28,467,129 $5,750,249
2015 Boston College $26,991,209 $21,347,885 $5,643,324
2015 Wake Forest University $19,922,855 $16,611,110 $3,311,745

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

GT has one of the smallest athletic departments in the Power 5. They sponsor 17 varsity sports (6 of which are men's and women's XC & T&F) and some of their other sports are also very low roster number sports like men's golf and tennis that have a combined 9 scholarship.

They have a 65 to 35 male:female ratio (probably the most unbalanced in all the P5) so they don't have the Title IX concerns of most schools.

At least a third of the expense difference between them and Pitt could be due just to the difference in scholarship numbers. So then you have to look at staff budgets, travel expenses, etc for these teams. Golf and Tennis have to be two of the cheapest sports to operate. How they assign revenue and expenses to the athletic department could also just be very different.

But just in football, GT appears to spend only $17M while they bring in $43M. That's $26M in profit. Pitt's profit margin is about $11M. FSU has $13M in profit. How is GT able to earn $26M?

GT took on an insane out of debt. They have by far the most debt in the ACC, mostly related to their new bball arena, but the $26 million they show in profit could just be an accounting trick or just moving numbers from Column A to Column B. Perhaps they wrapped in some football debt and include that as a general expense.

 

[cashbin99]

The bigger question is how in the world does Syracuse generate more football revenue than us??

 

[HailtoPitt]

GT took on an insane out of debt. They have by far the most debt in the ACC, mostly related to their new bball arena, but the $26 million they show in profit could just be an accounting trick or just moving numbers from Column A to Column B. Perhaps they wrapped in some football debt and include that as a general expense.

If that's what they are doing then these numbers are somewhat pointless.

 

[CrazyPaco]

If that's what they are doing then these numbers are somewhat pointless.

It is really hard to compare these numbers across institutions like this. There is no standardized accounting or reporting.

But, for the sake of argument, remember that Pitt has one of the lowest ticket prices and per seat donation levels in all of FBS. GT also had one more home game than Pitt in 2015, as did Syracuse.

 

[HailToPitt725]

For the people who are for an on campus stadium (or against), how much money would that facility bring in each year when you factor in us getting 100% of profits and could hold more events throughout the year?

I'd imagine that we'd lose money in the short term but would help long-term once we earn the $ back. Just look at Miami, the other renter. One of the biggest brands in the ACC and the country and they make around the same we do at $34 million. Just food for thought.

 

[CrazyPaco]

For the people who are for an on campus stadium (or against), how much money would that facility bring in each year when you factor in us getting 100% of profits and could hold more events throughout the year?

I'd imagine that we'd lose money in the short term but would help long-term once we earn the $ back. Just look at Miami, the other renter. One of the biggest brands in the ACC and the country and they make around the same we do at $34 million. Just food for thought.

You'd also have 100% of the expenses; the maintenance, equipment, utility, and renovation costs.

Pitt has a pretty good deal at Heinz. Pitt's rent is based on ticket sales for each game (so it scales accordingly), pays a fee to offset the cost of operating the stadium, and gets a share of concessions. I can't imagine being in a much better financial situation facility wise. It protects Pitt in bad attendance years, and Pitt also benefits from major upgrades like the new club seats and jumbotrons at no cost to itself. I wouldn't imagine that owning its own stadium would result in anything better than a neutral effect on Pitt's bottom line, at best.

 

[topdecktiger]

But just in football, GT appears to spend only $17M while they bring in $43M. That's $26M in profit. Pitt's profit margin is about $11M. FSU has $13M in profit. How is GT able to earn $26M?

For one, they have a couple of annual games (Clemson, Georgia) that are essentially guaranteed sellouts for them. They also have minimal travel expenses for those games. Also, for whatever reason, Georgia Tech usually gets the highest payouts from the ACC. Then tend to be around ~$3 million above the average. They also have a small, but relatively wealthy fan base.

 

[HailToPitt725]

You'd also have 100% of the expenses; the maintenance, equipment, utility, and renovation costs.

