FB revenues/expenses

[ThePanthers]

Someone should call them out on it.

I don't think anyone cares that much.

 

[HailtoPitt]

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.

It still doesn't make sense. Georgia Tech averaged 50,000 fans in 2015 while Clemson averaged 84,000. Both had 7 home games and Clemson should be able to ask for at least the same price per ticket, yet GT has almost the same amount of revenue? From what? It isn't attendance. It's not likely from selling more products than Clemson. Either GT receives lots of donations for football and they count it in revenue, or they are fudging their football numbers to appear more successful than they are.

 

[topdecktiger]

It still doesn't make sense. Georgia Tech averaged 50,000 fans in 2015 while Clemson averaged 84,000. Both had 7 home games and Clemson should be able to ask for at least the same price per ticket, yet GT has almost the same amount of revenue? From what? It isn't attendance. It's not likely from selling more products than Clemson. Either GT receives lots of donations for football and they count it in revenue, or they are fudging their football numbers to appear more successful than they are.

Again, Georgia Tech also typically gets more ACC money than Clemson. I don't know why, but they do.

 

[CrazyPaco]

Again, Georgia Tech also typically gets more ACC money than Clemson. I don't know why, but they do.

The ACC compensates schools for their conference championship expenses (both attending and hosting I believe).

I don't know if that is responsible, but something has to be. I know they do hold the Swimming & Diving Championships about every year.

But the figures posted on the government websites cannot really be directly compared. It has to do with how schools assign revenue and expenses to different university units. For instance, stadium renovations could be expensed to Athletics or a general university facilities budget.

 

[topdecktiger]

The ACC compensates schools for their conference championship expenses (both attending and hosting I believe).

I don't know if that is responsible, but something has to be. I know they do hold the Swimming & Diving Championships about every year.

But the figures posted on the government websites cannot really be directly compared. It has to do with how schools assign revenue and expenses to different university units. For instance, stadium renovations could be expensed to Athletics or a general university facilities budget.

That still doesn't have anything to do with Georgia Tech getting a higher payout from the conference.

 

[gymdad]

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.

Your correct re: Georgia Tech's Athletic Dept. subsidy. it is relatively high compared to other schools exceeding $7 million annually. 5 million from student fees and 2 million from university general funds. 10.4% of Georgia tech's athletic dept. budget is from subsidies. for comparison they generate 10.9 million from ticket sales.