Pitt has a pretty good deal at Heinz. Pitt's rent is based on ticket sales for each game (so it scales accordingly), pays a fee to offset the cost of operating the stadium, and gets a share of concessions. I can't imagine being in a much better financial situation facility wise. It protects Pitt in bad attendance years, and Pitt also benefits from major upgrades like the new club seats and jumbotrons at no cost to itself. I wouldn't imagine that owning its own stadium would result in anything better than a neutral effect on Pitt's bottom line, at best.

Thanks for this. Didn't think about the other side of the coin. I've heard we have a much better deal than others who rent (Temple, Miami, etc.) and that pretty much confirms it.

 

[PantherDave724]

Financially Pitt has an OK deal at Heinz Field. In every other conceivable way, the deal sucks for Pitt.

 

[Panther_in_Kentucky]

That money goes to supporting the entire athletic department. If you look at the overall revenues/expenses in the link above, Pitt had overall revenues of $75M and overall expenses of $75M.

Also had 5th lowest ACC revenues in FB, ahead of BC, Wake, Duke, and UVA.

That's what you get when you mis-manage a Football program for 30 years. One that was once a Top 5 Program in the land.

Pitt run by the Dumbest "Smart People" to walk the face of the earth.

 

[TIGER-PAUL]

Pitt also gets a percentage of Steeler luxury suite sales revenue.
The price of the luxury suite in includes tickets to all Steelers and Pitt games. Under their arrangement with Pitt, the Steelers will pay the university a portion of all suites sold, approximately 10 percent. "Let's put it this way, they can't lose money," Rooney said.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

That money goes to supporting the entire athletic department. If you look at the overall revenues/expenses in the link above, Pitt had overall revenues of $75M and overall expenses of $75M.

Also had 5th lowest ACC revenues in FB, ahead of BC, Wake, Duke, and UVA.

Only even because of $7-8 mil in subsidies from the general fund.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

They earn almost the same as Clemson and spend half as much. This is JUST for football. Seems odd to me.

Survey Year Institution Name Revenues Expenses Profit
2015 Georgia Institute of Technology-Main Campus $43,605,746 $17,375,756 $26,229,990
2015 North Carolina State University at Raleigh $39,539,832 $19,194,988 $20,344,844
2015 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University $48,433,646 $31,150,129 $17,283,517
2015 University of Louisville $40,568,726 $23,428,841 $17,139,885
2015 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $40,523,499 $23,461,114 $17,062,385
2015 Syracuse University $38,152,217 $23,219,794 $14,932,423
2015 Florida State University $55,708,828 $42,457,103 $13,251,725
2015 Clemson University $45,930,086 $34,668,941 $11,261,145
2015 University of Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh Campus $34,336,998 $23,129,559 $11,207,439
2015 Duke University $31,795,916 $23,468,721 $8,327,195
2015 University of Virginia-Main Campus $27,931,475 $20,333,481 $7,597,994
2015 University of Miami $34,217,378 $28,467,129 $5,750,249
2015 Boston College $26,991,209 $21,347,885 $5,643,324
2015 Wake Forest University $19,922,855 $16,611,110 $3,311,745

As stated previously, Pitt is close to Clemson in Enrollment and Profit and very much like Georgia Tech an Urban School. Dan Radakovich from Aliquippa was Athletic Director at both Universities. Georgia Tech is being run the most efficient and Clemson is winning and playing in National Championships. Pitt can emulate both in my opinion, with the right Athletic Director that knows the ACC, Pitt Region, Culture and even went to Miami for an MBA. Dan built on Campus Facilities and Booster support and is one of the most respected Athletic Directors in College Sports and Home Grown in Pitt backyard!

Dan knows how to find the Right People working with Chancellor Gallagher and Coach Narduzzi. Time to bring Dan Home back to Western Pennsylvania!

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search
ACC Rank School
ACC RANK Revenue
ACC RANK Expenses
ACC Enrollment Rank
ACC Recruiting Expenses Men Rank

1. Notre Dame +60
1. $98,532,894
2. $38,971,302
13. Enrollment: 8,413
Recruiting Expenses:
1. $1,648,761
$464,753
$2,113,514

2. Georgia Tech +26
5. $43,605,746
14. $17,375,756
9. Enrollment: 13,572
Recruiting Expenses:
10. $964,067
$399,575
$1,363,642

3. North Carolina State +20
8. $39,539,832
13. $19,194,988
3. Enrollment: 20,894
Recruiting Expenses:
3. $1,329,078
$422,241
$4,937 Coed
$1,756,256

4. Virginia Tech +17
3. $48,433,646
4. $31,150,129
2. Enrollment: 24,800
Recruiting Expenses:
9. $1,010,942
$409,063
$1,420,005

4. Louisville +17
6. $40,568,726
8. $23,428,841
10. Enrollment: 12,214
Recruiting Expenses:
3. $1,189,729
$538,161
$1,727,890


4. North Carolina +17
7. $40,523,499
7. $23,461,114
5. Enrollment: 17,606
Recruiting Expenses:
6. $1,088,263
$456,785
$1,545,048

7. Syracuse +15
9. $38,152,217
9. $23,219,794
8. Enrollment: 14,127
Recruiting Expenses:
14. $799,544
$366,256
$1,165,800

8. Florida State +13
2. $55,708,828
1. $42,457,103
1. Enrollment: 28,931
Recruiting Expenses:
7. $1,069,374
$524,771
$1,594,145

9. Clemson +11
4. $45,930,086
3. $34,668,941
6. Enrollment; 17,175
Recruiting Expenses:
2. $1,453,730
$413,595
$1,867,325

9. Pitt
10. $34,336,998 +11
10. $23,129,559
4. Enrollment: 17,815
Recruiting Expenses:
12. $942,045
$390,645
$1,332,690


11. Duke +8
12. $31,795,916
6. $23,468,721
14. Enrollment: 6,485
Recruiting Expenses:
4. $1,292,551
$349,459
$1,642,010

12. Virginia +7
13. $27,931,475
12. $20,333,481
7. Enrollment: 15,218
Recruiting Expenses:
8. $1,063,765
$473,104
$1,536,869
Recruiting Expenses:

13. Miami (FL) +6
11. $34,217,378
5. $28,467,129
11. Enrollment: 10,277
Recruiting Expenses:
11. $945,659
$340,727
$1,286,386

14. Boston College +5
14. $26,991,209
11. $21,347,885
12. Enrollment: 9,365
Recruiting Expenses:
13. $908,846
$279,205
$1,188,05

15. Wake Forest +3
15. $19,922,855
15. $16,611,110
15. Enrollment: 4,805
Recruiting Expenses:
15. $756,003
$292,481
$1,048,484

BIO:
Dan Radakovich, a Serbian American, hails from Monaca, Pennsylvania where he attended Center High School, just outside Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. He was a distinguished graduate from the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (1980) where he earned a bachelor's degree in finance. He graduated from the University of Miami School of Business Administration in 1982 with a master's degree in business administration.

At Long Beach State, he revamped radio broadcast agreements. At South Carolina, he managed $33 million in facility improvements, including the Colonial Life Arena, now the home of USC's basketball teams as well as other sports. At American University, he worked to get the school into the Patriot League. At LSU, he developed a football ticket donation program, and was involved in $90,000,000 renovation of Tiger Stadium.

When hired at Georgia Tech on February 22, 2006, Radakovich beat out former Tech player and head coach Bill Curry and former Tech baseball and football player and baseball assistant coach Cam Bonifay for the job. Radakovich improved the sales of season tickets for the 2006 football season, especially "chairback" or "club level" season tickets; hired football head coach Paul Johnson. He changed the way that athletic seating worked with the TECH Fund. The program also had several facilities changes, including a new indoor practice facility for football, Alexander Memorial Coliseum redesigned as Hank McCamish Pavilion, and rebuilt tennis facilities.

On October 29, 2012, Radakovich accepted position of athletic director at Clemson University. In 2014, Radakovich pushed for a controversial proposal to implement a $350 student athletic fee which would have raised approximately $6 million in revenues for the Clemson Athletic Department. Radakovich's proposal would have been mandatory for all undergraduate students and voluntary for graduate students who chose to attend athletic events. Ultimately, the plan failed due to resistance from Clemson's Undergraduate Student Government, including a poll which indicated that 85% of students opposed the fee. Only months after the proposed athletic fee failed, Radakovich went before the South Carolina legislature asking for approval to purchase a $4.5 million Cessna Citation CJ2 for the Clemson Athletic Department. Lawmakers approved purchasing the private jet.

As of April 2016, Radakovich is again embroiled in a fight with students over athletic funding. The Clemson Athletic Department announced a new student ticket policy which would require students to pay $225 for season tickets in the coveted lower deck seats of the student section. Students who choose not to pay for tickets may attend games in the upper deck, effectively stratifying students who choose to attend football games into those who can afford to pay for a season ticket and those who cannot. Clemson students are again mobilizing against changes to ticketing policies with a petition written to Radakovich, Clemson President Jim Clements, and the Clemson Board of Trustees in circulation. Additionally, Student Body President Joey Wilson has come out in opposition to the new ticketing policy.

Radakovich is a member of the College Football Playoff Selection Committee.
Source Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Radakovich

 

[ThePanthers]

Only even because of $7-8 mil in subsidies from the general fund.

Yep.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

Only even because of $7-8 mil in subsidies from the general fund.

There are only a handful of Universities across the country that don't subsidize athletics. That $7m-$8m is well spent with respect to the benefits it provides.

 

[HailtoPitt]

It is really hard to compare these numbers across institutions like this. There is no standardized accounting or reporting.

But, for the sake of argument, remember that Pitt has one of the lowest ticket prices and per seat donation levels in all of FBS. GT also had one more home game than Pitt in 2015, as did Syracuse.

That stuff might increase their revenue but I don't think it's enough to make the the highest football profit in the ACC. The only other thing that makes sense is if they get a lot of money in donations specifically for football, and count that in their numbers.

 

[topdecktiger]

That stuff might increase their revenue but I don't think it's enough to make the the highest football profit in the ACC. The only other thing that makes sense is if they get a lot of money in donations specifically for football, and count that in their numbers.

It probably is about enough. Georgia Tech was only about $9 million ahead of Pitt in revenue, according to these figures. One home game is probably about $2-3 million in revenue. Higher ticket prices are probably good for another couple million. Georgia Tech probably has lower travel expenses than Pitt. That probably gets pretty close to the $9 million gap. Georgia Tech spends meagerly on their football team, something Paul Johnson has complained about numerous times.

 

[pittdan77]

I work with numbers all day. What would you like the numbers to show? I can make that happen, usually. Finance is a little bit of a game, you see.

 

[BuffetParrothead]

If Pitt is stuffing 11-13 million in the coffers year after year....where does that money go eventually?

Here so they're allowed to sell Pizza and Pasta in the dining halls.

 

[HailtoPitt]

It probably is about enough. Georgia Tech was only about $9 million ahead of Pitt in revenue, according to these figures. One home game is probably about $2-3 million in revenue. Higher ticket prices are probably good for another couple million. Georgia Tech probably has lower travel expenses than Pitt. That probably gets pretty close to the $9 million gap. Georgia Tech spends meagerly on their football team, something Paul Johnson has complained about numerous times.

The gap between GT and Pitt is more like $15 million. Even with an extra home game and higher ticket prices, their football revenue is about the same as Clemson's but with half the expense. Their stadium capacity is ~25,000 less than Clemson's. I don't imagine that Clemson tickets are cheaper, but I could be wrong. Travel is cheaper for them then it is Pitt, but it can't be THAT much cheaper, plus it would likely be similar for Clemson but their expenses are twice GT's. I'm not so much baffled by GT's expenses though, more so their higher revenue. They are simply the most profitable team in the ACC, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Also, one of the arguments against Pitt building their own stadium is the cost of maintaining it. GT has an older stadium and yet, their football expenses are so low. Perhaps they put their football facility expenses somewhere else? Or perhaps it's not as big of an issue for them?

 

[ThePanthers]

The gap between GT and Pitt is more like $15 million. Even with an extra home game and higher ticket prices, their football revenue is about the same as Clemson's but with half the expense. Their stadium capacity is ~25,000 less than Clemson's. I don't imagine that Clemson tickets are cheaper, but I could be wrong. Travel is cheaper for them then it is Pitt, but it can't be THAT much cheaper, plus it would likely be similar for Clemson but their expenses are twice GT's. I'm not so much baffled by GT's expenses though, more so their higher revenue. They are simply the most profitable team in the ACC, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Also, one of the arguments against Pitt building their own stadium is the cost of maintaining it. GT has an older stadium and yet, their football expenses are so low. Perhaps they put their football facility expenses somewhere else? Or perhaps it's not as big of an issue for them?

Or they may not spend as much on coaching, recruiting, etc. Or those proceeds have to go to other sports since they generate one of the lowest overall revenues in the P5.

 

[HailtoPitt]

Or they may not spend as much on coaching, recruiting, etc. Or those proceeds have to go to other sports since they generate one of the lowest overall revenues in the P5.

They probably spend less on coaches. But it's the revenue without the large expense that confuses me.

 

[ThePanthers]

They probably spend less on coaches. But it's the revenue without the large expense that confuses me.

It's all how they want to account for it.

 

[CaptainSidneyReilly]

Was that before or after Saint Valentine Day in Chicago! Tough Looking Group! The Smart Ones are looking down to cover their faces, the others ones just look uncomfortable? Might be PnnyLiar's Wayward Fathers or Relatives, they have the Crazy Eyes Stares Look without High IQ's brought in for questioning for internet Terrror?
"BuffetParrothead, post: 1832515, member: 23369"]Here so they're allowed to sell Pizza and Pasta in the dining halls.

 

[HailtoPitt]

It's all how they want to account for it.

Someone should call them out on it.

 

[topdecktiger]

The gap between GT and Pitt is more like $15 million. Even with an extra home game and higher ticket prices, their football revenue is about the same as Clemson's but with half the expense. Their stadium capacity is ~25,000 less than Clemson's. I don't imagine that Clemson tickets are cheaper, but I could be wrong. Travel is cheaper for them then it is Pitt, but it can't be THAT much cheaper, plus it would likely be similar for Clemson but their expenses are twice GT's. I'm not so much baffled by GT's expenses though, more so their higher revenue. They are simply the most profitable team in the ACC, and that doesn't make much sense to me. Also, one of the arguments against Pitt building their own stadium is the cost of maintaining it. GT has an older stadium and yet, their football expenses are so low. Perhaps they put their football facility expenses somewhere else? Or perhaps it's not as big of an issue for them?

According to the OP's figures, Georgia Tech's football income was ~$43 million, and Pitt's were ~$34 million. That's about $9 million in income. Georgia Tech's profit was about $15 million ahead of Pitt, but that's different from income. If Georgia Tech starts off ~$9 million ahead in income, and scrimps on expenses, it's not hard to see how they get to the $15 million gap in profit.

Like I pointed out, there are a few things that Georgia Tech has regarding their profits. They charge more in tickets for Pitt, like has been mentioned. They have less travel expenses. Don't underestimate that. When Virginia Tech joined the ACC, their travel expenses were cut in half from in the Big East. Also, Georgia Tech is normally at the top end of ACC payouts. I don't know why that is, but they are. (If you want to see a real meltdown, mention this on Warchant.) And also, they have a small, but fairly wealthy fan base. In the old days, going to a Georgia Tech game was THE thing in Atlanta. There is still a little bit of a legacy there with old timers who support the program because of the (perceived) prestige. Plus, from what I understand, Georgia Tech has a good bit of subsidies for their athletic department. Maybe that's changed (because it's been a little while since I heard that), but I do know it one time it was the case.